Cannabis Indica – THC Science

"WP:DFD" redirects here. For deletion of disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all closing
Templates
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all books BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines

Centralized discussion

Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
Film title disambiguation year Related Pages extension Separate articles for reactions to terrorist incidents Consensus for changes in citation coding style Ethnicity & religion parameters in Infobox person (2 RfCs) Corrections on Main Page Enabling Hovercards by default Embedding full-length films/videos in articles Physical address of schools/universities/buildings Closure of Possibly Unfree Files Towards a standard biography footer Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive talk edit history watch purge

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.

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:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of 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[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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. Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.
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.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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

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:

Click to view 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 steps II and III. 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.

Edit PageName:

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

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

If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formating for the userbox.

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
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:

{{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 add a line to the top of the list:

{{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:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

to their talk page, 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]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.

1 Information on the process
2 Current discussions
3 Old business
4 Closed discussions

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered 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.

Purge server cache

March 29, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Julia Roseneck

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 a hoax. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Julia Roseneck[edit]

Obvious hoax. Auric talk 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. WP:V doesn't spot to drafts and G3 shouldn't either. No basis for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to what the IP claims, G3 does apply in all namespaces. This is obviously a hoax, so speedy delete per G3. A2soup (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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:P2R[edit]

Abandoned draft of non-notable musician. Created by WP:SPA and not in English (no equivalent article at wp:fr). Likely hoax as well. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Vintage coating[edit]

A submission seems like the detail/details of a dictionary. 333 -blue 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lær Kidsa Koding![edit]

Non-English non-AFC draft from June 2014. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Best friends. Forever[edit]

May 2014 non-AFC test draft for I guess an article on YouTube if nothing else. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Wizards F.C[edit]

Non-AFC draft from November 2014 for what seems like a non-notable youth football team. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Herald/Morris Adler (rabbi)

The result of the discussion was delete. The Herald, in the future, you can just put {{db-user}} on the page, no need for a full MFD. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:The Herald/Morris Adler (rabbi)[edit]

As author -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, its CSD... -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society[edit]

High school club started in 2009, than restarted in 2011. "At first, the Society had seven members, which by the last session of the first Society dwindled to three members, outside of the officers." Than they got busy and membership "rose to eight" plus 3 officers as seen in the detailed vote tallies table. This is a classic CSD U5, but User:Cryptic removed the tag so here we are at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as simply none of this suggests any actual solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
SLAP Legacypac for continued recalcitrance in sloppy CSD tagging. Just because it should probably be deleted doesn't mean it should be shoehorned into a CSD speedy criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a brief mention in Regis High School (New York City)#Extracurricular activities already. I don't know that it deserves anything more than that. —Cryptic 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest a path of least resistance and that we move this to Regis Historical Society and make it into a redirect to Regis_High_School_(New_York_City)#Extracurricular_activities.. Keep a redirect so the user could tag along if they come back and want to. Content isn't created or destroyed, it's just transformed and into a plausible, albeit probably quite useless, redirect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be beautiful and would make me so happy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad we can agree on something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Note placed at Talk:Regis_High_School_(New_York_City)#Regis_Historical_Society, to let them know. This userspace draft, I am sure, is overly large, but it may well be worth smerging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for the first move, userspace-to-mainspace redirects are OK. No harm though, it may even assist search algorithms or something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the move so that we have a redirect in mainspace which someone can search and if the editor returns, they (or anyone else) will be able to work on their full content in the future via the edit history on the mainspace pre-redirect page, better than just having it redirect and the content be stored locally at this page for a later move. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I am happy with that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The move/redirect is a good solution and very respectful, though the material itself belongs on Facebook. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Apcuser94/APSU 1000 (Austin Peay State University)[edit]

Write up on a 1 credit required course at a particular state university. No encyclopedic value to this topic. I could not find any sources discussing this course outside the school's own course listings and handbook. Hardly groundbreaking or notable for a University to offer an intro to college course. User:Cryptic declined this CSD without explanation. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Draft from September 2012. It's possible that the topic, maybe the course, could be notable. I wouldn't even suggest moving to mainspace and making it into a redirect as that would just be useless -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as nothing imaginably acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Apcuser94 clearly intended it to be an article, as can be seen in the history of APSU 1000. Not a suitable article. Definitely delete, it is a WP:UP#COPIES of that article now redirected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AppleSocialUK/James Kenny[edit]

Obvious WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation on a promotional account name. Mr Kenny's website & social media profile is completely non-notable. His Youtube channel has 13 subscribers. His blogspot site has a handful of posts and looks deader then dead. The 10th hit when you search AppleSocialUK leads to a phishing site. This topic is the absolute opposite of a social networking site because no one is paying attention to it. User:Cryptic removed the CSD tag with no explanation but perhaps he can enlighten us why he sees so much potential here. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as none of this is acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it has no potential, but it's not a U5 and you know it. Otherwise you would have just tagged it instead of deceptively removing the draft tag that disqualified it as such too. Delete after it gets its 7 days of fame on MFD. —Cryptic 05:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are just rude and don't AGF. I'm just using Twinkle. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I tested this and can confirm that Twinkle automatically removes the draft template when CSD tagging. Someone should raise that issue with whoever maintains Twinkle. A2soup (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I'd can see a U5 but people disagree so moving on, it's fair for an MFD and deletion. There's no indication that a mainspace version ever came about and while I'd probably vote to blank it normally but given the inappropriate username and little information and possible COI, deletion makes more sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Some admins CSD-ing liberally might have accepted either U5 or G11, but CSD criteria are supposed to be interpreted conservatively. Calling "promotion!" on Bio stubs is generally a grey area of bad form. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sabesh1/Enhanced efficiency fertilizers

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Sabesh1/Enhanced efficiency fertilizers[edit]

Essay advocating various things in userspace. Zero sources for any of the claims and data and so heavily laced with personal opinion it would require a complete rewrite to be useful. The only thing ever posted by this account. Clear case of WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WP:U5 declined by User:Cryptic without reason. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It was declined because it was explicitly marked as a draft, which makes it not be a U5, until you edited that off. We have a word for people who people who edit a page that was not a speedy candidate to make it into one. That word is "vandal". If you don't want to be blocked like one, don't act like one.
The page may well be deletable for other reasons; I haven't had a chance to assess it yet. —Cryptic 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like, say, being a copyvio. That's the sort of thing you should check first before trying to shoehorn it into a speedy deletion criterion which it very obviously doesn't qualify for. —Cryptic 04:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox[edit]

POV fork of Electronic harassment advocating for fringe positions that has no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project or an encyclopedia article. User's topic ban precludes any further editing activity on this topic. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It was maybe acceptable sandboxing, but delete due to User_talk:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. A draft that essentially is a copy or duplicate, with no new information or referencing, of an existing article is exactly one of the CSD D* criteria needed. Needs more discussion at WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Naja nubiae[edit]

Redundant draft page to Naja_nubiae Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Five Nights at Freddy's Characters[edit]

Redundant to mainspace stale draft, Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete a snot needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to be snotty. Again, this should fall under a to-be-agreed CSD D* criterion. Nominator should be required to link the mainspace article. Five Nights at Freddy's Characters, which should be linked in the deletion log, not wanting to confound the newcomer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015[edit]

Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

One line non-G13 draft from February 2015 already covered by 2015 State of the Union Address. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete as not useful. Even the title is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Just blank. AfC / DraftSpace needs some process to deal with trivial things, a process that doesn't involve MfD. These worthless harmless pages do not need to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
How about Move to mainspace, because this actually is the correct and verifiable name and date for the 2015 State of the Nation Address in South Africa? To help other people avoid making the same US-centric mistake, I'll go add the name of the relevant country to the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. Sorry, it didn't even click to me that we're talking about another nation's SOTU address. I'll withdraw the nomination since the draft needs work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to make an honest mistake like that. If I were in charge of the world, every country would be required to have radically different names for everything, just to make our work easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear, I've withdrawn my nomination. There is however a delete vote here. Consensus should be obvious though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Currently there are no other articles about specific annual State of the Nation Address (South Africa) and that article is quite short so this is unlikely be built out into an article. At best, it could be merged with the existing article. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 28, 2016[edit]

User:Mlindstr/Timelapse[edit]

Userspace draft from August 2006 that was later created (a month later) at Timelapse (video game) independently. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete ads nothing to the mainspace article. redundant. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to the mainspace article is a better action because:

it doesn't require MfD
doesn't require an admin
takes the author to the proper place should he look it up
Doesn't require review, because if a mistake is made the mistake can be fixed by any editor
Doesn't hide bits of the user's contribution history.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, redirecting should be the standard action for drafts redundant to mainspace. A2soup (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Except I don't prefer the idea of people just randomly changing drafts in userspace without notice to the editor (blanking or redirects). I only do it if the mainspace version is actually the same editor (or just history merge it). If you actually believe that people's userspaces should be their own, it seems odd that you also want people to just unilaterally change other people's drafts without any notice or explanation or even admin review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peidu/Space Conflict[edit]

Userspace draft last edited in 2007. Article was formerly in mainspace but userified in June 2006 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Conflict. According to the AFD, this was created by someone with a COI. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Andretamale/The Coup (book)[edit]

Stale draft that adds nothing to The Coup (Updike novel) and no point of a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Highfive Technologies[edit]

Rejected 5 times in a row by several different experienced editors. The firm does not appear to be notable enough that here is any potential for an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep Why, there are 8 listed references, most of which are from several different reliable sources. The ones I checked (The Verge, TechCrunch, Inc.) cover the subject in detail, which convinces me of notability. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as simply nothing is solidly convincing of keeping, improving and accepting, somewhat newly founded with no better signs. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Babbage[edit]

Draft article is redundant to Charles Babbage, and is in fact a text dump of the article. Whpq (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

delete It's not implicitly impossible that such a draft would have value, but nothing about the history of this one is encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
delete we are discussing a speedy criteria for this - it violates WP:UP#COPIES and though recent, does not look like any effort is being made to modify or edit this plain text dump. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Anonymous Lady7[edit]

User talk pages are not meant for political propaganda. Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete and Block. Blatant NOTADVOCACY violation, obvious sole intention, page not yet used as talk except for warnings. Maybe blank and block is better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete without block is not ok because the warnings will be lost. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as not acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rory Emerald[edit]

A page of notes, rather than a draft article, created by a user now blocked for attempting to perpetuate a hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Hoaxing? Looks like a nutter. Page is not a draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. User is a known hoaxster, and definitely is attempting to perpetuate a hoax. Non-notable. Chrisw80 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as draft by indeffed user, and so unlikely to be moved into mainspace. Also an apparent hoax, although I haven't researched that and have to assume good faith by nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just to note that I'm not making the hoax claim myself - just noting that that is why the draft's author has been blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete and almost U5 if it had been userspace, not acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dmak78/dfg/dfg (dfg)[edit]

Dmak78 seems to have created a number of proposed assignment plans during the middle of last year (see Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org courses, UW for an idea) but a number of these seem to be mal-formed or incomplete tests. I'm listing those here for deletion. They are taking up space in Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org course pages and creating WantedCategories and the like given the number here. Now that WP:G2 explicitly excludes the user namespace so these tests wouldn't qualify. Editor hasn't been active since July of last year. There should be about five working ones remaining that obviously aren't listed for deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank all. Blanking solves the category clutter problem, completely, and does not require (as does this MfD) reviewers to examine every page for possible worth being needlessly destroyed. Blank, with a nice note, or a blanking template, or redirect all to the user's talk page section where you explain the problem that you have just fixed. MfD-ing is overkill and burdens reviewers looking to review bigger questions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? You're now opposing because "MFD has bigger fish to fry"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am opposing because blanking is a superior solution, especially when consideration is given to the cost of checking each page against the possibility that it contains material that should be kept. Blanking, or archiving, or other non-deletion solutions should be considered and rejected for all old seemingly abandoned pages appealing for community review and admin action.

Can you explain why blanking, or similar, is not a good solution? The most interesting words you used were "mal-formed or incomplete", but that isn't clear enough for me, and it doesn't seem to apply to every listed page.

Not so much because there is more important work (actually the more important work you and I could be doing would be at WT:CSD, not that any of these are drafts), but because "just because there is an MfD process doesn't mean that it should be used". Recall the the rename to "Miscellany for Discussion" was resoundingly rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it's test edits that unusable. I don't know what blanking gains other than the editor suddenly looks through the contributions and has no idea why all their stuff was blanked. Instead they have an explanation with a link here and this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Failed tests can be learning value. When blanking, either do so with a meaningful message, or use a blanking template that caters to a reason parameter, or both, or redirect to the usertalk page where you can explain. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as no signs of current or future uses. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a bland rationale that would apply to probably most of userspace. Do you argue that all userspace of inactive users should be deleted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all as having no salvageable content, just many approximate copies of the same cut'n'pasted boilerplate/template/wizard-output (I don't know the actual process involved here). I would consider it on par with WP:PROD-with-WP:REFUND offer, since it does serve no purpose (these indeed to not appear to be really viable starting points for creating a future actual course, and compared User:Dmak78/UW/Phil 134134134 (Summer 2015) as sandbox not nom'ed); editor isn't currently here, but if he chooses to return and think what was left wasn't sufficient, he might want his cleared deadwood. What is "archiving" if not moving to some other location, which wouldn't actually solve anything? No objection to blanking. But "we have bigger fish to fry" isn't a reason to take this fish out of the fryer if someone feels like cooking it. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:PROD in userspace was firmly rejected. There is some new discussion on scope for WP:PROD for drafts, but these are not drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I said "on par" and in relation to REFUND, and only as a lead-in to a situation-specific analysis. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleting all of these is fine. These were all test edits. The same goes for all the subpages of User:Ragesock and User:Sage (Wiki Ed) that are in Category:Dashboard.wikiedu.org course pages.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sage (Wiki Ed) I hate to ask but could you tag your own stuff with {{db-user}} yourself? Those aren't being discussed here, I just asked you about them. I wouldn't want to try to guess whether something like User:Sage (Wiki Ed)/Consumer Reports/Choosing Wisely Canada (July 2015) should stay or go. These though are from a different user so there's different issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/List of notable dead people with anti-Serb sentiment[edit]

There is so much wrong with this. Putting dead people on a list by what group they don't like is a little much, and lining them up with Hitler is over the top. No encyclopedic topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One of many draft and actual WP:COATRACKs in the Balkans area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep, but merge to talk page of the relevant parent article. Not so indisputabley unsuitable. WP:COATRACK implies care is required. Move all to a new section at Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment. Spinout articles, especially possibly WP:NPOV issue spinout articles, should begin from the main article where interested editors can see what is happening. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes this user has a few like this. This looked to be the most problimatic at quick glance, and a good test case. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, abandoned material so closely related to an article, possibly partly suitable for inclusion in the article or as a spinout article, would in general be best merged to the article talk page. The policy supporting this would be WP:PRESERVE. Is it agreeable for you to merge and redirecting these things to a talk page section, where appropriate? I don't anticipate objection from the talk page, but would be interested in hearing about it if it happens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Entries added to article.--Zoupan 11:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean here?. That would mean merge and redirect and make better effort at the target to record attribution (erring on the side of compliance). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Angelbo/Draft of Regiments of Denmark[edit]

6 year old stale draft in Danish (for the bit that is there). Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Barely any material there, but clearly is the start of the user's idea for building content. Although the user has been inactive for a long time, there is no advantage to assuming he will not return, preventing his access to his old ideas, and making his returned unwelcomed. There are no problems with the minimal content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as nothing imaginably acceptable, account now seems to be retired. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: What benefit to the project does such a deletion provide? A2soup (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to Regiments of Denmark and make it into a redirect to List of Danish regiments. Same topic, plausible redirect, so rather than creating a redirect separately, might as well keep this old history somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrewbarnett2/TV Antennas Perth[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how to site. This is a stale draft found. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete NOTHOWTO. Refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Quincy Adams[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy versions of biggest loser Whpq (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - another correct application of WP:NOTWEBHOST. I love that people actually do this, though. A2soup (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. ~~U5-able~~. This sort of thing was one of the bigger justifications for U5. I thought there was just a brief rush of these things, but clearly the problem is ongoing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Draft space is not covered by U5, although it might qualify as a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  - - Sorry, my mistake, not in userspace. I do think a D-criterion can be created to cover this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank. Quincy Adams is a notable topic, no reason to delete. 21:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.119 (talk)
- None of the material in the draft has anything to do with any Quincy Adams so it is utterly pointless to keep it in any form. --Whpq (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as has nothing to do with the title and nothing to do with any article. A misuse of draftspace. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: This should probably fall within hoax territory. And definitely hits U5 with the exception of it being outside of userspace. Perhaps U5 should be a G criterion? I don't think the sort of stuff properly falling within U5 belongs in any namespace. But I'm getting pretty far afield. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as nothing acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 27, 2016[edit]

User:Dead-Set/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web host for fake Survivor shows. U5 request was declined. Whpq (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - This is the sort of case WP:NOTWEBHOST is actually for - material not related to Wikipedia. A2soup (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I just trusted the nom on this - the language barrier (and inability to go through all the Spanish survivor variants) kept me from checking if this is actually a fantasy show or an accounting of the actual show. If it is the latter, I would oppose deletion and favor blank+template as a good faith draft. A2soup (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reality TV shows don't exist in a vacuum. At the very least, the show's web site will list the contestant's names, and one can find verification through the shows web site which can be found by googling for all of the contestant's names. No such web site can be found. There is no need to work through all of the Spanish language Survivor variants. Furthermore, this is not the first time that this sandbox has been used for web hosting as you can see from the first deletion nomination. The editor then tried to evade deletion by using a sockpuppet. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like you're right about the fantasy and I was correct to take your word for it. A2soup (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, page blanking would not be appropriate if you really think this is a real draft as this is not being nominated as a stale draft. This is recently created. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete, although it could be kept if the user explained what possible purpose in the encyclopedia it is associated with. Not U5-able as the user has a history of mainspace contributions. Actual contributors remain entitled to an MfD review of their apparently nonsuitable userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Akigka/Brokey Yacht Club[edit]

This article has been deleted before [1] and a move to mainspace (specifically allowed by WP:STALE) was reverted by an admin as an unimproved copy of a deleted article. The user is long gone. It should be adopted and made ready for mainspace or deleted. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - there is nothing problematic about this draft, and no benefit is derived from its deletion. Not that it's relevant, but this draft would probably even garner a keep !vote or two at AfD. A2soup (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The A7 was harsh, no longer A7-able with addition of sources. This is a borderline case typical of that which needs discussion and agreed guidelines. It is too good a userspace draft to delete at MfD. It has unclear potential. Testing notability is difficult, especially for something like this likely to have coverage in foreign language sources. New York Buildings get their own articles, why not this? Sending it to mainspace without a champion is disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to mainspace because I thought it was notable. I don't like how SmokeyJoe thinks everything I do is disruptive. I don't like this stuck in stale draft space forever, so a keep result here justifies a return to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving this page to mainspace I think is easily justified,

Not everything, just some very specific things.

Arguing at MfD that not supporting deletion justifies moving to mainspace, where the problem is notability, is disruptive. It rings of petulance, and is in defiance of Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. If you were prepared to commit to defending at AfD, if you added sourced content, that would be very different.

Moving it to draftspace, and adding the AfC template to commence the G13 process, would be far more reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually User:Cryptic was very harsh when reverting just such a move on another article. He basically threatened me. I would have defended this at AfD but was not given that chance. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be something in your manner that sometimes comes across as aggressively confrontational, I think for me it is your declared preparedness to use a loophole to achieve deletion when deletion is denied at MfD. I have watchlisted this, but basically I find it deflating to get involved in topics likely to fall slightly below the notability bar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you added another source, independent and secondary. Good. Unfortunately it contains only a passing mention. This is a really difficult class of draft. Nearly wikipedia-notable, but probably not. If Draftspacing it would attract more eyes then good, but does draftspace attract more eyes? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Support allowing indefinite retention in userspace. High potential for suitable sources to be found. There are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A more developed version exists in Icelandic since 2006 https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siglingaf%C3%A9lag_Reykjav%C3%ADkur,_Brokey since 2006, but no references outside the place's own site included there. Given the small population of Iceland, we should not expect a ton of refs but it exists and is verifiable [2] Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I created this page as a stub in mainspace, but it was moved to my userspace. I'm not entirely familiar with the notability criteria (I occasionally edit here but I'm mostly active on is.wiki). My main motive was that this is the largest sailing club in Iceland (out of the 5 or so clubs active in the country) and it's marina in Reykjavik is a popular stop for sailboats going to Greenland from Europe => Hence this information is useful for some people :). I think there certainly is potential for developing it further, but I'm perhaps not the best judge of that myself. --Akigka (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Martin Keene[edit]

Draft that has not edited in over 2 years, that does not appear to have any chance of ever being accepted as a main space article. Hasteur (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as not a webhost, no chance of being promoted to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep Found a reasonably chunky source with detail on this guy[3] and a few others tangentially mentioning him. Should be able to make this into an acceptable mainspace stub in a few days at the latest. Brustopher (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep - completely non-problematic good-faith draft, no benefit to project derived from deletion. A2soup (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 26, 2016[edit]

User:Quiddity/List of imaginary soundtracks[edit]

This article has an interesting convoluted history. Its been moved around a lot. Its been deleted before. It's now quite stale. There are no references and no verification. It is almost a hoax by definition. I say put it out of its misery and stop wasting time on it. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. No longer intended by anyone to be its own article, it is nevertheless interesting, not miserable, and of potential for other purposes, other articles, an article of different scope. Reasonable userspace use. I know Quiddity well enough to know that he will only use it responsibly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. While I was initially incredulous upon looking at the name, this list is actually useful. If you look at the articles contained within it, they all have been noted by the artists as being intended as soundtracks for movies not yet made (or some similar philosophical statement). While the title makes it sound ridiculous, this is actually a fairly useful compilation of articles on an interesting (though niche) topic. At the very least, it can act as a pseudo-watchlist for those interested in such articles, which is a reasonable use of userspace. At the most, maybe it will even develop into something worthwhile. As a side note, these sorts of interesting topics are what keep me coming back to Wikipedia! ~ Rob^Talk 04:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - It looks like this came up because you're helping to clean out Category:Monthly clean up category (Userspace drafts) counter (good stuff!). Would it help if we just removed the {{userspace draft}} from it, to de-categorize? I don't plan to work on this anytime soon, but would like to keep the content. (as Rob writes, it could potentially develop into something worthwhile, if more sources are ever found/written). Thanks. Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I found it in that category. Normally I'd leave something in the userspace of an active user, but in this case because it's been bounced around and has such a strange topic. If it can be taken out of the category and someone finds it useful, its fine. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Allycat1208/Hope Witsell[edit]

This one is a little tricky. The subject got media coverage and this is a tragic story. Does WP:BLP1E apply here? Is there good reason this page should be kept or deleted? I'm going to say Delete as inappropriately negative about the subject. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP1E doesn't technically apply since the subject is not living or recently deceased, but given the subject matter a WP:COMMONSENSE-based argument isn't inappropriate. We (unfortunately) have List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying, which is a potential merge target. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at that list - nearly all the names have articles. That suggests mainspace it and include a link and summary in the list. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I considered that, but there doesn't seem to ever have been a consensus on the talk page of that article to restrict the list to entries with articles. IMO Hope Witsell would not satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article per WP:ONEEVENT, so better to merge it now and avoid a 2nd round of processing over in article space. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dayanathpur[edit]

I wasn't quite sure of the procedure for this one, but User:Dayanathpur has used their user page to create an article on (??) their village in Uttar Pradesh. It's better than many articles on Indian villages, but still needs a lot of work. It's clearly done in WP:GOODFAITH, but they need a good bit of mentoring, I'm not sure whether the best thing to do is to move the text to a draft? I leave it to those with more experience of this stuff. Le Deluge (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to Draft You are correct, and I've just moved it to Draft:Dayanathpur It needs a but of tidying up but is actually a solid article nearly ready for mainspace. Did you want to do the cleanup? All inhabited places are notable BTW. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Fraid I'm a bit tied up at the moment with off-wiki stuff and there's a few bits of category stuff I was hoping to finish off in what time I had, I came across this one through a malformed category so I've no particular connection with it.Le Deluge (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Is Psychiatry a valid Science?[edit]

WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. ~ Rob^Talk 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Clearly of no use to the encyclopedia as an article per the above. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete - It's an essay, not an attempt at an encyclopedia article (i.e. a draft). Not a good-faith draft, we can delete it. A2soup (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Knooby The Fox[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST, and source searches demonstrate that this topic has no notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Find sources: "Knooby The Fox" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · Wikipedia library
Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete per G11 as pure promotion, and tagged as such. Lack of notability or potential for mainspace is irrelevant. A2soup (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Bolyns GHOST[edit]

WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Nothing worth keeping here. Brustopher (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:FOA[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep One of the nation's most famous cliques is a viable draft. Should be improved instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.119 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Miniapolis 00:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Purely a vanity page. Would probably be U5 if not for the namespace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:FARIDEH SCHARDAR ARTIST PAINTER[edit]

WP:NOTRESUME. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Weird rambly written in all caps resume for a non-notable person. Brustopher (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete - not directed at an encyclopedic purpose; not a good-faith draft. A2soup (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mary Jhoy Madula Life[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Not a draft of an article. A personal story, likely made up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Why some people are mad in behaviour but they are genius ![edit]

WP:NOTESSAY. WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOTESSAY (and, as such, not a real draft), refer to WP:Alternative outlets at talk page or in deletion summary. A2soup (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Yung Homie J[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Any person who is "possibl[y] the greatest human to ever exist" should have references and improved not deleted. WP:V does not apply to drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as BLP fail (as well as hopelessly promotional...the claim is "not credible" not just "not cited"). DMacks (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as vandalism. A2soup (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Even if the subject were notable enough to ever be moved to mainspace, the content of this draft is so poor that WP:TNT would apply. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rico Dinero[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST, and source searches are not providing any coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards (see below). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Find sources: "Rico Dinero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · Wikipedia library

Draft:When the 'KKK' began[edit]

Duplicates content at Ku Klux Klan. Based on the name, it's clear this draft is "complete" in the sense that it was only intended as an answer to a question, but Wikipedia is not a Q&A service. ~ Rob^Talk 05:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as duplication AND not correct. It fails to note there are multiple versions of the KKK with different founding dates. Legacypac (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wgoodman1/Krewe of Neptune[edit]

Five year old stale userspace draft on what seems like a non-notable krewe. Krewe of Neptune was twice deleted but never by AFD for what it's worth. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Tezero/Userboxes/Wants to vandalize[edit]

It should be incredibly obvious why this is not beneficial to the project in any way and potentially harmful. ~ Rob^Talk 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - eh, I think it's an attempt at DAE humor. I don't think it advocates vandalism. It has a good number of transclusions, and while most of the users are perma-newbies, others look moderately productive; none appear to be chronic vandals. Doesn't violate Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions. Overall, seems harmless. A2soup (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Fun and harmless, not in or trancluded into the article mainspace, transcluded by several Users. As A2soup points out, it's not contrary to Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions, and I'm hesitant to add more content-based regulation than is needed. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scorsi914/3rd World Farmer[edit]

Userspace draft from 2010-2011 that was later and independently created in mainspace at 3rd World Farmer. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Amol.Gaitonde/Bangalore Real Estate[edit]

Not a viable article just a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as nothing for a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aldrasto/ver sacrum[edit]

Stale draft covered by Ver sacrum. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. I don't see anything salvageable to merge into the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Albatalab/Comorian passport[edit]

Not enough for an article, too obvious. Likely covered elsewhere anyway. Old stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep with a bias against blanking, as this sort of work should be encouraged. Agree it is probably insufficient for its own article, but I don't think the content is currently in Wikipedia. I get no hits searching "passport" on Comoros. Additionally, draft is as non-problematic as can be and no benefit is derived from deletion (or blanking, for that matter). A2soup (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Already exists Comorian passport. This userpage is redundant. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't even check for an article - since your nom stated "not enough for an article", I assumed there wasn't one. In any case, I still see no benefit to the project from deleting this good-faith draft. I would be okay with redirecting to the mainspace page (unless you intend to AfD it). A2soup (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox[edit]

Time stamp to re-sort for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Old userspace essay from an editor who requested to vanish. Note that the editor's name is inadvertently left here so to respect the vanish, we should delete it. The editor has either vanished and won't return so this isn't needed also or the editor could undo the vanish at which point they can request reinstatement if they want. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep Valid user essay, indeed important and pertinent. The philosophy of the essay also would oppose busybodies cleaning retired user's userspace. Highlighting a vanished user's name, inadvertently left, on a high profile process page, was irresponsible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As contrasted to the busybodies that oppose active user's efforts to cleanup the irrelevant, problematic, promotional, and other useless or damaging garbage~left behind by those that are gone? Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No issue with cleaning up the promotional or damaging, but it is not all so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The essay is in the userspace of the equivalent of say a blocked user, namely someone who isn't going to return under that name. If there's no indication that someone else supports the essay (or enough support to move it to Wikipedia space), how is keeping it anything but a WP:WEBHOST issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The subsequent standing of the author is irrelevant. The essay has project-related merit. NOTWEBHOST doesn't apply to project-related material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Still Keep. Valid essay, clearly relevant to Wikipedia. No has four explicit supporters, although I don't support every choice of word. Move to ProjectSpace, as a valid, well-intentioned, multi-user supported project essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to Project space clearly this is an essay that resonates with some people. Brustopher (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to Project space but remove the vanished user's signature to respect their privacy. ~ Rob^Talk 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology[edit]

Time stamp to sort relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Old userspace project-looking page that seems to have been the precursor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology. I don't know if this is needed now but I asked at the project page. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

NB. the userpage guidance against userpages that look like project pages was imposed in the very early days to discourage and prevent further instances of policy documentation being located in userspace. Back then, policy was supposed to be at meta, but early evolutionary steps saw editors preferring to keep policy discussions on the same site. It was never intended to be a rule against things looking like WikiProjects. However, organising old pages by putting them in their proper places, whether Portal Space, of WikiProject subpages, might seem a good idea. I would disagree that it is a good idea, observing that Portal Space and WikiProjects, with few exceptions, are very far into terminal decline, and that a cleaning service for ghost towns is probably not a productive endeavour, but do feel free to wikt:knock yourself out, seeking permission at MfD to do this is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus[edit]

Time stamp to sort relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This page consists nothing more than its creator asking a question. This is not a draft... Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to User talk:Denislachapelle2003 and answer the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:John Paul Kelly[edit]

Another time stamp. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

~~Time stamp correction for relisting below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)~~

~~May 2014 draft already covered by John Paul Kelly. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)~~

Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to the mainspace article. There is no need or reason for deletion. These space-wasting nominations are to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete per JMHamo. No reason to redirect a draft back to mainspace. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to John Paul Kelly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral. Going with the strike above. The redirect target I suggested is for a different subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect per User:Northamerica1000. This is the standard way of dealing with duplications. No reason to delete. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to mainspace article. This is the standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace. Please read the instructions at the top of the "Miscellany for deletion" page (the page you are looking at now): "Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." And under WP:STALE, stale drafts should only be deleted if "problematic even if blanked," which is not true here.Fagles (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I've have completely discounted every above comment and relisted this discussion. It took me only ten seconds to see that this draft and the linked article are not about the same person (they don't even play the same sport, for God's sakes), and that the similarly-named John-Paul Kelly is yet a third person. As a result, every single above vote is based on a false premise, and this whole discussion needs to re-start from scratch. Courtesy pings: @Ricky81682:@Legacypac:@SmokeyJoe:@JMHamo:@Chrisw80:@Northamerica1000:@Fagles: Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a BLP with no references. I can't find any confirmation he existed, so unless someone can come up with sources, it should be 'deleted. He is not either of the two Rugby players listed at John_Kelly either. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Please don't strike-through my comments, my comment still stands irrespective. How do you know I was operating under a false premise? Chrisw80 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Oiyarbepsy, you are quite right. It is a BLP, but I see no BLP issues. It makes some grand notability claims, without sources, and I fail to verify them using google. I would prefer to see it go through the normal Draft/AfC process. It is not the business of MfD to review every poor draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not an AFC page so there is not draft/AFC process at play here. If it's not the same person, it seems like a hoax then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Re Hoax? It is not a hoax, just yet another JPK footballer. I am pretty he is not Wikipedia-notable, but then I have a decided disinterest in WP:ATHLETE articles. I am tempted to say that most of them should be merged and redirected to list/table articles on teams by period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Re: not an AfC page. I have never understood the distinction between an AfC page in DraftSpace and a non-AfC page in DraftSpace. I'm a bit surprised that there is a distinction. I am aware of controversy concerning third parties adding the AfC template to userpage drafts, but that's a userpage user ownership issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

G13 applies to AFC pages period, regardless of namespace. It doesn't apply to non-AFC pages. Draftspace is just another namespace and so deletion there falls under the general deletion guidelines. This is what User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report was created to find, old drafts from draftspace that would not fall under G13 since they aren't AFC drafts (the expansion of G13 has been repeatedly rejected). Now the draft itself alleges that this person played for Exeter Chiefs for over a decade including numerous championships. Ignoring the fact that Exeter Chiefs is a top domestic rugby level team, for all the lauding and congratulations on the page, there is no mention of him anywhere. The biography, if accurate, would pass Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_union but again, very strange. As such, I think it's more likely a hoax and given that it is unsourced BLP with almost nothing of substance, I tend to vote delete because I find many people do care about the creation credit for pages and having a draft already in existence but poorly done will keep away the people who care about that versus deleting it (analogous to how you see WP:REDLINKS policy here). Nevertheless, I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Draft:John_Paul_Kelly asking for confirmation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DMorpheus/Sandbox[edit]

Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft from 2007 already covered by Operation Cobra. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank and add {{Sandbox notice}} and {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What about WP:UP#COPIES? That template implies that the editor should continue working on that draft even though a mainspace version exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Scroll down on the page and notice the "Normandy stub" section, which is not present in the main article. The entire sandbox page is not a copy of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's still a many year old draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about WP:STALEDRAFT, is this page "entirely unsuitable"? A2soup (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES doesn't apply.

Redirect and blank noting the mainspace article are basically the same thing. Why relist this? There never was a deletion rationale, and still has been none. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History[edit]

Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Another orphaned infobox for World War II. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with orphaned anything in userspace! The problem with this is probably that it is a pointless copy of an infobox in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an infobox which to me is more akin to a template than an article when it's not used anywhere (some infoboxes show up in multiple places). At which point, if this was in template space, it would qualify for deletion under TFD based on non-use. Otherwise, fine, it's a draft for a portion of the World War II article when we already have that portion of the article in existence today at World War II right now in violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Do you think it should be kept? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable leeway and presumed responsibility for productive users to manage their own userspace. Nominating these things implies that you think leeway in userspace should be less that it is, and that these productive Wikipedians on wikibreak were irresponsible. In other words, deletion serves to alienate old Wikipedians. Entirely a negative action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete since it seems to fall under WP:UP#NOTSUITED Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aegism100/sandbox[edit]

Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This term never caught on. It seems to be something coined in one book in 2007 and ignored by the world [4] The user never did anything but create these pages. There is no prospect this will be or should be improved or moved to mainspace. Basically a NOTAWEBHOST violation, not really hoax but definitely something invented with no RS backing it up. Delete both pages. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Reasonable draft idea, reasonable draft material including references. Verifiable, may be useful in other articles. This is not the sort of cruft that should be deleted as definitely worthless, it is OK indefinitely in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you even check the linked [5] search? Which of the 3 non-Wiki stale draft related sources would you suggest we build the article out on? Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I did. It looks like a topic where useful sources may not be online. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Stale, unreferenced stub. It does not appear that a reasonable case of notability could be made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

To delete on the basis of questioned notability contravenes the clear consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia_talk:N#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. To examine wikipedia-notability properly takes a lot of effort. At a minimum, the links provides at AfD should be presented. I'm thinking we need a WP:DfD, Drafts for Deletion. MfD is not set up for notability-analysis. Criteria for deletion of drafts are different to that for deletion of articles. Please stop these nominations and work with the community in developing a consensus for what to do with drafts of unclear potential, like this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clearer: I think that this stub should be deleted because it is stale--created and abandoned in 2012 by a SPA editor who has also abandoned WP. That it also appears to be unnotable is a reason not to attempt to salvage the material, however miniscule. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as a stale draft that's extraordinarily unlikely to yield anything of use to the encyclopedia. ~ Rob^Talk 21:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep - this is a good-faith, non-problematic draft. Its deletion provides no benefit to the project (or can someone point out a benefit?). A2soup (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Dan Pero Manescu[edit]

Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I know this is a fairly recent draft, but there are good reasons for deleting it now. First, an article on the topic was deleted back in 2012. Second, the creator of that article and at least one sockpuppet were indefinitely blocked: one, two. Thus, there is good reason to assume that the draft creator, also a single-purpose account, is himself a sockpuppet. Third, the draft was declined and there is no realistic chance of the topic being accepted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 25, 2016[edit]

User:Akira1111/New article name here[edit]

Youtube filmmaker. No references. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per WP:STALEDRAFT. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

??? See WP:COMMONSENSE Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:U5 via WP:STALEDRAFT point #4 (i.e. "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5").—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It was added by our friend, Ricky. :) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Stricken due to policy manipulation.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Hopelessly promotional. Probably should be treated as an editing test given the default draft title. No reasonable hope of becoming an article. As such, violates WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to userspace drafts. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. This is borderline for a speedy as per WP:G11. Obviously promotional and obviously of zero encyclopedic value. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. ~ Rob^Talk 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not an article to which you can apply CSD#G11, it does not read as an advertisement. It has an encyclopedic value, you're missing the point. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: You're misunderstanding WP:G11. It's a general criteria that can apply to, quoting from the policy, "all pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." This is unambiguously a "page". The G stands for general, as opposed to the "A" set of criteria that can only be applied to articles. It's a bit amusing that the "X cannot be applied to userspace drafts" argument is now being extended even to the CSD general criteria. Calling a film "one of the best fan films ever made" with "a globally positive reception" and claiming it was the reason for a reboot of the franchise is clear advertising, especially when you match is up against reality where the video on youtube has only 17,000 views and no references have backed up any of these extraordinary claims. Although, you have made me look at this article enough to realize that this is a blatant hoax, and I'll be tagging it as such. ~ Rob^Talk 04:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Enough already. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

They are so worried about stopping any cleanup of userspace they are willing to misrepresent policy, change policy and then fully protect the page - all to protect spam and hoaxes by long gone accounts from deletion. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This does not have any promotional content, how can you you apply G11 to it? Did you misread what I said because of the furthermore (fixed now)? Using "peacock" terms does not mean it's promotional, it's a bit of puffery that can be removed. I don't know what you mean by modifying policy since you're the one who did it twice whereas I only restored status quo and got it protected to prevent you and others changing it as you like it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 04:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You, not me, wiped out over a year of policy improvements and got your preferred version protected. You have no WP:CLUE Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call individual versions of policies, improvements. Call my version preferred, it was just a time when you all weren't modifying it like your own. There's a reason it was protected. And I think I have enough CLUE to understand what your agenda is. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ While I think my opinion on which side is correct is clear, both sides are acting somewhat childishly. In this case, the article meets G11 because it's obviously promotional. The only way to remove the promotional language would be to essentially start over because it makes up the entirety of the article. That's what G11 is made for. Not to mention G3 as per blatant hoax given how insane some of the claims are. On the other hand, having random pages floating around the userspace honestly isn't the end of the world, and it's silly to get in an argument that will end up at ANI over that. Getting in territorial fights like angry mastodons won't accomplish much. ~ Rob^Talk 05:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's already at ANI and again, I don't see how you can equate peacock terms to G11 and vandalism, you clearly have no idea how CSD criteria work. There is no vandalism and there is no advertising. (Edit: Dab page) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A blatant hoax falls under WP:G3 and these claims go well beyond peacock terms. I'll grab an uninvolved admin outside of the tag system since you appear inclined to edit war. ~ Rob^Talk 05:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant hoax, ffs, go do a Google search. Any admin you grab is automatically involved. I removed your speedy deletion tag once, how do you see that as an inclination to edit war? I've been here long enough to know the in and outs of the rules of Wikipedia, do you really think I'm new or I get intimidated? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never tried to intimidate you? Why would I? I have no interest in pettiness. And my grabbing an admin involves placing an {{Admin help}} template on the talk page, since that will get an uninvolved admin's eyes on the issue and cannot be removed by other editors (as per the guidelines on refactoring other editors' talk page comments). With all due respect, I question the knowledge that any editor has about the CSD after they tell me that non-articles cannot be subject to G11. A blatant hoax doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. If I said "bananas give you the power to fly", that would be a blatant hoax even though bananas exist. Similarly, this page argues that a relatively unknown short film was the basis for a major franchise reboot a year later. That is quite simply insane. ~ Rob^Talk 05:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You might have missed something, I said it doesn't qualify for G11 because it quite simply isn't an advertisement. Also, it has fan-made speculation, speculation is simply OR and not hoax or vandalism. You're on the wrong side of the court here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment sums up everything that's currently wrong with MfD on both sides of the aisle. This isn't a court, for Christ's sake; it's an encyclopedia. And there shouldn't even be an aisle! ~ Rob^Talk 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Court, as in, a tennis court, where there's 2 sides. And you are on the side, where you shouldn't be. Really, dude? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. This is a slightly briefer version of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Reynolds (film producer) and so falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host... deleted content." JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Figures. We really need a means of finding these more easily. This is happening a lot recently, where a previous AfD happens to exist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per JohnCD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTAWEBHOST, WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:FAKEARTICLE etc. BMK (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: spam. BethNaught (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Stale draft about non-notable subject; probable spam. Miniapolis 23:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep One of the most famous fan films ever made can be sourced and WP:V and WP:GNG don't apply to drafts so that is all irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.119 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Justine The Bean[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Porgism[edit]

WP:NOTURBANDICT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:DIGDES[edit]

WP:NOTMADEUP. WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Angry Bolz[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rahat islam jouornalist & social worker in sialkot[edit]

WP:NOTRESUME. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Er Novicio[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Portal:2020s[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Almost a CSD P2 candidate, since, not surprisingly, the encyclopedia has few articles about this topic. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Moe moosa[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sketch Train Studios[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Neon 3[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Maya Ramaswamy[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mayo 20th Century[edit]

WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Erinkelly113[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:DZ RePack[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:AbbadiTUBE[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:B s jamuar[edit]

WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Webbaxendalegaming[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Freeling 15s 2015[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gary Abelarde[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:ConvergiaPlanet[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Non-notable per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Incompetant Gamerz[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Non-notable per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:PRO PHLEX[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Non-notable subject per searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Berang zindagi[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:SerbianMatic[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Flubberdub[edit]

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:ErkenP[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:LOH(iFunny)[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Stop and go productions[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Japan only games[edit]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, unverified list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Struggle da Preacher/Struggle da preacher[edit]

Draft from September 2011 for a non-notable rapper. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete I looked at this before and was going to nominate it myself. It could go under the CSD for promo under a promo user name. Legacypac (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikip rhyre/Systems architecture review board[edit]

Ok, I'm nominating this again for deletion. This is barely a draft and the questions here are complete WP:OR and not relevant. This draft started in October 2009, it was deleted in in November 2015, restored by request two weeks later and again seemingly abandoned after the addition of a reference I admit. I'm not seeing any indication that there is any actual interest in moving this to becoming even a stub and it looks like it's just here to be here for some reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not seeing any policy or guideline-based reason to delete in the nomination. What's more, per Google this appears to be a real thing, with at least some chance of being used to create an article someday. There could be a possible merge target at Software development process or a related page, though I haven't really found a good candidate yet. VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, looks like OR, but there are indications that the topic may be notable. User is active, the concerns should be brought up on its talk page. Previous deletion was very weak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete its been deleted before and no effort to improve being made in 7 years. Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the guideline-based reasoning for deletion? This is not a vote. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per WP:UPYES (i.e. "What may I have in my user pages?": "[A] work in progress or material that you may come back to in future"), it was edited by the user whose space in which it resides less than 6 months ago.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. This isn't inherently unencyclopedic (although I doubt it's notable), and the editor has edited it recently. ~ Rob^Talk 22:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Raime/Skyline rankings[edit]

This is a userspace draft that has been around since 2007 but I'm not sure it's anything more than WP:OR to "rank" skylines in the United States. This isn't List of tallest buildings in the United States which is objective but the 500/295/"highrises" metrics here (and it's not clear what is the actual ranking based on) all seem subjective to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Skyline is one of the more, let's go with unique, articles I've seen in some time. As for this draft, it includes an interesting collection of images. Any potential use for it to be converted to a Commons gallery? VQuakr (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Compare to List of cities with the most skyscrapers which uses similar criteria. I think this draft needs a clearer intro. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Frankfort High School[edit]

Duplicates Frankfort High School (Indiana) Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Alandmanson/draft article on Fertilizer[edit]

Userspace copy of Fertilizer long since abandoned. See WP:UP#COPIES. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert[edit]

(Find sources: "Ferdinand Gravert" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The last MfD closed with the idea he invented anti-fouling paint. I was unable to confirm this with the few sources I found evidently copying this directly from Wikipedia. The idea he invented the paint was added without sources and interestingly with reference to the same Alex Gravert as having info to the paint article. I'm wondering is this is a hoax, or at best OR. After the last MfD it was moved to draft to expose the page to more editors and allow others to try to improve it, but that has been reverted in the silly season that MfD has become. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep per criteria 2b and 2d; the nominator has explicitly stated that they opened this for bad-faith reasons. As noted by @Cryptic: in the history, the move to draft space was a disingenuous attempt to run around the previous keep consensus via G13. ~~The relevant guideline, WP:STALEDRAFT, says nothing about moving user drafts to Draft: space.~~ VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"The relevant guideline, WP:STALEDRAFT, says nothing about moving user drafts to Draft: space." is false.

I'm bringing new info about the paint situation, and that this has been found unsuitable even for draft space. A little education [6] [7] Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think the links to a WikiProject talk page are germane? VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling out 2b and 2d as the basis for your keep is a direct personal attack on me. Strike that too please. You can @Cryptic: all you want but Cryptic can't overrule policy that explicitly allows a move to draft space. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Historic figure, it is not prone to going stale. No good reason to place a time limit ultimatum, interested editors can get to it in their own good time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If you can't provide a RS source for the content, voting to keep it is not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Imposing time limits for user pages with potential and no problems is the bigger problem. This page is an example of a page not ready for mainspace, but with potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to draft space so "interested editors can get to it in their own good time". If you believe this actually had a shot to be an article (and it very well may, if reliable sources can be found), then it should be where more editors will find and work on it. Alternatively, it could be submitted to WP:AFC by any editor if it's good enough for inclusion. ~ Rob^Talk 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also, to those claiming WP:STALEDRAFT contains nothing on this, you may want to re-read. "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing." I didn't go back to find the exact time it was added, but it's been there since at least 2014. We can fundamentally disagree on what policy should be, but let's not also start disagreeing on what current policy says. ~ Rob^Talk 22:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  - @VQuakr: Given comments you've made above, you may wish to read the above. ~ Rob^Talk 22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: indeed, thanks. Struck the sentence. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Also worth noting that since I've now opposed a keep in userspace, those speedy keep criteria no longer apply. ~ Rob^Talk 23:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the timing of the responses is clear and there isn't much risk of it confusing the closer. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

- - The text was added in August 2011]. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Move it into my personal space and then perhaps I'll agree to draftify it. Why would anyone demand it be kept in the editor's space if the editor isn't active here? Why make it impossible to actually find these things? If any of the editors who actually support this page are willing to adopt it, move it to their personal space and they can deal with it. Instead, how about moving it to User:Ricky81682/Ferdinand Gravert and I may consider draftifying it? Legacypac, you want to consider that in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No objection to you or anyone else taking it. Mr Gravert (the creator) is not going to do anything with it. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like another disingenuous disruptive WP:GAME.

Userspace pages are not hard to find. I don't have time right now but I would like to try. MfD should not be used to force others to fix things on someone else's timetable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make accusations, go ahead but I'm actually looking for sources on the matter and not just accusing everyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean, as long as you leave a redirect and don't U1 delete it or play any other GAMEs (and I trust you not to), I don't see why not. Presumably SmokeyJoe and others could still work on it if they wanted. You also should probably tag it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to keep it findable. It's an odd request though, given your apparent aversion to clutter. A2soup (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect, yes. U1 would be obvious gamesmanship but the question is, can I deposit it with AFC? It would then be subject to G13. After having seen WT:AFC, I wouldn't. If I deposit it in draftspace and don't work on it, it will show up in the draftspace backlogs and someone else may nominate it for deletion down the line, I can't help that. The point still is, if someone actually wants to work on this, why not personally suggest adopting the page? That makes a mountain more sense than keeping it in an inactive user's userspace where it's never going to be found. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

AfC is for creating articles, not processing articles, so depositing it at AfC when you don't think it should be created would be a subversion of both MfD and AfC and a clear GAME. Slower and less disruptive than moving to mainspace, but an equivalent practice. You can help it be found by tagging it for the project you set up (and thanks again for that). I don't see why immediate adoption is needed - presumably you set up the project so future adopters could find these things years down the line. A2soup (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I added {{Find sources AFD}}. It seems to indication a lot of possible sources. This one is probably appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really unless you're looking at circular ones. See User talk:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert. The US Patent office and a US Senate report from 1899 aren't supporting this story. Given that the US Navy spent tens of thousands of dollars in the 1830s onward, I'm having a hard time imagining that the investor of this didn't get a patent nor even a mention by the Secretary of the Navy when he went to Congress. I suspect this is more of a thing that's been tried and guessed at since ships first were created out of iron and had fouling issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Don't care. This may be a white whale that can never be proven and so we never actually disprove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this "don't care" thing would be a good attitude to adopt towards all the good-faith, non-problematic userspace drafts out there. A2soup (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't care referred to arguing about the fact that the "lot of possible sources" aren't actually sources and arguing about their legitimacy. It's precisely why I support deleting the drafts that aren't going anywhere: because it takes a lot of work to do this right and just moving pages around and piling them up into backlogs does nothing in terms of focusing the people who are here now who actually want improve stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky, is this our fundamental difference? If in doubt of potential, keep or delete? You say delete, I say keep. We agree that it takes a lot of work to assess notability. I think that to have a reasonable discussion/debate, at least one person has to be playing the advocate for yes, and that picking on draftwork of inactive users you are doing the wrong thing. Take similar drafts in the userspace of active users, apply the same arguments, and then you get productive, precedent setting discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you might mean by circular. Google pulls up sources referencing Wikipedia. I can't find where the specific information originally was on Wikipedia. There is a lot of noisy signal connecting to anti-fouling paint, but I can't verify or find an original unreliable source. This came from somewhere unknown. Made up, or in an real old fashioned book or journal? Most unhelpfully, Anti-fouling_paint#History is essentially unsourced, unsourced for its core material. It still say "Keep", there is no indication of hoax, or promotion, and it is entirely historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The claim came from Alex Gravert - his name is attached to the claim most of the time. It's self promotion. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a move to someone else's userspace because there's zero benefit from keeping it in someone's userspace and a possible benefit of other editors finding and editing this if it's in the draftspace. ~ Rob^Talk 11:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Frankly the best way it will be found if it's tagged with the proper WikiProjects and the project shows interest in it. I highly doubt that people actively will search for this name or antifouling paint or whatever and check the box to search Draftspace (or userspace for that matter as neither are defaults). The two MFD pages are easier to find. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:J. Finkelstein/Sandbox/Tufts University[edit]

Looks to be a userspace draft of portions of Tufts University. Editor is still active here but after this page creation in October 2006, the only thing done is the removal of non-free images, the removal of categories and other pointless and unnecessary fixes to keep this page hosted here. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything in "Sandbox" can be deleted. J. Finkelstein (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per user comment above. A2soup (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Adolf Abel[edit]

Very pointless version of the the mainspace article Adolf Abel Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Survivorfan101[edit]

Survivorfan101 has spent years making hundreds of edits to this user page without making any other contributions to Wikipedia since 2011. Clearly this user is misusing Wikipedia as a personal webhost and this page should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. It may qualify for speedy deletion as well per WP:CSD#U5. Edgeweyes (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 24, 2016[edit]

User:Sukrovishte123/sandbox[edit]

I think this is some made-up stuff, some imaginary artist, just like User:Sukrovishte123 is imaginary. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It looks very imaginary to me. I searched the web for the songs featuring famous artists and nothing came up. Random86 (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Collage[edit]

Stale Draft redundent to existing article Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Stale draft, nothing to merge to the mainspace article, nothing worth keeping here. Violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Looks like it was more a editing test than an intent to create a whole article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom, but @Legacypac: we can't do redundant drafts as WP:G6 (housekeeping) or something? It seems a waste of resources to bring this to MfD. Assuming the letter of WP:CSD doesn't allow that already, I suspect the community might support adding a general criterion analogous to WP:A10. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think it'd fall under G6 as it's presently understood. I could see lumping word-for-word copy-paste deletions under G6, considering that's currently the remedy for cut-and-paste moves. I would support a "D1" criterion, written as an analogue to A10 (plus a reasonable amount of time). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of tweaking G6; that would apply everywhere rather than just taking care of draft space and has the bonus of not adding any more CSD alphanumerics. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WT:CSD#Proposed expansion of G6 to include duplicates links this page. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexsutherland3/Enter your new article name here[edit]

Unsourced BLP Page promoting Alex Sutherland, a school boy who likes to run, by Alex Sutherland. Would never survive in mainspace for one second. Contested CSD so now we get to vote. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. No policy-compliant reason given for deletion, and page is not in any way problematic. As it says at the top of WP:MFD, 'we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace.' Thparkth (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Non-viable abandoned draft about an athlete. Would not survive in mainspace. Permanently retaining personal information is problematic for non-public figures like this person. Generally violates WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, how does it violate WP:NOT? VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would also point to your argument as squarely in violation of WP:NOTSTUPID: Wikipedia is flat out not the place to do something that's a terrible idea, like permanently keeping article drafts about topics that will never be suitable for mainspace. It is not a notability question, it is not a cleaning up userspace question, it is a matter of what belongs or does not belong on Wikipedia. This is in the latter category. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I am having trouble reconciling "it is not a cleaning up userspace question" with the rest of your response. It seems that the fundamental deletion argument for this and several other recent MfDs has very much boiled down to cleanup. The problem is that these nominations run specifically contrary to our existing guidelines. I think an excellent case could be made for changing that guideline and some of your arguments could inform that case, but the guideline change should be done prior nominating tens of thousands of subpages for deletion. If the community determines that user drafts should be cleaned up, I suspect a less process-intensive method than MfD could be developed for articles such as this one. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance categories have long existed for stale drafts and editors work them. This might be new to you, but not Wikipedians who toll in the backrooms cleaning up. You also are quoting half a sentence of the the instructions for MfD - forgetting that there are MANY reasons clean up userspace referenced by that sentence. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Classy. Anyways, as you well know, your push for broad-spectrum deletion of user space drafts is, relatively speaking, brand new. Get consensus first, if for no other reason than to optimize the process. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As you told me yesterday - it takes competence to edit here. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per Thparkth abd VQuakr. Page is non-problematic, and there is no benefit gained from its deletion. There are perhaps mild concerns with implied promotion, so blank+template with {{Userpage blanked}} would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:User lpl-N[edit]

You can't be a native speaker of a language invented in 2010. Le Deluge (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexander1112/List of tallest buildings in Australia[edit]

User:Alexander1112/50 & Counting Tour

User dropped a copy of List of tallest buildings in Australia & 50 & Counting Tour in userspace and than never touched them again. Violates WP:UP#COPIES. Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. This should be a CSD criterion, honestly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Akeefe98/Joseph Summer[edit]

Not seeing any notability on this BLP. The supposed refs are homepage links. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Userspace drafts are not required to demonstrate notability. No policy-compliant reason given for deletion, and page is not in any way problematic. As it says at the top of WP:MFD, 'we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace.' Thparkth (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Abandoned draft-stroke-fake article. Non-viable, would never survive in articlespace. Fundamentally at variance with the concept of a Wikipedia article draft. No content worth retaining. Basic WP:NOT violation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep - links here and here seem to show it's not a hoax. It's a good-faith draft and no benefit to the project is derived from deleting, nor is there any policy that would justify such a deletion. A2soup (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Akapuraa/ShipConsole[edit]

Non-notable app. Would not survive in mainspace and is a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Looks to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE created to promote an app whose article would never survive in mainspace, given it was categorized at one point. If not a fakearticle, it's simply an abandoned draft about a non-viable subject that would never survive in mainspace. As such, it is fundamentally at variance with the concept of a Wikipedia draft, and thus retention is a violation of WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ajantala007/Akata Formation[edit]

Created in 2009 by a user that never did anything else. Not enough for an article. Stale draft and no one is working on it for 7 years so it is going nowhere. Legacypac (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Easily expandable to a mainspace article, and certainlt notable. No policy-compliant reason given for deletion, and page is not in any way problematic. As it says at the top of WP:MFD, 'we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace.' Thparkth (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to mainspace: Actually, I think this is sufficient for a stub. A little more might be nice, but it would appear to be a keeper. Worst case, it'd get redirected once it hit mainspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Rubel[edit]

There is silly unverifiable trivia here and no substantial claim of notability. Would never survive in article space. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rwitte42/North Suburban Thunder Football & Cheer Association[edit]

Local small town kids sports org is not going to pass GNG so delete this stale draft as hopeless. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Entirely non-viable for articlespace. Wikipedia is not a webhost for Pop Warner teams. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rwghana/Thirteen Threads - Oxlajuj B'atz' (Non-Profit)[edit]

Non-profit that fails WP:CORP and stale draft with no hope of becoming an article. They are mentioned here [8] Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Stale draft, not viable in articlespace, no reasonable chance of surviving AfD. Possibly a copyvio as well given it consists purely of a mission statement and a list of programs; what bits aren't copied-and-pasted are likely close enough paraphrasings to violate copyright. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Viable draft, notable topic. No policy-compliant reason given for deletion, and page is not in any way problematic. As it says at the top of WP:MFD, 'we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace.' Thparkth (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- If it's a viable draft, you should move it to articlespace. There's also the problem of closely paraphrased and copied text, which renders it a borderline G12 candidate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  - "Viable draft" and "ready to move to articlespace" are not synonyms. Thparkth (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    - WP:SOFIXIT. Wikipedia is not the place for bad ideas, like keeping fair use content outside of articlespace with no reasonable chance of it ever being integrated into an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If you sincerely want someone to FIXIT, that will be difficult after the page is deleted. A2soup (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rwallack5/Peter J. Nye[edit]

Draft which had excessive personal info on a non-notable teacher until I blanked it. Delete as this is an identity theft/privacy concern. The other pages are about his non-notable teaching aids. Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST. This individual appears solely interested in promoting some theory about economics. "Toxic anomaly" and "Equillibrium Quantity Effect" in particular should be deleted per WP:NFT. None of these have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2005-Fan/List of non-Kremling Donkey Kong enemies[edit]

Series of pages userified without proper attribution in October 2013 from I believe Donkey Kong's animal buddies and Kleever as requested here but never edited and the editor stopped editing in March 2015. Incomplete, improperly attributed drafts for content deleted in 2013 by AFD should be deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Particularly given these were subject to AfDs in the past, there's no attribution, and they're stale, these should be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rvdizon/The One with the Jam[edit]

Page consisting of only a plot summary from Friends TV show. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Unattributed cut-and-paste copy from the Friends Wikia article The One With The Jam, specifically the revision that was live when this page was created. That aside, redundant to The One with the Jam, which preexisted this draft. Generally violates WP:NOTPLOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle/Goliath (band)[edit]

WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Brawrg1/sandbox[edit]

This editor's userspace consists of nothing but a series of userspace copies of mainspace articles all created in 2008 with no revisions done to the drafts and minimal editing done in mainspace. Listing each page here with the corresponding mainspace page. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:UP#COPIES Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, give me a chance to get them all first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You already convinced me. Seen this nonsense already in the stale draft lists. Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:UP#COPIES. Should be a CSD criterion for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Casanova1102/Keith D. Wheeler II[edit]

Promotional BLP userpage with no references. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Cadams90/Flashback (with Craig and Jess)[edit]

College radio show. No notability and very stale draft from Jan 2010. Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AmericaHistory/Hitler's Last Days[edit]

Stale Draft about Hitler from 2010. Author left in 2011. Not good enough for mainspace and this topic is well covered already in various articles, including ones covering books on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award[edit]

Word-for-word copy of de:Lester Randolph Ford Award. Not a UP#COPY because it's not in userspace, and not an A2 candidate because it's not in articlespace. Maybe we could call it a G12 violation since there's no attribution? In any event, it's long abandoned, and thereby an abuse of draftspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete I also agree that the misuse of draftspace in this manner was never endorsed. I was personally toying with nominating for deletion, but wanted to get a chance on the grounds that perhaps the translation may have revealed something becasue we don't have a list of the award winners. Hasteur (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. No indication that this isn't a notable topic. why not blank instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.187 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's an unattributed copy of an article from another Wikipedia. If it were in articlespace it'd be a CSD candidate. You can't just copy-and-paste content without attributing it and then abandon it. Blanking is not sufficient to address that problem, and for that matter it's not in userspace: I'm not aware of blanking being an option for draftspace. It is not reasonably likely that this will ever be used. If someone wants it they can go to German Wikipedia at any time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Cejae28/Midwest Bounce[edit]

Stale draft from 2010 where the creator never edited any other page. This is a non-notable music category and needs to be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Polaron/List of metropolitan areas by population[edit]

Ten year old WP:FAKEARTICLE that is already covered by List of metropolitan areas by population. Now this version has large unsourced definitions and other terms here that aren't used in the mainspace version making this more of a preferred version of the mainspace content than a ten-year-old legitimate draft or re-write (especially since it was edited two years ago). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to just blank the page with {{Userpage blanked}} instead of deleting? --Polaron | Talk 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would argue this is almost always a better option. The template exists for a reason, and WP:STALEDRAFT suggests considering it before deletion (delete only when "problematic even if blanked"). A2soup (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Alangpdaly/Gerry Daly (Gardener)[edit]

BLP with no sources, buy someone with the same last name (Daly) in their username User left in 2012 just after starting this. We should deleted unsourced BLPs. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Alaaddinlamp/Miniatures postmodern[edit]

A term made up by an artist. This is so badly written it is unclear what is being asserted. Stale Draft Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aklein1/Big Mean Sound Machine[edit]

WP:GARAGE with no sources Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Akronbrian/Freez-R-Burn[edit]

WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Adam Snider[edit]

Probably best summed up by the article itself: "His devoted and unselfish dedication to the U.S. has basically gone unnoticed during his career." Not-notable and no chance of becoming notable, so WP:NOTWEBHOST. ~ Rob^Talk 06:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete totally not notable. It borders on an attack page since it calls him a Big Dick. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, overall it's very positive tone. Dick is a common nickname. It's obviously deletion material, but not sure on speedy. ~ Rob^Talk 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the "consumes more alcohol" etc is potentially pretty negative. I'd say there's a pretty good case for WP:G10. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete possibly speedy delete. Would almost certainly be a U5 if it were in userspace. Patent misuse of draftspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:TomsAntony[edit]

Copy of Common blackbird. ~ Rob^Talk 06:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: If this were in userspace it'd fail WP:UP#COPIES. Draftspace is not for copied-and-pasted mainspace content. Could probably be interpreted as a test edit as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rainer Mueck/Gothic Blues[edit]

No references, not notable invented by Tim_Scott_McConnell where this is covered in the lead. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Add User:Rainer Mueck/Ledfoot with same issues. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Gothic Blues: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all this is is a dicdef. Abandoned draft as well. No hope of being improved. No hope of being mainspaced. Delete Ledfoot: Redundant to Tim Scott McConnell, which the same editor also worked on before going inactive. No content worth salvaging. No hope of being improved. No hope of being mainspaced. Also fails WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:نورا جرينوالد[edit]

Duplicates material at Molly Holly, but in a foreign language. There's no sense in keeping around a non-English and mostly unsourced draft when we have a more complete and fully sourced English copy in the mainspace. ~ Rob^Talk 04:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to userspace and blank: It looks like this editor was attempting to translate Molly Holly for Arabic Wikipedia, but never got around to finishing. I'm a little reluctant to toss out what's probably a decent translation unless there's something else seriously wrong with it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to userspace per Mendaliv. We shouldn't rush to throw away actual hard work that is in the interests of the project (and this was relatively recent work). Thparkth (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:C.A.C.[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Foreign language, so can't tell if it's gibberish or a bad machine translation, but it's clearly not encyclopedic. ~ Rob^Talk 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:JM.Beaubourg/subarticles/List of Playboy Cyber Girls[edit]

Userspace draft started in 2007, last edited in 2009. As a topic, the list itself could be notable, it's not clear but this list is also not very clearly sourced and there's some BLP issues here, namely I'd be concerned with personal information like date of births be included publicly. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mabel wiles[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Non-notable, almost certainly an autobio. ~ Rob^Talk 04:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Love[edit]

WP:NOTESSAY. ~ Rob^Talk 04:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Žanis šleiers[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Hard to tell what it's saying because the machine translation is bad, but it appears to be a foreign language autobiography/user page. ~ Rob^Talk 04:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Logis[edit]

I don't speak whatever language this is in, but it appears to be some sort of fictional material. Clearly not encyclopedic. ~ Rob^Talk 03:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as it translates to some sort of nonsense I can't make sense of. NOTAWEBHOST applies. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete, possibly U5: My French is pretty rusty, but this seems like a joke or, indeed, fiction. Seems to be about some kind of lodging (or maybe an underground club?) in the 7th arrondissement of Paris. Almost certainly violates WP:NOTPROMOTION, and may be a hoax. The content itself is almost like a travel guide, tempting its readers to visit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Quillen metric[edit]

A single inline reference and one end reference with zero content explaining the topic or giving any potential demonstration of notability. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves for similar draft with zero content Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as not useful. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep; author is active and says he finds it useful; that is enough for any draft that doesn't have larger issues. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- For shame Legacypac. WP:USEFUL is explicitly called out as a bad argument to make for any deletion. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that kind of Useful - there is not enough here to make a useful article. It's blank of meaningful content. Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: It's an abandoned draft that just happens to lack the AfC template. Not viable as an article in its current form or any form reasonably likely to occur. WP:NOT should control here. Wikipedia is not a collection of references lacking any content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, the page was not created through the AfC process. -- Taku (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The idea of drafts is to encourage editors to work on topics. Having almost empty, incomprehensible drafts runs contrary to that aim. I can easily imagine that it would actually discourage other editors from starting articles on these topics, because someone else is already "working" on them. There is no useful encyclopedic content to these drafts, and the "Draft" namespace is not Taku's personal sandbox. If he wants to keep collections of notes like these, he can do that in his own userspace. The draft namespace is for article drafts. Sławomir
Biały 11:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep: The same reason as before. I'm tired of repeating myself. -- Taku (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Userify to User:TakuyaMurata/Quillen metric if the author wants it or delete. It seems like it's abandoned for all intents and purposes and if the author is interested, they can keep a userified version for their own work. Otherwise, draftspace shouldn't deal with the equivalent of domain name hoarding by the first person who picks a name and puts something there. If the author does not have any further interest in their own work, I suggest that, after userification, they include it with WP:Abandoned Drafts for others to work on if they so desire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Richmond, Ca./Atchison Village[edit]

December 2006 version of Atchison Village, Richmond, California created around the same time that this was the operative version floating around. It doesn't seem to be a copy of anything but it's also largely unsourced so I don't see the need for any merger. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate WP:UP#COPIES Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Richmond, Ca./Richmond, California[edit]

December 2006 userspace draft of Richmond, California. It looks like to be a copy of the page from about this time period but I can't find an exact copy of when it was copied from. Editor never edited the mainspace version so I don't see a need to redirect an unattributed copyright violation. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No value in keeping stale draft - such a copy is only allowed for short term editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mahaveer Group - RSPL[edit]

Created by user who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry.

Not using CSD because it was created before the block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate and deleted before. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. This is what drafts are for. It's fairly clear that what happened here is that a new user tried to post promotional articles about himself and his company, and when they were deleted found a friend with a little previous WP experience to help. They are going about it quite the wrong way and seem unwilling to take advice, so I salted the article title and told them to work on the draft. The present draft is hopeless (trimmed back to almost nothing in reaction to being told that previous ones were too promotional) but the company exists and may be notable; the author is only blocked for a week, and we should be encouraging the use of drafts by COI authors. JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Let's not give a head start to the next editor they hire to write their promotional article. Thparkth (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep If the creator had been indeffed, I might have said delete. But since the block was only for one week, we can hope that this is a learning experience for the new user. Drafts are cheep. —teb728 t c 04:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hyperbole/Gerald Gallego[edit]

Draft from April 2006 that seems to have been some sort of draft for what came to be created at Gerald and Charlene Gallego six months later in October 2006. The draft here has been edited over the years repeatedly as well as the mainspace one (the Gerald Gallego redirect was created in 2007) with this last edited in 2009. Rather than continuing to let the draftspace one continue on, I think it's best to delete it and if the editor returns, they can work on the mainspace one as could have been done from this version onward. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate parallel article in draft space. Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ntennis/List of transgender support organisations[edit]

September 2006 "backup" of the deleted List of transgender-support organizations copied here without attribution following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transgender-support organizations. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate WP:UP#COPIES of deleted article with no attempt to fix the issues. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:MilloTheGamer[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST, but the advertising isn't quite blatant enough to make it a CSD, in my opinion. ~ Rob^Talk 02:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ScrippsONEDetroit/KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS Schedule Variations[edit]

History is a bit of a mess here. Article was created in mainspace in 2006, went to AFD in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS Schedule Variations in October 2006 and for some reason copied here without poor attribution. It's never been edited but just moved based on the editor's renaming but it's been around for nine year since the AFD and remains a violation of WP:NOT. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete and put out of its misery. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What, no keep because someone put a stub tag on it or the editor didn't hang up a retired tag or some other argument about the "rabid deletionist" crowd fighting to destroy the hard work of editors who nine years ago decided to copy over deleted pages without attribution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The article and its history are still there where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS Schedule Variations says they were. The userspace version is more or less unchanged from that. Mainspace version can be undeleted if that's what people decide some day, but if it wasn't salvaged in 2006 it's not likely to be salvaged now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ftheyukuza/The Orphan[edit]

WEBHOST violation. Not even clear who this is about, but not being used in an article and user is long gone. Contested U5 CSD. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - no indication from nominator why they think this user page is being used as a web host. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

where do you want this used in the encyclopedia then? Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a user draft. Just leave it there. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This user has made several hundred edits to their userspace to keep these lists updated for some reason unrelated to wikipedia. They have only edited one actual article a few times. Classic WebHost violation. Then they stopped doing anything in 2012 making this all stale. Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A classic webhost violation would be a restaurant updating their specials daily, and directing customers to their user space on en.wiki to check them. Most definitely not the case here. "Stale" is not a policy-based reason to delete a draft. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the user is record keeping for their own use. You obviously don't understand webhost. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies. Your suspicions are irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidence shows no on wiki purpose, and the effort suggests an off wiki purpose. You have evidence to the contrary? Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidence shows collating information on a person who may or may meet WP:N in the effort of building an article. This is a reasonable usage of WP user space and is not at odds with the goals of this project. It's AGF, not ABF - the onus is on you to show that a page is being used as a webhost. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

'Delete Editor is keeping track of Matt Hughes (fighter)'s individual bouts (check the first two UFC match pages) which is fine and all but it's already at Matt_Hughes_(fighter)#Mixed_martial_arts_record. If the editor wants to include that or create a split, then the editor can make a suggestion to do so. Otherwise, it's a WP:UP#COPIES of current content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fullmoon08/Enter your new article name here[edit]

No sources and not enough usable content to do anything with this stale draft Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep and trout nominator. Nothing in the nomination is a reason to delete the article. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Trout the person voting to keep junk. I'll withdraw this nom based on that keep vote and the nonsense they are posting on my talk page and deal with this another way. Legacypac (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I unwithdraw this nomination - it appears that VQuakr does not actually want to keep this page for they moved it out of mainspace after voting to keep it. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:POINT much? Le sigh. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been around the merrygoround before. We are not going to indefinitely leave stale drafts. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic is covered at Ralph Bunche Park quite well, making this redundant. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So redirect it per the guideline then. No MfD required. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Ralph Bunche Park. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fujiwara06/Detroit Beer Company[edit]

Redundent to the mainspace article created right after this by the same user. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: why is it better to bring a substantial copy to MfD rather than either redirecting the user space copy or ignoring it? VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no attribution issues as they put it in mainspace. There is no value to the userspace draft. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"No value to userspace draft" is not a reason to delete. If there were attribution issues we would want a history merge, which I did not suggest. To repeat, why is it better to bring a substantial copy to MfD rather than either redirecting the user space copy or ignoring it? VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES applies. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect; that is for content forks. You are looking for WP:STALEDRAFT criterion #5, which instructs us to redirect. No MfD required. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. Note that this is not an actual draft version of a copy-pasted article, it's vice-versa, whereby the draft was created prior to the main namespace article (link), and then copied six minutes later to the main namespace article (link). As such, WP:STALEDRAFT is not as applicable in this instance compared to WP:UP#COPIES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ftheyukuza/Dakoda Schuenemeyer[edit]

Tracking fights of an MMA fighter who does not have an article against a bunch of other fighters who don't have articles. Not a webhost on this stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - no policy based reason given to delete from user space. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAWEBHOST is clear policy. This keep vote does not have any policy basis. In fact your keep votes are bordering on disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think this page is a personal web page, file storage area, dating service, memorial, or violation of WP:UPNOT? VQuakr (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Content for encyclopedia-unrelated projects. Don't store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included. As the fighter has no article, there is no where this material belongs in mainspace. Presumably it is being kept for someother purpose or has just been abandoned. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not a clear violation of the notwebhost policy. Not having a corresponding article is irrelevant; notability requirements do not apply to drafts. If it is just an abandoned draft in user space, then there is no reason to delete it. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The content is in user namespace, not draft namespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The user made hundreds of edits to two userspace pages with no attempt to use that material in an actual article. They are not drafts they are (now stale) webhost violations cut and dried. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 23, 2016[edit]

User:Fshussain/Bullet Quarterly[edit]

Student publication only started in 2011. No claim of notability asserted in this stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - no reason for deletion given in nomination. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:U5 via WP:STALEDRAFT point #4 (i.e. "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5").—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Stricken due to policy manipulation.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fsansa76/As Good As Dead (2010 film)[edit]

Unreferenced very stale draft with no one working on it. Delete. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fsadiq/Insaf Research Wing[edit]

Dropped in userspace back in 2010 by an editor that never did anything else. No 3rd party references and I question notability. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Munib kahn[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Appears to be an attempt at a user page for an IP. ~ Rob^Talk 22:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete- Wikipedia is not Facebook --Whpq (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mr.Arpit sharma[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST ~ Rob^Talk 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ashwani Editiz[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST ~ Rob^Talk 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not Facebook. -- Whpq (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aixporter/Kooboo[edit]

Old stale draft judged not ready for mainspace. No one is working on it, so it should be deleted or allowed to be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Kooboo per WP:STALEDRAFT criterion #5. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Turns out this material is already covered in a section of Koodoo and is redundent. Unless someone wants to do a merge a redirect is pointless. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I linked the guideline that states a redirect is the correct course of action. If you disagree, I suggest seeking consensus to change the guideline at Wikipedia talk:User pages. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

that is only one option; and a poor one in my opinion unless there is a merge of some sort.Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant. The linked guideline says, if an actual draft version of a copy-pasted article, redirect or request a history merge. A history merge is not necessary. So, redirect. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:User en-0[edit]

This is technically separate Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Templates for deleted categories in that Category:User en-0 for some reason hasn't been deleted. These don't break the userbox requirements but is there really a need for a userbox for people on English Wikipedia who allegedly don't understand English? A smattering review of the editors who use this tag are at least level 1 (other than trolls) or else they really wouldn't be able to edit here. In the past, the categories for other languages have been deleted (see an intermediate discussion and the Russian one) while there's a current discussion on the other userboxes at the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete any user that asserts no undrstanding of English should be blocked. Not needed. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Then since I made these edits (mostly to Rhestr Mesurau a Deddfau Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) whilst claiming to not understand Welsh, you should get me blocked at Wicipedia Cymraeg. I'm sure Llywelyn2000 (talk · contribs) - who is gweinyddwr there - would be willing to do that if you are not. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per Legacypac (kind of, blocking is too much but clearly shouldn't be here).~ Rob^Talk 21:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Especially with global logins, a non-English speaker may be making changes not requiring any proficiency in English. If you believe there are no such editors, I will present myself as somewhat of an example. I have editted other language wikis were I have zero capability of understanding the language. In my case, it was adding images to articles. It's easy enough to figure out what the right parameter is in an infobox, or add a file. Somebody making similar contributions her on the English wikipedia may want to ensure other editors are aware that their English language is extremely limited. -- Whpq (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is zero really accurate then? I'd say push to calling themselves en-1, that's more realistic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you can still be zero. Take a random example of bn:সহরসা_জেলা - if I challenged you to add an image and update the URL in the infobox, I bet you could do it just with Wiki "muscle memory" rather than any kind of understanding of Bengali, even if the script may look alien to Westerners. And if someone wanted to ask you about your edit, I imagine you'd want to make clear that you had absolutely no chance of understanding them.Le Deluge (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. My ability in the other languages is zero. Level one is basic capability in the language. The ability to tease out basic syntax for adding an image does not imply any basic capability in the language. --Whpq (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep As I've said below, this is the one case where a lang-0 template makes sense. On en.wiki you assume that everyone can speak English but not speak any other language, on fr.wiki French but no others and so on. However if you speak the universal language of Wiki then good-faith editors can make useful edits on Wikipedias where they don't speak the local language. I've personally come across two cases myself. One was editing the infobox of a town in (??) India, I found the latest census (2012 say) population and put that in the English article, then went to the ?? Hindi article looking for pictures and found that the infobox there had the 2002 population. I don't speak Hindi, but I don't need to to work out what to do in that case. Similarly there was a free photo from the US or UK government, of I think an Albanian ship on exercises with the photographer's ship. I don't speak Albanian, but I thought it was useful to add it to the Albanian article because a)Albanians are probably the ones most interested in that particular ship and b)editors from other Wikipedias will probably look at the Albanian article first for images for their own language article. Checking interwiki links are another one where it's possible to do useful work without knowing the language. In both cases, if a "local" editor had wanted to discuss the census data or image with me, then they would have been wasting their time talking to me in Hindi or Albanian, although no doubt I would have had a go with Google Translate. OTOH, I can see the argument that this box is likely to be an idiot-magnet and good-faith editors who do want to engage will do what I do with "other" wikis and redirect my talk page to en.wiki which is where I spend most of my time. But I can still see a point to a en-0 box (if not category) on en.wiki. (edit clash - Whpq has beat me to it!) Le Deluge (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

But is the userspace box really necessary? The category is likely to be deleted if I take that to CFD given the mass precedents. Like I said, it doesn't technically violate the incivility rules so it's more of a "is this appropriate" in the vaguest sense of the term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a reasonable person would see that the home language on a wiki is a sufficiently different case that it wouldn't necessarily be subject to the precedent. Certainly I see them as significantly different, not being able to discuss an edit in the language of that edit is a significant handicap, whereas other lang-0's are just cruft. Le Deluge (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Some interesting points about editing without knowing the language. I've done a bit of that too. Humm, I don't use userboxes, so don't matter much to me, but I'd NEVER put 0 boxes for all the languages I know nothing about. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep per my argument below, as well as per Le Deluge, with whom I happen to agree on this particular userbox. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep It's an excellent way for non-English speakers to advertise the fact, in case somebody wishes to communicate with them about some edit they made on this Wikipedia. I always use the xx-0 templates on other Wikipedias, it indicates my non-understanding of their language, see recent examples at e.g. lij:Utente:Redrose64 or pa:ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Redrose64. Notice the non-use of pa-0 at lij, and vice versa --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep I try and help all minority languages; just created a list of Scottish people on gdwiki but I don't spak Gaelic. I should start using this template! And thanks to User:Redrose64 for all his wonderful edits on cywiki (Welsh). Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per Legacypac (but I wouldn't go as far as advocating blocking...)TheOverflow (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kathie Bondar/sandbox[edit]

Basically using her sandbox as web storage, a very unlikely draft Doug Weller talk 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete evident NotAWebhost violation. Even appears to be copyrighted? Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Zionboy/Nicolas-Patience Basabose[edit]

unsourced bio that does not assert real importance. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No reason to delete given, A7 and WP:V do not apply in userspace. In any case, significance is certainly asserted and notability is possible, noting that relevant sources may not be in English. Blank+template with {{Userpage blanked}} may be appropriate for promotional concerns. A2soup (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The only assertion of notability relates to assertions about LeCongo Hebdo which this editor also created (and abandoned) in 2011 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LeCongo Hebdo. As such, the only thing we have is a statement that this is an entrepreneur of an investment group with two locations which is more akin to an inappropriate U5 situation than a usable draft. If the editor returns, the newspaper would be a better starting point via WP:REFUND. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete - cursory Googling shows no evidence of notability. This is a WP:BLP; the requirement for information about living persons to be cited inline applies to all pages on the project. I don't see much evidence for notability for the newspaper either, all of the hits I get are from Google cramming "le congo" together with "hebdomadaire". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. No contentious information in the draft that would trigger WP:BLP concerns; citation requirement for BLPs only applies to articles. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE and other sections apply here. It's most likely a self promo situation given the same editor tried to draft the newspaper page. The referenced RfC does not trump policy, common sense or WP:IAR. We are trying to improve this project here. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What information stated about a living person in that draft is contentious? VQuakr (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is anything on the page true? Is it verifiable? Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant; this is not an article. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Abandoned draft, hinging on promotional, about a non-viable subject. Wikipedia is not the place for such unencyclopedic writings. Fails WP:NOT. That it's a BLP only gives it yet another shove past any hurdles that might otherwise prevent its deletion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:U5 via WP:STALEDRAFT point #4 (i.e. "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5").—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Stricken due to policy manipulation.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you think policy gets written? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes to existing policies and guidelines are made through proposal on the appropriate talk page or at the village pump, so they can gain community consensus, especially if they're controversial in nature (which is clearly the case here).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wickham01/new article name here[edit]

At the bottom you can see this is WP:OR Not suitable for the project. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OR is definitely not a deletion reason for a userspace draft. There may still be good reason to delete... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
History merge into Mike Stuart Span. This was created in January 2010 and that version was obviously from somewhere and I suspect this page ("Several grammatical and textual changes, plus additionaal research" is not an edit summary for a new article) or both are stealing from another place but it's not clear where. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Whywhywhywhynot/OneWeeksNotice[edit]

Whywhywhywhy should we keep a stale draft about some teenagers who formed a WP:GARAGE band? Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Whywhywhynot? Just kidding, delete. Interestingly enough, from their website, they still seem to be together so hope does spring eternal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:William.sandler/The Internet Red Light District[edit]

This was the only thing contributed by this user. Needs far too much work to be useful. Best to TNT it. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing beyond the title that is of any meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Taker456/Tranny Pennies[edit]

I think the user invented this. Not a suitable topic and a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia isn't urban dictionary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Tajmohd83/Lower Chitral[edit]

Stale draft not in English. Delete as no value to project. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Another language is not sufficient reason to delete without investigating, except if, as I believe it is, double Dutch (incomprehensible children's babbling). The title may relate to Chitral District, but there is no content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Tajar kaushik/Non limpid materials,[edit]

Stale draft made up of nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SKB04/Feedback (Band)[edit]

WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SHouston007/Kamani Batista[edit]

Likely self promotion with no sources. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SHE 1931/The Gretchen (Music Project)[edit]

Not WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Contrary to nomination statement, it IS a WP:GARAGE case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SElwellUK/John Surman[edit]

Unreferenced BLP with too little to build on. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SEO Twist/Marketcircle[edit]

Quite promotional draft by an SEO company about a software firm. Mostly referenced to their own blog. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious misuse of Wikipedia as a marketing medium. MER-C 02:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SE19991/Move Management[edit]

Stale draft and not enough to build an article from. A TNT situation. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - TNT makes no sense for drafts because the purpose is to allow the article to be rewritten better from scratch without vainly attempting to improve the existing crud. This makes no sense at all for drafts, since they are not the main article on the topic. Draft is on a potentially legitimate subject and is completely non-problematic even if not blanked, WP:STALEDRAFT states deletion is only indicated if the page is problematic even if blanked. A2soup (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure the user who only build this page for the purposes of supporting a spam link in Nov 2011 is going to get right on building a proper article. If kept at MfD its going to sink or swim in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to a discussion where anyone besides yourself said it was okay to move userspace drafts to mainspace to test notability? Because I see only condemnation of these moves in existing discussions, like this one. A2soup (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - WP:DEADLINE. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is a limit to how long we keep SPAM around here. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hogwash. WP:G11 is for spam, but a draft isn't spam just because you say so. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not a serious attempt an an article. They were careful to put that SEO link in through. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Noindex it if you are concerned. It's called WP:ELOFFICIAL, not WP:SEOLINK. Again, AGF. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Userspace is already default NOINDEX. A2soup (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You might expect an official link on an article, which this is not even an attempt at one. I know a lot about SEO, this was created for that link. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool, let's talk shop. What's suspicious about the link? Don't spare the technical details on my account. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the article is not about a company how can it be an WP:ELOFFICIAL link? Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which is all that's here: A dictionary definition of a bit of jargon of questionable relevance. There's nothing to integrate into any other article. It's stale, and appears solely to have been created to get a spam link on Wikipedia (though evidently in vain considering it's not supposed to be indexed). There's no encyclopedic content here to be salvaged. Wikipedia is not a webhost. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SDIatCMN/Sustainable Development Institute[edit]

Non-notable promotional stale draft Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SDBWP[edit]

FAKEARTICLE about a evidently non notable person on a user page. It's a stale draft too. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If this is meant to be an introduction to the user, it needs to be in proportion, not exceeding, the contributions of the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been deleted multiple times before [9] and User_talk:SDBWP. Maybe an admin can speedy it. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SBirdTVS/TransVault[edit]

No independant sources show notability. Seems like a run of the mill company trying to promote itself on wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Good faith article drafting that will not pass WP:CORP. We need better guidelines for this stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SBCCSM/Michelangelo[edit]

No reason we need a very stale draft about this famous person. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page, per point #2 of WP:STALEDRAFT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SARAJEVO 071/Economy and life in the Socialist Rebublic Bosnia and Hrecegovina,SFRY[edit]

Stale draft that is too rough and unfocused to do anything with. Just delete it as redundent to actual articles about the country. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:S210010711/Skolmen[edit]

Stale draft with no references. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page, per point #2 of WP:STALEDRAFT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/The Celestial Synapse[edit]

A single music event in 1969... Does not justify an article. Stale draft from an editor that has not edited since 2010. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Selective Merge to Fillmore West § Events per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbingerites[edit]

As noted by another editor on page NOTDIC. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbinger Community[edit]

Stale draft 2010 from someone who has not edited since 2010. The place does not seem notable to me. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Frontiers of Science Fellowship[edit]

Maybe a webhost violation. Seems to include copy vio. Not really clear what it is about. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation[edit]

Person does not pass notability guidelines. Old stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rysnes/Adrian Wareham[edit]

Not a notable athlete. Stale draft. No reason to keep. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rysl31/Monica Rose[edit]

No strong claim to notability. Sourced to a blog. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryrod99/The Annexation of Santo Domingo[edit]

User developed this here then placed it all in mainspace under the same title. Attribution is therefore not an issue, this is just a stale draft copy of the first version of the mainspace article and should be deleted as redundent. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rynsnsn/sandbox[edit]

This looks like nonsense to me. Stale draft Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank and add {{Sandbox notice}} and {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:RyersonU/Lauren Christoff[edit]

Non-notable singer. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryanyesterday/Chris Charleston[edit]

Non-notable student. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Top 10 most famous singers from Jamaica[edit]

Fails WP:UP#GOALS MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete -- according to who? Over what time period? An indiscriminate collection of info better suited for a tabloid. Legacypac (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:UP#GOALS and as unverified original research. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 22, 2016[edit]

User:Robbieervin/The Fallen[edit]

Fails WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Robdiablo/Ryan Crow[edit]

Same user put article in mainspace at Ryan Crow and this draft adds no value to that. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rjrboy1234/Twin Oaks Presbyterian Church[edit]

Really looks like copyvio from the dead links at the bottom of the stale draft. Not a notable local church. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rjshinde/Datta Mandir Chaul Alibag[edit]

Most likely copyvio from a travel guide. Not written in encyclopedic style. Stale Draft. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rjmfulton/Thornliebank Bowling Club[edit]

No claim of importance. We should not have a stale draft titled after this club. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:User cu-N[edit]

{{User_cu-N}} is for Wikipedian native speakers of the long-dead Old Church Slavonic whose category was nuked here. Le Deluge (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:User fb-4[edit]

In 2008 User:HannesJvV created fb-3 and -4 but not the rest of the FreeBASIC hierarchy, used it briefly himself but even he deleted it from his user page back in 2009. Either we want the full hierarchy or none at all, and these orphan templates seem pretty pointless.Le Deluge (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete because it's orphaned and unused. Else I wouldn't see a problem with creating the whole hierarchy, although I personally don't have any interest in it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

An element of my thinking is the fact that it's a form of BASIC - if it was some new software for Android or iOS then I'd create the rest of the tree, but the sweep of history is against it.Le Deluge (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Vision 2015[edit]

This draft has been around since 2009 but this doesn't seem like a notable conference or presentation (it's not exactly what this is about). Out of the sources, excluding the actual references to the documents themselves, only two are independent, somewhat, but the Georgetown one is basically on the speaker itself and the other one is from the agency. It's possibly that this could be merged into something at Director_of_National_Intelligence#Office_of_the_Director_of_National_Intelligence_.28ODNI.29 but I think that's a stretch. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lluis Ribas de Pouplana[edit]

This draft has been bouncing around since 2009. It's entirely unsourced and other than an assistant professorship, it seems like he has been just not a notable academic. It doesn't seem like he would pass WP:PROF. I can't find anything about Agrobiosys but he listed here for Omnia Molecular which is probably not notable itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as fails PROF and stale. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Templates for deleted categories[edit]

{{User_es-0}}, {{User_it-0}}, {{User_kg-0}}, {{User_kk-0}}, {{User_rw-0}}, {{User_st-0}}, {{User_zu-0}} are all templates of incomprehension, whose categories were either explicitly or implicitly banished with prejudice in 2007 (or here for rw-0). ~~{{User_cu-N}} is for Wikipedian native speakers of the long-dead Old Church Slavonic whose category was nuked here.~~ I may be back for more.... Le Deluge (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep/procedural close: I don't think this is the right venue for this discussion. WP:BABEL seems to indicate that they support incomprehension userboxes, even if there's a long-standing consensus against categorizing such users. If and when a discussion happens at WT:BABEL that concludes incomprehension userboxes are unhelpful as well (a lot of people seem to use them) then we might consider deletion. I would have no objection to deleting certain silly ones (e.g., native comprehension of long-dead languages), but I think they'd have to be subject to their own nom. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually this is the correct place to me as WP:MFD explicitly covers "Userboxes (regardless of namespace)". The location of these templates are irrelevant but this needs to be better formatted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, my point is it seems that Le Deluge is arguing that the entire swath of xx-0 templates should be deleted rather than just those which were listed above. I think the problem is (1) there appears to be a longstanding consensus that these are fine even though the cats were not (as articulated at WP:BABEL), and (2) the nom is malformed in that it doesn't list all the templates being named. Anyhow, if my speedy keep isn't actioned, my !vote is keep based on the longstanding consensus that xx-0 userboxes are helpful, and that deleting just these would disrupt the entire babel userbox hierarchy. I would, however, be amenable to an argument that we should merge all the xx-0 through xx-5 and xx-n templates into a single xx template that takes parameters (i.e., you'd use {{User en|0}}). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For clarity - my intention is to resolve the contradiction where we have template pointing at, and closely identified with, categories that have been deleted by overwhelming consensus. I came across these because the categories do not exist, either because they were deleted (es, it, rw) or were never created in the first place, so they are extreme examples of the genre. But the fact that even "big" languages like Spanish and Italian have only one user-0 each rather belies the suggestion that there's a "lot" of users.(Edit - hmm, OK, es-0 has 450 transclusions but only one is in the category, not sure what's going on there) My personal view is that on en.wiki the only one that matters is en-0 and the rest are cruft, but I recognize that editors like their cruft in userspace. <g> So I'd prefer to delete but could live with changing the template to not categorise -0 users, I just want to resolve the paradox of the status quo.Le Deluge (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On closer examination, the es-0 and it-0 categories were not the result of the templates but by people substing them. But kk-, st-0 and zu-0 do seem to be putting users in categories directly. I'm not enough of a template guru to understand what the difference is, although I wonder if it could be something to do with the need to do a WP:NULLEDIT to get changes in transcluded templates to "take", and it/es have attracted an edit since something was changed with the categories, but kk/st/zu have not. Or is there a lookup table somewhere telling the template that es/it categories were deleted? Le Deluge (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, this is making more sense. I was confused because of the it-0 and es-0 categories being assigned by what looked like their respective templates, so I didn't actually check the source code of the userpages involved, I just went straight to the templates. But having discovered they were substing, I've emptied those categories, and the remaining ones are being categorized using usercategory in the templates, so I've been able to empty them by editing the categories out of the templates. So that's my itch scratched, but I think it's probably worth letting discussion continue... Le Deluge (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For clarification, I've listed only the templates that were linked above. I suggest not adding any more and seeing how this discussion resolves itself. If there is support for deletion (or even a support for some deletion, some not, you never know), then propose a new deletion for the remaining ones. It will simplify the closing admin's job since you'd only want to delete those where there is some notice about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It seems like when the categories were deleted, these templates were not and while it's possible to support the template sans the category, it seems silly to have any template that alleges a non-use of a language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I listed the English language-0 one at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User en-0. It's somewhat similar than this one but the same issues apply: there's no technical violation to having them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete arguments convince me. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep These templates are not the only way of putting user pages in the deleted categories. The CFDs referred to all seem to be from 2007, long before the babel system was standardised across wikis. The cats are now part of the babel system, which is not local to English Wikipedia, but is used by all Wikipedias. So if a user page has e.g. {{#babel:es-0|it-0|kg-0|kk-0|rw-0|st-0|zu-0}} it will be placed in those categories regardless of whether we have templates for them or not. The idea is that a user who is active on more than one Wikimedia project (as I am) should be able to use identical babel boxes on all of them without having to work out which codes are valid locally. Users do want to advertise non-understanding, see for example lij:Utente:Redrose64 or pa:ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Redrose64. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Still, just because the template is used across multiple wikis doesn't mean it should be used here locally. I recall a series of templates in Japanese used for Japanese city articles (the mark up was itself in Japanese) that were expressly rejected even though they were part of the same system and used across many other wikis to simply copy over the templates so that all the Japanese city articles had the same background citations and formatting for populations, age information and the like (information that itself is clearly most likely in Japanese). Here, there seems to be a rejection of class-0 babel language categories and I presume templates and since this is English wikipedia, it doesn't seem necessary to have templates that reflect that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves[edit]

Draft created with no content describing the topic, only 2 references. Hasteur (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: It's an abandoned draft that just happens to lack the AfC template. Not viable as an article in its current form or any form reasonably likely to occur. WP:NOT should control here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep: it's notable. Yes, it's incomplete but that's precisely why it's in the draft namespace. -- Taku (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC) See the very end.
- If it is notable, then prove it. As it currently stands there's no demonstration of notability or context to explain why it is notable. Running out to land grab all the potential notable draft space articles is a misuse of the draft namespace. I would also note that TakuyaMurata is the author of this draft and left it in this state for over 2 years while going on to other works. Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  - There is really no need for the proof; if you have a little bit of background in math, then you know it's notable. -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    - That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If I, someone who graduated college with a Bachelor of Science degree don't even have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about (because there's no prose to explain the topic) how much chance do you expect a random reader in a library to understand the page? Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I agree the subject is notable, but the draft has no useful content. Sławomir
Biały 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The correct next step is then to develop the draft not the deletion. -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  - No, the correct step is to put content and context in to explain the topic. Your massive land grab of several Draft namespace titles from 2014 without going back and fixing them is a gross misuse of the purpose of draftspace to the point of questioning our purpose here... Hasteur (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    - And why are you the one who decides on the purpose of the draft namespace? I don't work for you, remember? -- Taku (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
      - You're right, you don't work for me, however you're bound by the Pillars/Rules/Guidelines/Expectations/Consensus to use the system in a certain way. I am an agent enforcing the consensus already established that Drafts that are created simply to get the "creation" credit by land grabbing large swaths of potential titles is out of order in any namespace. Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
        
        And I believe the consensus is that there is no deadline, which you clearly disagree with. I've started with Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: is there a deadline for a draft. The dispute clearly has nothing to do with this particular topic. -- Taku (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep per Taku. Starting a draft with references is not a reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete unless improved significantly before this is closed. The purpose of draft space is to develop viable articles. Instead of arging here, spend time making it viable. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're then arguing for the development of the articl, not the deletion. I agree this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. The simplest solution is not have it in the first place by not making nominations like this. -- Taku (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep this never should have gone to MfD after Taku said it was still useful. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:USEFUL designates your comment as one to explicitly avoid in deletion discussions. Why do you persist in this fallacy? Hasteur (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Because that section of the essay makes sense for articles but not draft space. VQuakr (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please feel to quote exactly where it says that These arguments to be avoided in deletion discussions don't apply to article space. You can't because your argument rests on "It's Useful" and "There's potential", which other editors have clearly indicated that this does not get a pass on. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Having trouble parsing. Do you mean "draft" rather than "article"? VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

keep If anyone else wants to take up this article, then they can still do so. Deleting what's already there so far wouldn't encourage that in any way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect: I hate to say but the party is over. There is now Moduli stack of elliptic curves thanks to User:R.e.b.. There is really no point for the draft and consequently this discussion anymore. -- Taku (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect per Taku. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna[edit]

Old userspace draft from 2011 that is largely unsourced about Antarctica flora and fauna. Currently, the text is at Antarctica#Biodiversity and Wildlife of Antarctica with actual sources. I don't know if there's anyone interested in using this draft or whether it can be deleted as redundant now. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete, if no one from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Antarctica wants it. I posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Antarctica#userpage_drafting_of_possible_interest. Checking the history, it can be seen that it is the product of a shared account for primary and high school students organised by a teacher from Ohio school in 2011. It appears completely redundant, delete in favour of Antarctica#Biodiversity and Wildlife of Antarctica. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also tagged with the Wikiproject on the talk page so it should show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica/Article alerts and on the main project page tomorrow. Same for the plants project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably delete, but: Was any text from this draft incorporated into the articles you linked? Check the articles around creation versus what's in the draft. If the language in the draft predates the language in the article we might have a problem. It looks, though, like most of the language was lifted from the individual articles (e.g., on krill) intending for it to be incorporated via summary style. I would argue that in such form it might be in violation of WP:UP#COPIES, though I'm not sure. In short, if there's no attribution requirement, delete. Vanished users are presumed not to be returning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

These vanished users were a school-wide group account, they will never be allowed to return to it, and they can never substantiate personal attribution rights. Also, list information is not copyrightable, is has been found (somewhere, US law, to not cross the required creative transformation threshold). The bits of prose are pretty weak in isolation. I don't think there is anything to worry about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the entries are like a paragraph long. I'm pretty sure that is creative enough to require attribution. I'm not too worried about it; just spotting the potential issues as I see them. Just needs a quick check. But yeah, the fact that it was a shared course account is not a best practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The vanished user never edited mainspace (including deleted edits). The page history had no other users so if it was used, it wasn't by the user and there wasn't attribution but at that point we're in known unknowns territory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser ewrfgdg3df3/Sandbox[edit]

Old userspace draft that seems to have a rewrite from this version of vow of silence. Editor never seems to have edited the mainspace version before vanishing in 2015. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. It's an abandoned rewrite. While diffing the two pages around the time of creation reveals some slight differences in the userspace version, those are just indicative of the direction the rewrite was going, but never really went. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete agree with the points so far. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jaaresco/sandbox[edit]

Draft in Spanish about a non-notable individual. Was created in November 2015 but this seems like a WP:WEBHOST violation regardless of its age. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Previously speedied here and at Spanish Wikipedia for being promotional content. The last two paragraphs of the userspace page under consideration, if Google Translate is to be believed, are unsalvageably promotional. Furthermore, given this was deleted in mainspace and at Spanish Wikipedia, it's very likely this violates WP:UP#COPIES if there were edits by other users copied into userspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

March 21, 2016[edit]

User:CheerfulPaul[edit]

This user page was created by another user, Markostri, presumably by mistake. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Markostri has another page and if some words appeared on this one this one in the process any perceived mistake can be corrected and thanks for directions to the ideas lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Given only a presumption, deletion is not warranted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even if deliberate, what legitimate reason would Markostri have for creating someone else's user page, SmokeyJoe? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could he be the same person? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  - Could you help us out by clarifying, Markostri? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've only created one page entitled Markostri which is my user name and perhaps some words appeared on your page as I was learning the process. Several messages advised me to look at the ideas lab via something called village pump and teahouse. Everyone has been very helpful so far and if my work so far has caused any confusion it wasn't intentional and think I have some content of interest to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You also created the page User:CheerfulPaul, Markostri. Do you confirm that this was a mistake, and that you are not the same person as CheerfulPaul? That's my last question, I promise! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think CheerfulPaul was one of those links in red and guess it was an empty page for new editors to practice, I didn't create the name so I guess it's a fictional part of the learning process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markostri (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Created as a test edit in userspace (so G2 doesn't apply, even though it's someone else's userspace). If you read it, it's clearly an editing test. It's the kind of stream of consciousness paragraphs you type when you're trying to be creative while playing with something new (though it does kind of disturbingly remind me of word salad). Nothing salvageable. Maybe move it to Markostri's sandbox if he really wants it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Veeran Naal Sardari[edit]

Significantly unedited Draft namespace page. Previously nominated for Deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veeran Naal Sardari as incubate and then moved from Aricle Incubator to Draft namespace with the shutdown of the incubator. No constructive edits have been made to the page since it was put into Draft namespace or incubated. User who created the page has not edited the page since before the incubation. References consist of the facebook page of the film, 2 references to images from the primary star of the film, and a youtube video. No objection to re-creation in the future if a real draft is made Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Untouched draft leftover from the incubator, not AfC templated (so not G13 eligible). There was consensus to delete in the AfD, but it was incubated solely because it was expected that upon release it would pass WP:NFILMS. Well, a quick look around Google indicates that significant coverage never happened even after the film was released. As such this is a non-viable draft about a non-viable subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Riley Knight[edit]

Redundant draft article and main article has now been created at Riley Knight. Flickerd (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Histmerge needed? The draft predates the mainspace article, but also has all the hallmarks of being copied from something in mainspace itself (has cats and a full-blown infobox). I suppose it's possible the IP just took the framework from someplace else, but I'm just not sure. I think some further investigation is needed before we can say for sure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, hmm. So I think what happened is the IP took the article framework from someplace else: When created in July 2015 it had {{Use Australian English|date=April 2015}} and {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2015}} at the top. But it actually didn't have cats in the initial edit. So I think if we can verify that the mainspace version wasn't copied-and-pasted from draftspace, we can safely delete this without needing a histmerge. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Sarahkme/الأنثربولوجيا الطبية الشرعية[edit]

Stale draft in Arabic Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede translated: Legitimate medical anthropology is the application of knowledge of bio - anthropology and science of human bones in a legal circumference, and in most cases it is applied in criminal cases when the remains of (body) of the victim in the advanced stages of decomposition. It can help anthropologists and medical scientists legitimacy in the identification of the deceased persons who decomposition of their remains or burned or disfigured or has become possible not to identify them for another reason. According to the adjective "legitimate" to the application of this sub-field of science in the courts.

Maybe... Initial impression is WP:OR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Further investigation firms impression of WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOR. The phrase is unsourced, doesn't appear in a google ngram search, and ghits do not reveal the topic elsewhere mentioned. Nothing already at Medical anthropology. Note placed at Talk:Medical_anthropology#Legitimate_medical_anthropology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Probably would violate WP:A2 in mainspace as a duplicate of ar:أنثربولوجيا طبية شرعية (which itself has an IW to forensic anthropology, suggesting it'd also fail WP:A10). In fact it looks like the initial version of the Arabic Wikipedia article was created by the same account, and contained the same content. I get the feeling the editor created it here on accident, intending to create it at Arabic Wikipedia instead, and just never cleaned it up. As such, non-viable article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dominicpaul993[edit]

Userspace draft from July 2015 that was later re-created at List of highest-grossing Malayalam films which has since been merged into List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&redirect=no#Highest-grossing_Malayalam_films. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Highly rude and disruptive, editor in good standing and is actually useful to the project unlike the nominator. 166.170.45.134 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to List of highest-grossing Indian films per nom. No need for deletion or MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank: I don't agree with the redir since the content has since been merged, and it's not a particularly helpful redirect in that case. Leave a notation in the edit summary linking the article that was created. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Pardhu on wiki/Srikanth Addala[edit]

Four year old userspace draft already covered by Srikanth Addala. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect. No advantage to deleting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Meh: I feel kind of bad about this one. This editor beat the mainspace article creator the punch by about 6 months, but isn't the mainspace article creator because he/she did the right thing and did a userspace draft. I'm not a fan of redirecting because it doesn't look like any content from here was ever integrated into the mainspace article. Blanking might be better. In essence this draft works out in the same way as a content fork in userspace... though it's not a very meaty one, and probably not a controversial one either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If you blank without comment or even with Template:Inactive userpage blanked, doesn't that mislead the editor into thinking that they can restore their version and continue? Wouldn't it be better if they came back, saw their talk page has a link to this discussion (same with the deletion rationale if they go find their user page again) and saw that there was a mainspace version created after the fact, and that they should go there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jayadevp13/List of highest-grossing Malayalam films[edit]

Userspace draft already covered by List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest-grossing_Malayalam_films. There is no need for a separate, outdate table of the same information. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank: Got beat to the punch by the editor from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dominicpaul993 it seems, only by a few weeks too. The two appear to be wholly independent creations. I don't see an advantage to redirecting, particularly given the Malayalam films list article got merged: It'd kind of violate the principle of least astonishment we're supposed to follow with redirects. We might put a notation in the edit summary explaining that it's redundant to a mainspace article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank with a helpful note in the edit summary is a very good solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, {{Userpage blanked}} might also be helpful. You could leave a suggestion to work on the mainspace version in the |reason= parameter. A2soup (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

March 20, 2016[edit]

User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses[edit]

Draft from 2008 already covered by Shriya Saran. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

ignore or redirect. Is of no problem in userspace. Was a valid and proper use of userspace. User is a 30K+ edits productive user, it is rude to imply that they did not manage their userspace responsibly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It was never a valid use. The mainspace version was created in 2006. If I nominated this the day it was created, it should have been deleted under WP:UP#COPIES. Seven years later, it's still an inappropriate use. And what difference does it make that the editor was productive years ago? They haven't been here since 2011. If this was the editor's only edit, it would still the same problem as if this was Jimbo himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Shriya Saran mainspace page 17:19, 22 August 2008 does not look like User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses 13:53, 24 August 2008. Flagrant disregard to the details. It is not a "copy". WP:UP#COPIES does not apply. ignore or redirect is the solution to this non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Nominator's blatant lying about the details deserves sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.141 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank the section The draft portion of this page contains text lifted directly from this revision of Kirsten Dunst, evidently intending to be used as a framework for rewriting the early life section of Shriya Saran. It's not a UP copy in the strictest sense, so blanking the offending section is probably fine. It looks like this editor was keeping a list of Tamil actresses in his or her userspace... like as a minor watchlist? See the initial revisions of the page and edit summary. I think that part of it is fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Blank the section as per Mendaliv. Their listing of actresses is obviously fine. The duplicated content is not. ~ Rob^Talk 22:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ripeforchange/Jed Riffe[edit]

No context on this stale draft. Nearly blank. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Jed Riffe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

there is no purpose to a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Answered previously. The redirect points the user to where his past interest could be continued. Userspace redirects are very cheap and have no downside. MfD discussions and admin actions have more downside. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. No related history, this was created just two days before the mainspace version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:RilusMaximus/City of Sacramento[edit]

Stale draft redundant to existing articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Blank as a proper userspace test, but a tentatively productive Wikipedian. Not a good new article topic, per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. No reason to be rude. Nothing lost with this copy. 166.170.45.134 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor has not edited since 2012. Blanking only leave the page to be vandalized in the future. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The topic is fine. Blanking or blanking with template:inactive userpage blanked would mislead the editor into thinking that this page is actually appropriate. If the editor was actively (and say aggressively) working on this page rather than say Government of Sacramento, California which is the appropriate page, they would be directed to go edit the mainspace version and this would likely be deleted. It seems counter-intuitive that we do the opposite because the editor isn't actively here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems counter-intuitive that we do the opposite because the editor isn't actively here. That is an extremely important point. Launching this large offensive against traditional leeway in userspace, but only doing it where the user in question isn't here to explain, is a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What is intuitive about blanking a page to direct an editor to the history to undo the blanking when if the editor was actively editing the page, we could then take the page to MFD and delete it because it already exists here? I'm all about leeway but again, if the editor was actively here, there a little leeway about working on their own version of something that already exists but if they insisted upon doing that, it would be deleted and the editor would be asked to actually work on the encyclopedia which is the point here. If this page never came to MFD and the editor returned tomorrow and started again work on this and someone then took it to MFD, it would be deleted and they would be directed to the mainspace version. So why mislead editors in the name of "not aliening or not insulting or not being rude" that because they weren't here when the page was created, they'd shoudn't just be told to go work there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If that was genuinely your concern, the polite and appropriate thing to do would be to write them a note on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I did put a note on their talkpage with a link to this discussion so that in the unlikely event they come looking for their draft that dups the real article they will know why it was deleted. [10] Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete at best as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:RideTrack/new article name here[edit]

No sources, seems pretty fantastical. Might even be an attack page. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Rickyballgame/amandacostner[edit]

This is confusing - the article is not about the titled person (that was copied in) but is instead an effort to build an article on Lorena Ochoa in 2010, even though that has existed since 2005. The creator edited for less than 7 hours on 19 April 2010, and never touched mainspace. There is no attribution issues to justify a redirect. There is no reason to merge 7 years and hundreds of edits later. There is no reason to keep an alternative version of a well established article. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. This edit tells me its the opposite, an effort to build an article on Costner using the Ochoas page as a skeleton. As such, it's an unattributed Wikipedia copy. If there's interest in keeping the stub, the edits before that could be kept but I'm not certain about the potential for a draft on a golfer who was the 19th person on the money list for 2010 Duramed FUTURES Tour who has since quit to become a comedian. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Calendar box[edit]

This portal is currently not transcluded on any pages. The month links at the top now redirect to the year article and the previous history of these pages is now under subpages of Portal:Current events per an archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Weak keep. Mark as historical and/or redirect to Portal:Current events? It was used before and I don't like the idea of deleting actually used project pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling[edit]

I can't figure out where this stale draft is trying to go. It lacks context and references. We don't have Dynamic modeling or Dynamic Modeling as articles. I suggest we delete this. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. There is no need for someone not interested in the topic to try to figure it out. It is a good draft, with references, and there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a copy of State diagram. Viable options are to redirect to State diagram (implying that the user should work there instead) or replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} or do nothing (keep). There is additional material in this draft, and the information is not stale. Remove the AfC template if that is the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a copy. Fine in userspace indefinitely. If it were in DraftSpace, I would say "Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:State diagram, consistent with the policy WP:PRESERVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as a stale draft of a user who has not edited in 5 years and as a duplicate of State diagram, so there's no useful information being lost. ~ Rob^Talk 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful. There may even be some copyvios concerns - at least one sentence is a direct copy from one of the sources. And there is simply no substantive difference between placing {{Inactive userpage blanked}} on a page versus deleting and mentioning WP:REFUND in the deletion message. ~ Rob^Talk 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. It's the same topic. If a separate draft were to be created, it would be subject to deletion because it would be a duplicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nilocia/Transformice[edit]

Userspace draft from August 2010 of Transformice. The original version was created, deleted in July 2010 by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice and this fork was created. The mainspace version was recreated here so there's no need for this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mpolson92/2014 Rose Bowl[edit]

Userspace draft from September 2012 that is already covered by 2014 Rose Bowl. No connected history, editor's single edit was this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

March 19, 2016[edit]

User:Fryfrmry/Fry Brothers Golf[edit]

I'm not seeing this as an encyclopedia article. A single purpose account connected to the family build and abandoned it years ago. Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Replace with template:inactive userpage blanked. There's no CSD issues and it doesn't look like it's a deleted mainspace version or the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fsbof/Leader Garden[edit]

A 428 Unit condo development is not likely to be a notable article regardless of how many references show a piece of real estate exists. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Based on Category:Condominiums by country, the premise is wrong in that it is possible/likely to happen. This is just a poor example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bahria Town’s Grand Jamia Masjid[edit]

Draft from July 2015 that was created following some sort of dispute at Grand Jamia Mosque, Lahore. It seems to already be covered at Bahria_Town#Karachi and at Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi so it seems like the editor should instead work on the mainspace versions rather than use draftspace to complain and post unsourced statements. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV[edit]

I'd like for this page to be moved into User space and out of Wikipedia space. Essays reflect the viewpoint of their authors but they typically concern the project of editing on Wikipedia, not Egyptian politics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then? Did you really read the article deeply yourself? Well, it's not about Egyptian politics itself, but about how you can improve Wikipedia's coverage of modern (2013–present) Egyptian politics. I think one of the numerous problems is that Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptian politics is too biased in favor of the Brotherhood. NPOV should be taken into account and the pro-Brotherhood, anti-government bias should be removed. Yeah, it's an essay, reflecting my own views. I've put it into my userspace for now. See User:Zakawer/Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV. Zakawer (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

History merge the Wikipedia page into the userspace one and let's move on. Zakawer, Liz isn't arguing over the view within the essay itself, just its location at the moment. And essays typically proscribe issues with behavior on Wikipedia not particular content. Conduct an RFC or other mechanism on the Egyptian pages and work your point involving some points like WP:TERRORIST ("coup" can be contentious) rather than this essay. There is a parallel I can see but your essay does not help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Okay, Ricky81682. I can understand that. I've done an RFC on the talk page for the article I feel is the primary problem. See Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état for more details. Zakawer (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Userfy at minimum (following Ricky81682 above), but I'm leaning toward delete per WP:SOAPBOX. (By the way, this sort of statement is not encouraging, in view of the rest of the content of the essay: "I, for example, modified the entirety of Rabia sign to remove a lot of POV". The changes made to that article should be reviewed.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Acilegnasantos/Jasmine Sanders[edit]

Stale draft from 2011. User long inactive. References are poor. Subject is a radio personality but no solid notability demonstrated. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ace Mendiola/Forerunners National Youth Movement[edit]

The page for the parent organization Tabernacle of Faith International has been deleted 4 times for various reasons, including notability. An article on their youth group is therefore going no where. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. This version was created in July 2012 by the same editor who then created a more extensive mainspace version at Forerunners National Youth Movement in September 2012 which was deleted in January 2013 pursuant to the combined Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabernacle of Faith International. As such, it would have been deleted or redirected really back in September 2012 and then deleted in January 2013. We should just treat this as finishing off the old deletion and if there's interest in creating a new one, someone can argue for it at DRV to get the full histories and begin on a new draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Purpreezy[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:WilkSHAKE[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:HolyGhostCeaux[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:YGRN[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Arjun T 4 TEchInfo[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Will I live or travel in Vanuatu?[edit]

Basically self-explanatory from someone who apparently believes Wikipedia may be a journalism website and there's simply nothing to suggest this can be kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as non-article, personal essay, inappropriate to WP goal. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Indian Sinosceptic[edit]

Another sinosceptic template. This userbox is inappropriate because sinosceptism means that you are afraid of people from a certain country. I also nominate these other templates by the same user for the same reason:

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No - you're thinking of Sinophobia which despite the redirect from Sinosceptic is a different thing. Scepticism is more rational and fact-based, milder and not based on "fear", whereas a phobia is more intense and more emotional. For instance it's common for British Eurosceptics to say that they love Europe as a place (and are certainly not afraid of Europeans), but they can give you a dozen reason why the EU is a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Having said that I'm not sure it's a great idea to have these kind of templates available, because of the potential for adoption by those with less lofty motives. So I'd be a Weak Delete but wouldn't be too upset if they survived.Le Deluge (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all. I'm not seeing how these are helpful at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 18, 2016[edit]

Draft:Redefy Real Estate[edit]

Repeated resubmission of promotional article about a non-notable firm. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as certainly questionable, best restarted later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per the draft reviews: advertisement with only 1 source providing significant coverage. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 16, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:Verbage[edit]

Delete along with its numerous redirects and sandbox, per WP:POLICIES#Essays, WP:POLEMIC, WP:ASPERSIONS (and WP:CIVIL, etc., behind it), WP:SANCTIONGAMING, and WP:NONSENSE. This micro-essay on incoherence is itself completely incoherent, and was created and is maintained as a WP:ARBAE-connected dirtlist against one editor, with over a dozen accusations in it that the author, CFCF, cannot prove. To the extent any sense can be made of it, it is completely redundant with Wikipedia:Wall of text and Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (which should probably merge, but that's another discussion), and if the polemic material were removed there would be essentially nothing left. CFCF's attempt inject the gist of the page into WP:GAMING [11] was rapidly rejected as WP:CREEP [12]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In more detail:

It alleges that unclear writing and changing your position in the course of a discussion is WP:Disruptive editing. This is ridiculous and totally against policy and practice at Wikipedia. The entire reason we have WP:Consensus discussions at all is to arrive at compromise by changing others' and often our own minds, and it's a rare discussion here indeed in which every comment is perfectly cogent and no one has any doubts at all. There is absolutely no requirement that talk page posts be models of reason and English language usage. An editor who is afraid to change their mind in the course of discussion is fundamentally incapable of consensus-based work, and so is one more interested in picking at others' casual writing style rather than addressing the meaning of what they're posting. Ergo, this should at bare minimum be userspaced, per WP:POLICIES#Essays: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Essays.)" WP:ESSAYS in turn notes that MfD may userspace or delete anti-consensus essays.
It violates WP:POLEMIC, which simply mandates deletion: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." The fact that this is a one-editor attack piece being updated on-the-fly to needle a specific other editor by "recording perceived flaws" is easily proved with diffs. For example, the page's author added the "changing your position" invective at 10:36, 28 February 2016, only minutes after stating outright that the entire "essay" is about [his idiosyncratic perceptions of] me personally, at 10:02, 28 February 2016, and falsely accusing me of shifting my position in that discussion in some kind of untoward way that CFCF cannot articulate (note also that in the same post, CFCF goes all the way to back to 2007 in an attempt to find "dirt" on me with which to perpetuate the personal dispute he was trying to inject into an unrelated guideline wording discussion for no apparent reason). The number of aspersions cast in the "essay" are almost too many to catalogue; virtually every sentence of it has more than one:

At least 13 accusations CFCF cannot back up
dismissal of everything I post (or if this were taken as an honest essay in general, dismissal of everything posted by anyone who is not as concise as CFCF demands) as "word garbage" and "noise" (see the list of shortcuts) a bad-faith accusation of a "deliberative [sic] strategy to silence dissent" (he apparently meant "deliberate"; being wikt:deliberative is an unqualified virtue) a bad-faith accusation of trying to mislead others into thinking one is "winning" by posting more (i.e. the author of the essay doesn't think he is WP:WINNING, and that must be because the other party posted too long, not because the author doesn't have a proper rebuttal) – and since when are we supposed to do posting-length analysis to decide whether we're allowed to comment any further? That would mean anyone could dominate a discussion by posting clipped one-liners, then complaining that everyone else was posting more than they were! accusation of "lack of any real arguments" (if anything, I hit every salient argument that is applicable, to the displeasure of some, like CFCF, who find it hard to refute me when I'm onto something) another bad-faith accusation, of undermining the consensus-formation process of scaring away other editors of "obscuring the issues" (which is of course not possible when the length of one's posts is accounted for by covering all the salient issues in-depth) an accusation of incompetence with words apparent accusation of being unclear and of having comprehension difficulties accusation of incoherence, and a bad-faith accusation of using it specifically as a strategy for being able to change one's tune later of disruptive editing by reason of all of the above unsupported and unsupportable accusations of filibustering (an accusation CFCF added after I commented filibustering at WT:MEDRS).

At least 13 accusations CFCF cannot back up

dismissal of everything I post (or if this were taken as an honest essay in general, dismissal of everything posted by anyone who is not as concise as CFCF demands) as "word garbage" and "noise" (see the list of shortcuts)
a bad-faith accusation of a "deliberative [sic] strategy to silence dissent" (he apparently meant "deliberate"; being wikt:deliberative is an unqualified virtue)
a bad-faith accusation of trying to mislead others into thinking one is "winning" by posting more (i.e. the author of the essay doesn't think he is WP:WINNING, and that must be because the other party posted too long, not because the author doesn't have a proper rebuttal) – and since when are we supposed to do posting-length analysis to decide whether we're allowed to comment any further? That would mean anyone could dominate a discussion by posting clipped one-liners, then complaining that everyone else was posting more than they were!
accusation of "lack of any real arguments" (if anything, I hit every salient argument that is applicable, to the displeasure of some, like CFCF, who find it hard to refute me when I'm onto something)
another bad-faith accusation, of undermining the consensus-formation process
of scaring away other editors
of "obscuring the issues" (which is of course not possible when the length of one's posts is accounted for by covering all the salient issues in-depth)
an accusation of incompetence with words
apparent accusation of being unclear and of having comprehension difficulties
accusation of incoherence, and a bad-faith accusation of using it specifically as a strategy for being able to change one's tune later
of disruptive editing by reason of all of the above unsupported and unsupportable accusations
of filibustering (an accusation CFCF added after I commented filibustering at WT:MEDRS).

(I needn't get into the hypocrisy of many of these allegations.) What we have here is an editor who doesn't like long or complicated posts, no matter why they are, and who has collected every suspicion he's ever had and every fault he's ever found in anyone's post that happened to be long by his measure, decided they are all the exact same problem when they clearly are mostly unrelated issues (and largely paranoid, evidence-free assumption of bad faith), further decided irrationally to pin them all one other person whose arguments are hard for him to refute, and then grandstanded about it in a finger-pointing way. Well, here's a very concise and uncomplicated response to that: No.

As an unrelated WP:POLEMIC point, the piece's first sentence leads with a verbal slight against Republicans [in the sense of the US political party]; just because someone somewhere used this neologism that way doesn't make it appropriate to enshrine that usage in a WP: essay as if it's exemplary; political sniping is a WP:SOAPBOX matter.

The author "cites" the essay in ways that are even less cogent than the essay. E.g., here, giving the essay as a rationale for opposing a "pointless" proposal by a third party at WT:MEDRS (with whom CFCF is also frequently in conflict, over both WP:ARBEC and WP:ARBGMO matters, among others). I suspect CFCF thought it was my proposal, or was objecting on the basis that it was proposed in response to my having raised the issue initially; CFCF is very sore at me personally for going against him at WP:ARBEC and a strange proposal).

I believe this should simply be deleted (not userspaced) as unsalvageable nonsense, and because Wikipedia essays are not a magical safe-haven for behavior and content that transgresses WP:ASPERSIONS / WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:AGF / WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the deliberately unveiled attacks and aspersions were removed, nothing usable would be left, for further development or for merging. Given that on 1 April 2015 the community imposed general sanctions on the subject area of ARBEC which ArbCom upgraded to discretionary sanctions to encourage more enforcement, I considered taking this to WP:ARCA or WP:AE for action, since it's clearly WP:SANCTIONGAMING the remedies in ARBEC by perpetuating ad hominem disputation related to that case. But I believe MfDing this page will send a strong enough signal.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Strong keep — This is an absolutely silly rationale and an essay which under no circumstance points fingers to individual editors. The mere fact that the behaviors it outlines may be felt as an affront because one so blatantly displays them is not reason for deletion. CFCF 💌 📧 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I already pre-refuted that with cold, hard proof, of course: [13]; all you're doing (here and with additional hostilities like this) is reinforcing my point. If you spent more time reading posts instead of writing hate "essays" about their posters, you'd probably notice evidence diffs included in the posts. For the third time, I demand that you prove your allegations that I engage in the bad-faith behaviors you project onto me in your "essay", or retract them. Your post above constitutes another WP:NPA / WP:ASPERSIONS violation. As I thought I made clear, I will not hesitate to take this to ARCA or AE if it happens again. You've received and ignored far too many warnings already. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the fact that I believe your behaviour to be disruptive is not disallowed. The first post is a perfect example of trying to silence dissent by virtue of large volume of text. I don't see why I should answer your allegations, beyond stating that I find your writing unbearably incoherent (a position I am entitled to, and which I do not divulge unnecessarily). This has no relevance to any arbitration discussion, but to the fact that I and many others can not make out what you write (especially so in policy discussions, such as on WT:MEDRS). This is not a "hate-essay", the mere fact that it applies to you is not enough to make it hateful — and any independent party will be quick to notice this. CFCF 💌 📧 14:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Edit: underlinedCFCF 💌 📧 15:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

More incoherent ranting that's not responsive to anything substantive. Replying to you with a few sentences is not "a large volume of text". Keep digging that hole, though, and cf. your own "essay" positions on trying to weasel your way out of previous statements, and on language competence. My policy arguments may be detailed, but they're very, very clear. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's worse than I thought. Update: CFCF is busy at WP:NOTHERE work on another similar piece at User:CFCF/sandbox/Waste, an anti-WP:GNOME piece also full of invective and aspersion-casting labeling of other editors, like "sociopath", "stupidity", "you are actively being disruptive and the world is lesser for your existence" (I couldn't make this stuff up!), "Don't be an inadvertent troll", and the planned creation of an anti-barnstar for people who make edits CFCF considers trivial (it shouldn't be lost on anyone that this rambling, unfocused diatribe is precisely the "verbage" [sic] and "waste" that CFCF is shaking his fist about.) I believe this page should also be MfDed for deletion, with prejudice. CFCF needs to ask himself the question he poses at that second page: "does fulfilling my esoteric desire to engage in this pointless manner ruin things for others?"
A third one in the same vein appears to be in the works at User:CFCF/sandbox/Fool, with shortcuts like WP:CALLOUT, and content thus far of "don't feed the amateur" (which is ironic for a reason that's obvious from reading CFCF's user page). It's time to bring to a close this misuse of WP resources for the nonencyclopedic pursuit of damning other editors with idiosyncratic complaints. (Someone else should probably MfD these two.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I consider my sandbox — especially the contents I do not link — a forum for my personal ideas, which may or may not be widely accepted. This essay is not published anywhere, and would not be published in the form it is now — and the difference is I have never expected anyone to read it — thus never wasting other people's time. CFCF 💌 📧 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to make clear that the essay is intended to be ironic and humorous, and it may have been poor judgement to create a barnstar, but finding the pretty S-icon with Sisyphus almost obliged me to draft one. I never intended it to be used, and neither has it — mainly because noone has linked to the page beyond now SmcCandlish. CFCF 💌 📧 15:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very clear that you think of your userspace (and essays you move out of it) as a forum for your personal ideas, and that's the crux of the problem. See WP:NOT#WEBOST, WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:USERSPACE, and the policies already cited. Pages being in your userspace does not make them mystically immune to AGF, CIVIL, ASPERSIONS, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Send essay to userspace under the presumption that it's a draft of a Wikipedia essay or a personal reflection on Wikipedia (which are usually allowed in userspace). If it's being used disruptively, the removal of the imprimatur of authority projectspace can give is a decent enough stopgap until we can address it as purely disruptive. Delete or retarget redirects: WP:VERBIAGE and WP:Verbiage (the whole point of "verbage" seems to be that it's a misspelling or portmanteau and not related to this word at all, which should point someplace else entirely... for instance an essay dealing with how policies and guidelines are interpreted); WP:NOISE (would be better targeted to WP:INDUSTRIAL, which deals with the genre of noise music); WP:SUCCINCT, WP:SUCCINCTLY, WP:BESUCCINCT, WP:BE SUCCINCT, and their lowercase versions (should target any of a variety of other places, or point to a shortcut dab page); WP:WORDGARBAGE (probably should be deleted as incapable of being used civilly). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a draft. It was drafted in userspace [14], and it now exists as a WP essay. Userspacing it does nothing about its WP:POLEMIC failures; it would be deleted as polemic even if it already existed in userspace. Redirs: It's probably "namespace pollution" to retarget these, since they were unused before this essay, and the essay has no currency, so they are effectively still unused. We don't need to preserve lowercase shortcuts or those with spaces in them at all, since we don't use shortcuts like that (a few exist, but they are disused). If WP:INDUSTRIAL wants WP:NOISE, they can use it after it's deleted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh. If the usual procedure is to delete and then allow recreation of the redirs if wanted, rather than just retargeting, then that's fine. I've not hung around RfD much but I think we should follow the same standards they would. We are in agreement that it's a case of shortcut pollution. I'm not with you on the polemic argument, though. What's written doesn't strike me as more polemical than other, accepted (even if controversial) essays/links (WP:DICK, WP:LEW, WP:TIGER, WP:DBO to name a few). I admit, your nom statement indicates there's probably some additional background here, but I don't think that contaminates what's written here. If CFCF is misusing this essay, then that's something that can be addressed elsewhere. I'll conclude by saying I don't find this particular essay valuable, and think it's clearly redundant to others, but my experience has been that the bar for allowing something to stand in userspace is quite low. I think that this essay may meet that bar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If it were just some essay, I would agree with you, but it is not. CFCF has loudly advertised it in an off-topic post to a highly-watchisted guideline talk page as being specifically, entirely, personally directed at me [15]. He cannot hide behind the fact that the wording doesn't name me as the subject of his bad-faith accusations, when me makes a shameless point of announcing them on a different page. That's patent WP:SANCTIONGAMING. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Userfy. Neologism. Connection to Wikipedia not strong, application is singles user's opinion. Not so polemic to be disallowed from userspace. In general, disputed single author essays belong in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: It should not be kept, when the author intended it as and uses it as nothing but a one-target attack page [16] (it makes specific but unproven accusations of bad-faith action), and he is gaming the system to avoid accountability for UNCIVIL, POLEMIC, NPA, ASPERSIONS, etc., by playing a "make the accusations here, but only identify who I'm accusing there" shell-game. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 10, 2016[edit]

User:Olly836/Ian Olliver[edit]

Autobiography of a musician found in stale draft list. No sources and no strong claim to notability. Maybe qualifies for NOTAWEBHOST. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply since the page is clearly written to be an encyclopedic article and can serve no other purpose. Tone is not promotional. WP:V and WP:N are irrelevant in userspace. No reason to delete exists. Per WP:MfD: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." To remove this page from the stale draft category, recategorize into maintenance category and blank+template are better options that I would be fine with. A2soup (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete: It's a WP:STALEDRAFT, and contains unsourced claims about BLP subjects, not only the actual subject. STALEDRAFT #2 says that we should consider blank+template. I don't think that's adequate in this circumstance. STALEDRAFT #4 only applies if there's "some potential". I see no potential for this. From all appearances the only claim to notability this subject has is that he was one of the three members of the PJ Harvey Trio (which has no article, though PJ Harvey does); everywhere else he doesn't seem to have been a prominent member, or the band wasn't prominent. So I have a pretty strong suspicion this wouldn't survive AfD anyway... meaning no potential. In fact, STALEDRAFT #3 suggests we might consider U5: While it's not promotional, it is "otherwise unsuitable" (unsourced BLP), and Olly836 was never a serious Wikipedia editor. Even so, I think a straight delete is better here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a very odd reading of WP:STALEDRAFT, seeing as the only point in that guideline that directly references non-U5 deletion is #6, which reads: "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." I can accept the no potential, but what here is problematic even if blanked? Note that BLP issues are specifically given as an example of when blanking would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Consider" does not mean "you must". I considered it and I disagree that blanking is sufficient to address the BLP issues here. None of the other alternatives appear reasonable for this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If any BLP issues can be addressed by blanking, these can. They are about as minor as BLP issues can get - the draft is dully factual and makes neither positive nor negative nor extraordinary (or even very interesting) claims. Are there any cases in which blanking is sufficient to address BLP issues? If yes, what do those cases look like? If no, then you just disagree with the guideline. A2soup (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep but blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Some weak claim to notability, some decent content, this is not the sort of worthless of draft that needs deletion, could be useful, does no harm in userspace, and less harm if blanked. Anyone else interested will find it via its title in a Wikipedia userspace search. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is an evident COI here. It's promotional in tone. It would not survive AfD, and yes I know that A2soup does not consider GNG to apply on a case like this, but if this is kept, it should be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

...but no one wants it in mainspace in its current state. It's obviously not ready for mainspace - that's why its still a draft. Why should it be tested in mainspace? Also, can you give a quote from the draft that you find to have a promotional tone? I don't see any. A2soup (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

are you offering to adopt it and improve for mainspace? It is not going too be the creating editor, or a mythical future editor, so if not you, then why keep it? The user made three edits total, on one day in Sept 2011, and the other two were to add unsourced info to another related article. [17]. How long should we keep this... another year, two, 50 years? The existence of the page is promotional as it covers a person that fails GNG and the guy wrote it about himself. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's not the content of the page but its existence that is promotional. I don't agree with that application of promotion - see for example WP:COIATTRIBUTE, which seems to suggest draftspace as a place for COI edits to be drafted for copying to mainspace by other editors. In any case, the promotion here, if it exists, is so mild that blanking is more than sufficient. Re "why keep it?" - because deletion is a worse option that the alternatives - see my long post here, to which has also been added the additional alternative of recategorizing to an informative maintenance category. A2soup (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as none of this suggests the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What notability is "applicable" in userspace? A2soup (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project" See WP:UP#GOALS and WP:UP#PROMO since it does not pass GNG is is unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And again, WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your disruption has no point. Quit it please. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that when this practice was discussed, it was condemned by literally everyone who participated in the discussion except yourself. A2soup (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussed by a small group of editors with an agenda based on a faulty reading of an RfC. In other places it has been widely supported that a Keep at MfD is an endorsement of the content going to mainspace sooner or later. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Can you provide a link to one of these "other places"? A2soup (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Start with the ANi thread you participated in. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~

I mean, I wasn't going to mention it, because you would probably call it a personal attack, but in that thread I see an admin sanctioning you for the move. Liz condemns the move. The Voidwalker seems to have a problem with your supposed thought process, but doesn't reach a conclusion. Robert McClenon says it's not a conduct issue, but recommends reversing the move, which is certainly not an endorsement. SoftLavender says that moving pages useful to the encyclopedia to mainspace is fine. Rob says the move is WP:POINT. Ricky says most of your moves seem fine, but doesn't endorse the practice of moving to mainspace drafts not suitable for mainspace. Mendaliv is the only one to support the move, citing IAR. SmokeyJoe and I of course condemn the move. Then the discussion veers into policy and away from your moves in particular. So I count 6 editors (Martin, Liz, Robert McClenon, Rob, SmokeyJoe, and I) disagreeing with the move (and one sanctioning you for it), 3 (The Voidwalker, Ricky, and SoftLavender) not giving a definite view, and 2 (Mendaliv and yourself) supporting it. You're going to have to forgive me if I don't see moving pages into mainspace that you know are not suitable for mainspace being "widely supported" in that discussion. Any other discussions you want to point out? A2soup (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment this page was evidently written by the subject in 2011. It was one of three edits, all to insert himself into Wikipedia, within a few minutes. The editor was not here to build an encyclopedia. There are no references. No verification. Nothing that suggests this article or any article on this person would survive in mainspace. The keep comments here are just noise and nonsense for the sake of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that is your opinion, but there is not clear consensus that it matches the opinion of the community. Dismissing others' opinions as disruption and promising to nominate thousands of similar articles regardless of the actual content of our guidelines is a problem. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Fails WP:MUSICIAN, and as a "autobiography" it is also WP:UP#PROMO. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

March 5, 2016[edit]

User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret[edit]

This article subject has been floating around here since September 2004. It was deleted from mainspace by AFDs in 2007, in January 2011 and again per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (5th nomination) in December 2013. A restoration request was made in February 2014 so this was moved here but no editing was done to this draft and the editor seemed to have stopped editing here in November 2015. I think we can delete this again and if someone wants to ask for recreation, they can if they provide some actual significant coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still here, and she is still an important activist. It would be better if the article was restored and then built up again. She is widely published Bachcell (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No one else seems to think so. Are you planning on working on this or just keep on asking for recreation to keep a version of this around? It's been deleted three times at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Well within reasonable leeway for a productive Wikipedian. No evidence that the user is irresponsible in userspace. There are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you have considered voting keep for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Conrad Hughes Hilton III? That wasn't editing since April 2015 and was only deleted because of one AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682. Firstly, it is not a very similar case, because it is not in userspace. However... I always start by considering "Keep" until I am satisfied of the rationale for deletion. The nomination there was immediately convincing, except for the word "restored" which left the begging question "why was it restored"? The AfD was convincing, four participants all in complete agreement; the number of AfD discussions is an unexpected point. One clear AfD is far more convincing that several messy AfD discussions. I might have looked at the content to check that the contents matched the AfD comments. I am very comfortable for that draftified deleted article to have been deleted while allowing User:Bachcell as much time as he likes. I would, as I have said maybe hundreds of times over almost ten years, advise the User is blank the contents of userfied deleted pages during periods of activity, especially where there is a possible issue of WP:Advocacy.

As an aside, I think the Leuren Moret story is very interesting, and that the nuclear material / radiation / depleted uranium in munitions story is interested, and probably already well covered. I believe that there is an error in the deleted article, as depleted uranium poses a zero radiation issue. Zero, because there is no evidence that tiny radiation doses do damage, see radiation hormesis. Instead, depleted uranium in munitions leads to its dispersal as a fine powder that that it is hazardous as a toxic heavy metal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So do you want it put in mainspace? Should we have to go through a sixth AFD before actual deletion can be considered? Does that fact that it hasn't been edited since 2014 matter? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not want to put it in mainspace, it needs caring work. The AfDs are significant, but don't neglect to mention that some concluded as "keep", and all, individually and collectively, are very weak. No, time since last edit is irrelevant if it contains material helpful for building an article. Time measures of inactivity were brought in to facilitate easy reject of old worthless stuff. Having established that this is not worthless, it is inappropriate to try to apply time limits. The page should be classified as a B-grade draft if processing must be done, it should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Stale draft, zombie since 2007 when it was deleted from mainspace. No indication that it will ever be improved enough to merit reconsideration for mainspace. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete it is actually the oldest stale draft in the system [18] at the moment. If it is not going to be an article it needs to go already. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Bachcell: can you point to any additional substantial coverage that have been published since 2013 that might result in this subject becoming notable? The spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST implies that we should respect the consensus at the previous AfD by not keeping an exact copy of the article in user space indefinitely. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per users Legacypac and Hobbes. If the people who want to keep this don't improve the article despite repeated deletion nominations, then it doesn't deserve to be kept any longer. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

February 28, 2016[edit]

Draft:Cache memory[edit]

Draft from September 2014 that is already covered in mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination suggests redirection, with no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom and no value to a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep Don't redirect or blank. Cache memory is a redirect to CPU cache, which has different content. We may need to contemplate a WP:MERGE, but I'm thinking that this may end up with multiple sub-articles. For example, the very detailed section on cache coherence probably needs to be WP:SPLIT to Cache coherence#Coherency protocols. This needs to be handled by editors that know something about the subject, which appears to be none of the participants in this MFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it a useful draft? This was originally a stub, then a one-person page dump of over 120k text with very erratic sourcing and numerous images uploaded by that same (somewhat suspect) was done back in late 2014, moved to draftspace and other than some minimal clean-up, it seems like no one has found it particularly useful. It may be junk from a crank from all I can tell but the issues here are expressed on the talk page as well. It may be a WP:TNT but if you think it is could be useful, I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could be useful, but it is not my expertise. It could be a fork of existing article content, maybe I should look harder. I note that it is not obviously the same as the article under the same title. If potentially useful, until someone knowledgeable says it is not, I don't think being old is a good reason to delete it, or even to blank it. It, its content, should remain findable by an internal Wikipedia search. Note that the routine deletion of AfC materials was motivated by massive numbers of trivially worthless pages. This draft is not typical of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, it has serious copyediting needs, but I think that at least parts of it could be useful to expand existing articles. User:Dsimic, can you take a look, or suggest someone else who might be able to make sense of this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think it could be useful, I'll withdraw it but the first step would probably be to cut everything unsourced and work off the actual sourced material and images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to mainspace immediately over redirect (for future cleanup or merge with CPU cache). If there is a good reason to merge it into CPU cache directly instead, then keep. This one needs cleanup, but is a valid topic and the draft contains enough content to survive in mainspace. Its deletion would be a net loss to the project. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd[edit]

Stale draft evidently created to support a high school teacher's failed efforts to get elected. Being a perennial failed political candidate not get a person past GNG. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete as I believe I also encountered this and may've planned to nominate, there are no convincing signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Close to "promotion", but not offensively so. Good attempt as sourcing and appropriate writing. The GNG is not relevant to userpages. No reason for deletion has been given. If an editor thinks these userpage is unlikely to be ever useful to anyone, then that editor could blank the page with an explanation in the edit summary. Keep. This nomination is a misuse of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe gives no rational as to why this should be placed in mainspace or how it benefits the project therefore his keep vote is a misuse of MfD. Blanking is a unilateral decision, and if a lot of blanking happens other editors will be up in arms about other editors acting without community input. Mocking the nomination by saying 'no reason for deletion has been given' is offensive and disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No rationale for placing the page in mainspace is given because SmokeyJoe is not suggesting that the page should be put in mainspace. Where do you see that suggestion in his comment? A2soup (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

He wants to keep it so must feel this will benefit the project as keeping a stale draft is not going to improve the project. At least there will be no objection to questioning how it stands up to GNG when in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Benefit the project" ≠ "Move to mainspace in its current form". Also, "unilateral action" is what editors are supposed to do (within reason). We do make a big deal out of telling people to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete: This item shouldn't be deleted because the subject might not meet the GNG. It should be deleted because the creator of the draft hasn't been seen in four years. If SmokeyJoe wants to move this to his OWN userpage, and commit to turning this into a mainspace article within a short period of time, I'm all for that. Ravenswing 06:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you want to write off the possibility of the user returning, create barriers if they do return, set up a self-fulfilling prophesy that ex-editors don't return? And what is the benefit of hiding of the material from non-admins? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If the editor returns, they have been notified about this discussion with the names of people involved here. They can ask and have it restored with much objection. Advocate for a soft delete or something if that's your concern. You don't have any justification for keeping it where it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Justification includes that it is a good draft in the correct place authored by a productive Wikipedian. I think you don't appreciate how affronting it is to return to find your work deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The editor has been gone for four years and absent any indication that someone else is interested in this abandoned drafts, there is no need to keep there around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep and blank the page. There is nothing in that page that requires blocking access for editors to read it, so there is no need for administrative action. If the author returns, or any one decides to retake the article for any reason, they could recover it from the page history without requiring a second unneeded administrative action to revert the first unneeded one. Of course, the GNG is absolutely irrelevant to pages that are not located at Article space. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need to keep WP:STALEDRAFTs indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@P199: what exactly in the link you provided leads you to the conclusion that drafts should be deleted after a definite amount of time? VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

January 26, 2016[edit]

User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft[edit]

Editor has not edited on Wikipedia since 2011. Does not want this moved to mainspace. See talk for reasons, However, since this is not going to mainspace it should be removed, Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect the Khaled Abol Naga page as Khaled Abol Naga already exists. The draft is a clear violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:OWN, I suggest we move the Tarek Naga page to draftspace. It seems notable but requires a lot of cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove delete as it seems like they were related, I didn't look in the right history. A history merge seems messy so a redirect seems sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - regrettable that this editor never returned, and maybe a sad commentary on our support for editors with disabilities. I think it may be worthwhile to hear from Petrb here. He adopted this user back in the day. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Expanding: Khaled Abol Naga seems to be a cut-and-paste copy of the mainspace article from an older revision, which Aakheperure was intending to work on, and since it got bumped to main space at some point there are contribs from other editors. This might require a messy history merge. On the other hand, Tarek Naga seems to have been a frequent target of a sockpuppeting editor who liked to cut-and-paste userspace drafts to main space to steal credit for them; it's already been histmerged at least twice. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

History merge the Khaled Abol Naga draft with Khaled Abol Naga per my comment above; move the Tarek Naga page to Draft:Tarek Naga per Ricky81682. I'm sympathetic to the desire of an impaired editor to create and work on articles in the way that works best for them, so long as that is in the best interests of Wikipedia (and it often is), but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and nobody owns pages, not even in their user space. They've evidently retired, and someone else should have a chance to work on these pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I should have made more clear - I'm very sympathetic to the editor's desire to edit in draft space given his visual impairment. I just bring the stale pages for appropriate action. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And honestly I hope we can work on the draft and take it to mainspace. If the editor returns, I hope they appreciate that someone did look after the work, not just let it sit there ignored. :/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So ok to ignore the author's request not to move the draft? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not ignored, but considered, and in this case denied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN. They agreed to give up their total rights when they edited here under the GFDL. We've had editors come here, and someone changes their page or renames it and they start demanding retraction of their edits and deletions of everything and they're told, either you follow these rules or you're treated for the disruption you're causing. If not, we could delete it but I don't think that's ultimately productive and frankly I don't like the precedent of "this is content, Wikipedia can only have it if I get to decide what happens to it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the editor does return and wishes to edit using their process of downloading the article, editing offline, and then uploading their revised version, I think we can be sympathetic to that. As long as they're actively editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

History merge the pre-23:40, 22 January 2011‎ versions of the draft to the mainspace article. Delete the subsequent draft versions. Content forks, even in different namespaces, are a very bad idea and not allowed.

RE reasons for wanting to edit elsewhere for visual impairment reasons. Editing a copy elsewhere is always welcome, short term. Usually about a week max, and it gets really complicated if you take longer than others' edits to the mainspace article. Do not keep copies any longer than required, they are an attribution compliance hazard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Still argue for the history merge of the older versions, but later versions do have worthwhile improvements. A careful repair of the forking is required, I am not sure how this is best done.

User:Aakheperure wrote in big on the top of the draft:

"Please do not move this draft without asking the author!

If you see this draft elsewhere in Wikipedia, please do not histmerge. Chances are it was taken from Aakheperure without his consent. Thank you."

That explicit assertion of WP:OWNership should be repudiated. "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with ..." is not easily missed. User:Obsidian Soul was wrong to defer to User:Aakheperure's assertion of ownership when he moved this page from mainsapce back to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For those who don't know the history of this article. This was originally a planned draft by a new editor who was being pestered by another user who keeps moving his drafts from his userspace before they were finished. He asked for help from #wikipedia-en-help ^connect in IRC for this. But he was already pretty angry and desperate by that time, so it was probably too late to stop him from completely giving up on Wikipedia.

Just because we don't own anything, doesn't mean it's totally alright to disrupt someone else's work process (especially given that User:Aakheperure was visually impaired and could not work directly on mainspace). People work in userspace so they can have more room for half-finished stuff without having to worry about edit conflicts. Asserting that that's WP:OWN is ridiculous. This was not a long-term "content fork" either. It was only one day-old before the disruptions started happening. He was planning to merge it properly when it was done. And as as far as I recall, this also happened to the rest of his drafts.

User:Aakheperure was a good editor and would have likely contributed more if this had not happened. It has nothing to do with WP:OWN, more with basic editing etiquette. That said, given that he seems to be gone for good, a Merge seems to be the only option, as the draft is still in better shape than the mainspace article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge The mainspace page is currently suffering from a lack of references, which the draft page seems to have more that can help it. Deletion is not the only tool in the chest. If the editor has departed the WikiVerse in protesst, then they've effectively given up their exclusive editing right to a page. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Ideally, I think this should be merged into the mainspace page. If other editors decide that this should not be merged into the main page because of the original editor's objections, then this should still be kept. At the very most, it could be blanked. Please reread WP:STALE: it says that stale drafts should only be deleted as a last resort if "problematic even if blanked," which is not remotely true here.Fagles (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Merge Khaled Abol Naga to existing mainspace article. Anyone having a vague idea of a history merge will know that a history merge is not possible here, because of parallel histories. Merge is appropriate as the draft has plenty of refs compared to just one in the mainspace article. And Keep Tarek Naga draft. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and SmokeyJoe: 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't keep these drafts as that helps no one. I'm happy with a merge. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge Khaled Abol Naga along the lines indicated in WP:PV, though I'm not convinced a histmerge is impossible (just that the result would be confusing and as such, probably inadvisable). The mainspace article wasn't edited at all during the active period this draft was edited; the result would be that all the added text would then appear to be removed by the first edit in May 2011. If we just go with the {{copied}}-type fix, I'm not such a big fan of leaving the history in userspace. The instructions at PV provide an alternate option that might be considered (keeping the history in a subpage that redirects to the article itself), but I think we should leave that for the admins who monitor WP:REPAIR. Draftify Tarek Naga draft, for now anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Move Tarek Naga draft to main space and leave a redirect in case Aakheperure does return, however unlikely that is. I've done some cleanup and I think the article is sufficiently referenced for mainspace. It does need some more work, but we have far worse biographies in article space. I'll also point out that the "please don't move this page" notice was actually added by Obsidian Soul ([19]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
As for the Khaled Abol Naga draft, I agree with Mendaliv that a history merge wouldn't be terribly messy, since all of Aakheperure's edits to the draft fall into a period where there were no significant edits to the mainspace article. There would just be one edit on 12 May 2011 that looks like a mass-reversion, but that's not terrible. That makes attribution simple if anyone decides to use Aakheperure's content from the draft. The two more recent edits could be left attached to the draft page, which would become a redirect to the article, in case the editor ever returns to look for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. A history merge is desirable, significant edits in two histories is worse that what sounds likes only a mildly messy history merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Wikipedia community

Welcome to Wikipedia	Community portal Job Center Regional notice boards News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Awards Reward board Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous

Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Portals Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors

WikiProjects and groups	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility

Maintenance tasks	Open tasks Cleanup Vandalism Database reports 'As of' Page Curation Recent changes Backlog Controversial issues Dusty articles

Administrators and noticeboards	Dashboard Admin Admin requests Administrators' Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Requests for closure Revision deletion Oversight Request Page protection Sockpuppets User permissions Open proxies Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship & bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement

Content dispute resolution	Editor assistance Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources Mediation

Other noticeboards and assistance	New contributors' Teahouse Asking questions Help desk Reference desk Requests for help Adopt-a-user Online Ambassadors Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Paid editors Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bot owners' Education Incidents New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse

Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Possibly unfree Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue

Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones

Directories and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Template messages Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160329221014/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion