Current discussions[edit]

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

November 16, 2021[edit]

Portal:Critique of political economy[edit]

Portal:Critique of political economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Topic is not nearly broad enough for a portal, while WP:P2 doesn't apply, everything is better explained and presented in the article Critique of political economy. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to make it broader.

Pauloroboto (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 15, 2021[edit]

Draft:Albert Joseph Kasongo Wa Kapinga[edit]

Draft:Albert Joseph Kasongo Wa Kapinga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft doesn't indicate the importance for this biography (see WP:SIGNIFICANCE for details). Vitaium (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Completely valid draft that is obviously unfinished. Article space notability requirements do not apply to content in the draft namespace, and it's not fair to judge someone's notability from an obviously unfinished page. The nominator needs a (another) warning for disruptive editing (and possibly a WP:CIR block) following the ridiculous speedy deletion tagging of this draft under 5 criteria which did not apply and this rather WP:BITEey deletion nomination of a new editor's first attempt at writing an article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vitaium is asking to provide services (I don't know, paid or unpaid) to build my Draft article in wikipedia and prevent my Draft article from vandalism. Is this a scam or coercion for a new user who is just starting the draft article. User:Vitaium recently deleted his message offering his service (paid or unpaid, I don't know). I am not sure if this is a scam, so no response. User:Vitaium move to quickly put my Draft article into speedy deletion. Craziness!! This is a two days old initial draft, still working on it. So what is the problem here. It seems to me someone is trying to scam me for money. Will not get any money from me! I am not getting paid and I will not pay to write a Draft article. Thank you! Bougnole (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for rejecting the ridiculous speedy deletion request. You should monitor User:Vitaium activity with other new wikipedia users. This individual might be harassing other new wikipedia users too!! Bougnole (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bougnole: If it's the messages on your talk page that you're concerned about then don't worry, they're just standard messages left to inform people that pages they contributed to have been nominated for deletion, you should never have received them because this page should never have been nominated for deletion in the first place but they're not asking you to pay for anything or to accept services. Based on the hundreds and hundreds of times I've seen this happen previously I can almost guarantee that Vitaium is a "younger editor" who's jumped into administrative areas of the encyclopedia despite not having a clue what they're doing and are likely to find themselves blocked if they don't stop with the ridiculous deletion nominations sharpish. I see an admin has now given a final warning to Vitaium and has told them they will be blocked if this continues, so hopefully that will be the end of it. I hope this hasn't upset you too much and that you decide to stay.

P.S. Have you had a read of Your first article and Referencing for beginners? They're quite helpful guides on writing your first page. If you need help there's a help desk for beginners at the Teahouse. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and I will read the references you provided. It helps me as a new users to stay. Thank you so much! Bougnole (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a very incomplete draft and is a proper use of draft space. How can a draft indicate the notability of its subject when it is incomplete, and how can an author develop a good draft for review if the incomplete draft gets tagged for deletion? The nominator should stop ragpicking. If they are editing in good faith, they should be aware that this sort of offering of questionable services to other editors is likely to be seen as corrupt. User:Bougnole is right that User:Vitaium should stop monitoring other editors, and may need to be monitored instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per 168.1.15.238 and Robert: the whole point of draftspace is to contain articles that aren't ready for mainspace, so nominating them here is, at best, unproductive. See WP:NMFD, WP:RAGPICKING, WP:BITE etc. My sincere apologies to Bougnole: this isn't how our deletion process is supposed to work. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 14, 2021[edit]

User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie[edit]

User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be some sort of inappropriate fan-fiction about Wikipedia users. It has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, violates WP:DENY, and verges on harassment insofar as it involves writing nonsense about real Wikipedia editors without their consent. See this post by the page creator on my talk page for more context. Spicy (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I will not !vote per WP:COI, but I feel you should know there are already multiple Wikipedia movies. See below:

Wikipedia I: The Movie

Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back

Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals

Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey

Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor

Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story

Wikipedia: The Musical

Movies in bold are completed; movies in italics are still under construction.

Spinoffs:

User:Double sharp/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

I also removed any mention of Sportstir, since you found it troublesome. A ding ding ding... is already an established villain in the Wikipedia movie canon. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Delete – not what userspace is meant for (NOTSOCIAL/NOTWEBHOST/NOTESSAY), especially when it involves real users and sockpuppets. Regardless, I'd encourage JulieMinkai to read what userspace is and isn't. (Full disclosure: I TPS Spicy and posted in that thread so I an not an uninvolved voice here.) Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  And re the other pages, while I haven't looked at them deeply I imagine the fact that they are multiple years old each (some over a decade!) make them somewhat eligible for the grandfather clause. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn’t need more embarrassing dreck from ye bad olde days of Esperanza, the Pokemon Test, and Steven Colbert vandalism. I get more than enough of that in the talk page archives. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, for the sake of people's privacy. I don't mind innocent things in this category, but since it's a fan fiction involving real people then I believe you get the idea. I would be uncomfortable to find out that I'm an antagonist in a fanfic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all: With a courtesy hold, in case the creator would like to move all of these stories into another platform, like Archive of Our Own. Curbon7 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Curbon7: I already moved the planning into a Google doc. You'll have to ask the other users about the other pages. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Pinging @Raul654, Drahcir, Brambleberry of RiverClan, Fcbcampnou, Airhogs777, and Double sharp to alert them to this discussion. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes} 22:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Feel free to get rid of the one in my userspace, at least; I outgrew this stuff many years ago. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Brambleberry of RiverClan moved to @GhostRiver. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
        • In favor of deletion. I was an actual child when I was working on these and was half under the belief they'd already been deleted. — GhostRiver 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The following users have been inactive for over a year, so don’t expect any response from them: Drahcir (last edit 2012) Fcbcampnou (LE 2020) Airhogs777 (LE 2015) Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete All - The list of cabals is humor. These 'movies' do not qualify as humor and are inappropriate with respect to the policies on biographies of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that this was going on for an extended period until one of the authors asked a question that gave away the existence of their cabal. If you have a cabal, it is supposed to be secret. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all. Looks like a few editors using our free software to create a rather boring fantasy world which does nothing to improve the encyclopedia and is unlikely ever to so do. – Athaenara ✉ 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all the titles are very slightly amusing and largely inoffensive in a vacuum, but who the hell thinks it’s funny or okay to write fanfiction about real users on the platform they’re writing on?! A dumb one-off joke that got way out of hand. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (PS why couldn’t these have just been about the Wiki-sisters and other stock Wikimedia characters like the generic villain guy, Wikipede, and the cabals? Wouldn’t that be way funnier and more logical?) Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Preserving “Vandals in Scene 15 - Uncyclopedians unaware that they are acting in Wikipedia the Movie” because it’s the only thing I actually thought was funny. Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Nitpick, but Attack of the Vandals has an infobox for a fictional battle in a clear violation of Wikipedia’s policy on in-universe writing [sarcasm]. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • That's only a policy for articles, though. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I was kidding. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the old ones, at leastUpdate: see below - There are two separate issues brought up: one is that it's a WP:NOT or UPNOT issue, the other that it's a BLP/civility issue. On the first count, we have a ton of old goofy humor from the first ten years of the project, and as long as the people involved are otherwise WP:HERE, I don't see a problem with retaining it. Not my cup of tea, but these have been widely linked, widely mentioned, and a corner of Wikipedia culture. I remember coming across them when I was lurking/researching in ~2008 as one of many examples of a particular kind of at least somewhat endearing, geeky humor -- evidence that there was in fact a community of people who like each other here rather than a bunch of anonymous drones. User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie has been edited by 192 different people! As for BLP, yes certainly we should not host any attacks on people, and if anyone objects to being part of it they shouldn't be part of it. Could someone identify attacks or objections from people who wanted to be removed but weren't? I don't have a strong opinion on this most recent one, being the work of one person, but it also only mentions two Wikipedians. One is a sockmaster and meh, maybe remove. The other is Jimbo, who of course features prominently in many (all?) of these? So I wonder if Jimbo Wales would be interested to comment? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I added a neutral pointer to Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun, given these have their own section of that project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Nostalgia doesn’t trump a clear consensus that these are blatantly inappropriate crap that doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Consensus is what we're figuring out here. Also, you need to tag the other pages if they're to be included in the nomination FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • You should probably tell the original nom about that, especially since I fully admit to sucking at manual deletion anything. Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Also, I’ll admit to jumping the gun on declaring consensus, but this is a slow-moving, uncontentious MfD with 6 “delete” votes and 1 “keep” vote. Forecast is a little chilly. Dronebogus (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
        • A better comparison would be an uphill battle. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no practical purpose to its existence. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural objection. There are multiple "delete all" !votes here, but only the newest title is nominated for deletion. The combined history of these pages goes back over a decade, so I don't think it's fair to delete the older ones without properly tagging them. The first one, for instance, has 40 watchers who might have something to say were it tagged. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Could you do that please? I’m terrible at manual deletion listings. Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Deleting this page on its own without nominating the others seems like we're not really giving it a fighting chance. There are people who have watched the other entires in the series. We shouldn't call consensus just yet until those people are notified and have the chance to add their voices to the discussion. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 11:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I listed all the others so we can stop debating the technicalities. Dronebogus (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are now other nominations for the other movies. Further discussion here is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal I believe there should be an immediate WP:SNOW delete of all entries from III onwards (chronologically), after which this MfD should be closed and the two remaining MfDs should be allowed to run their separate courses due to objections of the pages in question being historical in nature due to their age and large number of contributors. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (note: my personal opinion hasn’t changed, I still think the whole lot should be deleted) Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this proposal. jp×g 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I would rather all the pages be kept, but if push comes to shove I will accept this proposal. The first two Wikipedia movies have nothing to do with the overarching storyline of movies III onwards, can be enjoyed on their own, and are humorous, focusing more on the everyday travails of editors rather than a grand war between contributors and vandals. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Remove names of inactive users or anyone who objects, because otherwise why should we care about some goofy sandbox page? - now that the other ones are no longer [ostensibly/hypothetically?] part of this nomination, I'll revisit. If this were created by someone WP:NOTHERE (which does happen with this "humor" content sometimes), then I'd probably suggest deleting, but it's just a bit of goofiness in userspace, where one is allowed to be goofy, experiment with wikicode, collect userboxes, be part of the Wikipedia community, etc. as long as you're otherwise here for the right reasons. The main thrust of the deletion arguments seem to be about the names of real users involved here. It seems like fine practice not to include the names of inactive/banned users, and certainly anyone active who objects to being included or is cast in a negative light should be excluded, but otherwise, what is the deletion rationale for this vs any other "asdfasdf" sandbox? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not an article. It is a Wikipedia page. It does not need to establish notability to exist. I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting. Do barnstars improve the encyclopedia? Do FAs improve the encyclopedia? Sure -- we can sit on an ivory tower and say that the only meaningful contributions are to write GAs about obscure river islands or argue about semicolons or make threads on the drama boards. But that does not constitute a community. That is not the stuff that really gets the blood flowing. People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends. Surely, if someone spent all of their time giving out barnstars, they wouldn't be improving much. But they exist anyway: because they make the place tolerable to be around. jp×g 21:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 13, 2021[edit]

Wikipedia:AFD8[edit]

Wikipedia:AFD8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old can be used instead, and the parser function {{#time:}} breaks the redirect. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. As a soft redirect, it's still a better shortcut than clicking through to WP:AFDO. If there is some technical reason why that is harmful, then altering the redirect is still better than deletion. czar 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:User 10 edits[edit]

Template:User 10 edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary service award. The official Wikipedia:Service awards don't have an award for this few edits, and I don't see the need for such an award. Same applies to Template:User 100 edits and probably the 1000 edits one too. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy to the user space of the creator per nom. Not an official service award so it doesn't really belong in template space, and the idea of giving out awards for completing ten edits does seem a bit daft to me. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've now seen that the Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons)#Registered_Editor (or Signator) has intermediate awards for small numbers of edits, so this template would seem to duplicate what we already have. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Xjenxranx/sandbox[edit]

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

Userfy, the creator accidentally put his sandbox into the project namespace. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the redirect I userfied the sandbox. All that needs to be done is deleting the redirect I created from it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @WaddlesJP13: You may want to request the Wikipedia:Page mover right, which allows moving without leaving a redirect. IMO best to leave this sort of task to others with that right (or admins) because leaving this behind means we now need an admin to delete it, or otherwise someone else has to move it back and redo what you've already done without leaving a redirect. FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites: Haven't considered that user right before, but I'll request it now since I do a lot of page moving when reviewing pages and it will also prevent this situation in the future. Thank you for the suggestion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 12, 2021[edit]

Draft:Lolita Anime (Nikkatsu)[edit]

Draft:Lolita Anime (Nikkatsu) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This appears to be a draft about series of animated movies that are described as containing depictions of child sex abuse and nudity (possibly of children?). The creator of the article seems to have defined it as both "Hentai" and "Lolicon", as well as an "original erotic anime work". The description of the first episode seems to be a description of animated child sex abuse material, and the article notes that the Japanese authorities refused to evaluate it owing to its child abuse themes. It also doesn't appear to have solid sourcing, so I don't think it's notable, and I don't see that being a burden to deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Though I'm against what is explained within it, the article draft is just about child pornography and isn't straightforward depictions. The only issue here is the sources. However, instead of rejecting, it would've been best to just decline it and request more sources first. If that has not been improved when submitted again, give it one or two more tries. If nothing has been improved then you should reject it, then let it go get G13'd. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep do you have a proper reason to delete this draft or are you just objecting to the content (which is not outside of WP’s scope despite its general ickiness)? There’s no CSAM here, animated or otherwise, and no pro-pedophilia POV material either, so this isn’t a violation of WP’s anti-child sex abuse policies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep While I find this type of anime disgusting, this article is not advocating child porn or abuse so it doesn't violate any policies. Heck WP is also not censored. Link20XX (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Rejected drafts seldom need immediate deletion after rejection unless they can be speedily deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Amirrezaparvahan[edit]

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

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Usercopy of an old revision of Marco Reus from 2017. Per WP:COPIES, copies of old revisions are not allowed in userspace. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was never transcluded to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fake article/illegal revision saving from single-edit user. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 10, 2021[edit]

Wikipedia:Defunct request. Please Don't Consider![edit]

Wikipedia:Defunct request. Please Don't Consider! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Apparently a failed attempt to create a request for adminship Lunacats (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately yes! This was a failed attempt of mine to create a request for adminship. Please delete this page as soon as possibe. Thanks, SSG123 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• No comments on the merits of the deletion request, just a note that the history of the talk page likely makes this ineligible for G7. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Revert move, close as withdrawn, and courtesy-blank. Regarding the content on talk: SSG123 has said they will not loutsock in the future, and I appreciate that; however, the RfA does still serve as an important record of an incident that led to a serious warning, and one which may recur as an issue since they do appear to still be editing from that IP range (currnetly in a manner allowed by policy, but just barely). Thus I think the most equitable solution is to preserve in the history but cblank, at the original title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Revert move and Courtesy blank per Tamzin. Normally we would delete this kind of stuff under G6 or G7, but I agree that the fact that the creator tried to sock and support their own RFA should be preserved because it is highly relevant information that should be kept in mind when considering giving this user advanced rights. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Fcbcampnou/Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story[edit]

User:Fcbcampnou/Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my comments at the other MfDs in this series. Jokes are not serious, but they are important. jp×g 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor[edit]

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey[edit]

User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals[edit]

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per linked discussion in "Planning for 7th Wikipedia movie". Unlike the first two, this is not a charming bit of Wikipedia cultural lore from the earliest days, but rather made by just two major authors years after such projects could have moved to Uncyclopedia or AO3 or the like. SnowFire (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch: the fact that this one isn't very good still does not justify its destruction to me (surely we've got better things to do than be the Funny Police). jp×g 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo[edit]

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per discussion in "Planning for 7th Wikipedia movie". Unlike the first two, this appears to be unfunny self-insert fanfic that only has two major authors, and was created years after Wikipedia became a bit more "serious", so jokes involving real people as vandals are a bit less of a good idea. Go ahead and delete this & the later movies for reasons described in the main MFD. (Also, this & later ones are in violation of this guideline, but that's obviously not controlling on Wikipedia.). SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. Whether or not it violates HTBFANJS (and, boy howdy, does it): the fact that someone made a joke that we think is stupid doesn't, to me, seem worth destroying it. After all, I'm sure that for any joke you can find a half dozen people who think it is stupid. jp×g 22:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back[edit]

User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This is an old piece of ancient Wikipedia culture that had a decent number of contributors. As a record of old Wikipedia, it's harmless. Just leave it be. SnowFire (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie[edit]

User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a very old piece of ancient Wikipedia culture that had a lot of contributors. As a record of old Wikipedia, it's harmless. Just leave it be. SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my "keep" on the other one, which I'll reproduce here:

This is not an article. It is a Wikipedia page. It does not need to establish notability to exist. I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting. Do barnstars improve the encyclopedia? Do FAs improve the encyclopedia? Sure -- we can sit on an ivory tower and say that the only meaningful contributions are to write GAs about obscure river islands or argue about semicolons or make threads on the drama boards. But that does not constitute a community. That is not the stuff that really gets the blood flowing. People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends. Surely, if someone spent all of their time giving out barnstars, they wouldn't be improving much. But they exist anyway: because they make the place tolerable to be around.

Additionally, this has been on Wikipedia for nearly sixteen years, and doesn't seem to have done gratuitous harm in that time, so I don't know why it would suddenly become an issue now. jp×g 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two[edit]

Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

salt evasion page Dronebogus (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC) this is a procedural nomination on behalf of Dronebogus because the title this MfD is at is on the title blacklist Elli (talk | contribs) 02:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Salt Evasion is not an excuse to delete a draft. As a matter of fact, "To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request", according to Wikipedia:SALT. I say we give this page the same leniency we would give to any draft and wait for the user to find reliable sources (if any such sources exist). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep often times a draft is created to make a case for re creation of a wp:SALTed article and per Plutonical Lunacats (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The draft can still be developed into a standard article, it just needs more sources. Blubewwy (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Plutonical. A potential proving ground for a proposed topic, draftspace is. This will be curtailed by the force, if not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as per above editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

November 4, 2021[edit]

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior subpages[edit]

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:NotWikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Protection messages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Timeline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTWEBHOST -- this is explicitly not Wikipedia, as User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:NotWikipedia explains. None of these pages are useful to the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and the user's history of hatnote changes suggest they may need additional scrutiny. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be curious to hear from Faster than Thunder -- what are these? If these are in fact templates for use on some other wiki, then I'd probably agree with the nominator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • These are for Wikihavior, a Wikimedia wiki about Wikipedia subject behaviors that is currently in discussion. If it is rejected, these pages can be deleted. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete user is jumping the gun making stuff for a project that doesn’t yet exist. These… things are just confusing to everyone except the creator. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment User has a history of bad page creations, although they're obviously well-meaning and not trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. What should we do about him? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 18:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta, as they are relevant to a proposal there. I don't see a snowball's chance in Hell of that proposal being accepted, but Meta does not follow that enwiki norm, so we should defer to their local norms and let them have these pages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta for the reasons Tamzin laid out. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Move them to Meta. Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta: per those above. If the proposal fails there, meta may handle these under their local deletion policy if applicable. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete IMO these are outside of Meta's project scope as well, as isn't typical to provides examples of pages for un-created projects on Meta-Wiki itself. From my experience, what is going to happen to the page on meta is absolutely nothing, since m:Proposals for new projects is entirely inactive aside from me occasionally closing stale and unanimously-opposed proposals, and even proposals with a clear consensus in favor of implementing, like WikiJournal go nowhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Note that Meta appears to be deleting a similar set of pages at m:Meta:Requests for deletion#Pages in Category:GlobalWiki test wiki pages * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• We'll find out if and when Wikihavior is rejected. Faster than Thunder (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Out of scope here and out of scope at meta. There is no need to make example pages when proposing a new project, and even if you were going to make an example page it should probably contains some content that explains what the project actually is, rather than just vandalism templates. Unambiguous WP:NOTWEBHOST violation - Wikipedia is not for hosting other wiki projects. (I also can't be the only one who's slightly confused as to what Wikihavior is supposed to be? It sounds like it's designed to be a wiki for documenting the behaviour of editors, which seems like a recipe for harassment.) 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

October 29, 2021[edit]

Draft:Isaiah Oluwatobiloba[edit]

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

was copied to mainspace at Icepondis so this is a duplicate. Further, mainspace article has been prodded for gng failure, sockpuppetry involved in the creation of this-but user wasn't bolcked prior to this creation so g4 not met Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Update nom: sockpuppetry was to avoid scrutiny over coi and paid on the masters account thus, this draft was created in violation of COI and PAID. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep to see whether the mainspace article is deleted. If the article is deleted, the draft can continue to be kept. If the article is kept, this draft can be redirected, or moved into mainspace and redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This is yet another misguided good-faith nomination to delete a draft because there is an article, when the procedure should be to redirect the draft (which does not require a discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon:, If the article is deleted for gng failure and the draft kept, the draft will only end up being deleted as abandoned though. This also could make it seem like the sockpuppetry involved was not dealt with, the master account was blocked for username issues, with promo, paid and coi concerns, this draft was created by a sock essentially in violation of said policies (I should have put that in the nomination tbh rather than just saying "sockpuppetry involved"). Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Africa boyz/Archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • If the article is deleted for GNG failure, the draft is kept for six months in case GNG can be established. There is no need to rush to get rid of drafts that will expire anyway. Some editors like to push to keep draft space and user space free of junk. All that does is to create work for the volunteers who act as the regular editors at MFD. I know you are trying to help. I know you are trying to help. It doesn't help the encyclopedia. All it does is create work for those of us who participate in MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
        • And the sockpuppetry violations with COI and paid violations? 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Given that sockpuppetry was involved in its creation, there is a chance the creator will continue to violate sock meaning the draft may never be elligible for 613. 11:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• comment Article now up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icepondis. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• pinging ppl from that afd for the view on the draft: @Princess of Ara and Celestina007:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping @Lavalizard101, I have no prejudice against the draft being kept for now but I doubt that It'll be quiet enough for a G13 in future due to the persistent sock puppetry.
  Princess of Ara 07:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah that's one of my worries that it will never be elligible for g13 if socks start popping up again.

  @Robert McClenon: what's you opinion on the sockpuppetry matter seeing as you haven't talked about it above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as the mainspace article is likely to be deleted.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete draft because both draft and article are work of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Nb. The Icepondis article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icepondis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

October 25, 2021[edit]

Template:User Family History=she[edit]

Template:User Family History=she (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary fork of User:Scepia/family history. See related listings with today's date stamp. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge per nom. But it might be good to move Scepia's into the template mainspace if we're going to point things to it. I know that I tend to prefer transcluding template pages to user pages, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:User Family History=he[edit]

Template:User Family History=he (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary fork of User:Scepia/family history. Replace the two transclusions of this template with direct transclusions (I would normally call this substing, but I do not know if this template is directly subst-able), and then delete this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge per nom. But it might be good to move Scepia's into the template mainspace if we're going to point things to it. I know that I tend to prefer transcluding template pages to user pages, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Morgan695/family history[edit]

User:Morgan695/family history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Merge to User:Scepia/family history. I recommend keeping the User:Scepia version, which has automation to pick the editor's preferred pronoun. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Either Redirect or Decategorize - No need for duplicates in the userbox categories, but there's no reason someone can't have their own slightly modified version in userspace. There are transclusions, though, so if it's redirected someone will need to replace all of them with this version of the Scepia template. What confuses me is why someone created this in Morgan695's userspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

October 18, 2021[edit]

User:Gita See/David Bartlett[edit]

User:Gita See/David Bartlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Either he's notable enough and this can be moved to mainspace, or it need to be deleted as a stale WP:FAKEARTICLE. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - This is an abandoned inadequately sourced draft BLP. He is probably notable, but this would never pass review as a draft BLP due to inadequate sourcing. If it were moved to draft space, it should be declined and then allowed to expire, so delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and Blank - if it's not promotional enough or otherwise problematic enough to qualify for CSD, there's no need to take it to MfD. Blanking in such circumstances is permitted, and a promotional, poorly sourced BLP seems like a good candidate. You can use {{Userpage blanked}}. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Rename to User:Gita See/David Bartlett (filmmaker) to make it easier for others to find, noting David Bartlett (disambiguation), and use {{Userpage blanked}}. Do not delete, and do not move to draft or AfC (aka slow delete). The content is the same as uploaded on other sites, and there are no BLP problems with it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Retain in some form as above per WP:STALE; not problematic in a way to warrant discussion or deletion here. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

October 3, 2021[edit]

User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative[edit]

User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

As per the tag, this userspace draft is written like a personal essay, making this fail WP:UP#GOALS. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. This was one among the three articles I userfied for the user in 2009, and this was meant to enhance the article on David Pearce (transhumanist). I do see that the user did contribute to that article, so I believe the purpose of the userfication was met and can the page can be removed. Jay ^(Talk) 21:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Move:
  • This page is in the user space of a user who has not edited in six years. There is no policy or guideline or common sense rule that requires that pages be kept in user space for users who have gone away.
  • This page is in the nature of a draft. It is not a personal essay, but is about a published essay. If it were submitted for review as a draft, it would be declined, not rejected or tagged for deletion. But it is in the user space of a departed user.
  • If someone wants to take over this page, they should be allowed to do so. Otherwise it should be available for claiming later via requests for undeletion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Completely inoffensive, and a long way within leeway for a very productive editor. The page is far less offensive than random policing of others’ userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This content is not extensive in the context of WP:UP#GOALS. Even ignoring that, minor things such as this, when done by a user who is here to build an encyclopedia, do not warrant the policing of userspace. — csc^-1 17:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Restore article to mainspace and redirect from there - if this were simply an article userfied after deleted at AfD, that's one of the things we should typically delete. However, if material from that undeleted article was then used in mainspace, we need the history intact. There's a problem, however, in that it looks like the article wasn't actually undeleted but copy/paste moved by Jay, which doesn't preserve the history (unless Jay was the sole author of the original article). IMO the best course would be to delete this (as it hasn't been modified, it seems), restore that actual article to mainspace, then redirect that to the Pearce article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  As the user had asked for only the text of the article for reference, and not the article itself, I copied the best last version and offered the user the whole deleted 92 versions, but it does look like the user did not want that. Jay (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete this draft it belongs to a user who was last active in 2015. Catfurball (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates