THC Science

Administrator instructions

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

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

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

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

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transclued pages.

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Total
CfD	23	114	137
TfD	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	1	19	20
AfD	0	6	6

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

July 4, 2022[edit]

Draft:Professional Video Monitors[edit]

Rejected draft. Tagged for speedy deletion under G11, which I don't feel is appropriate (it is not "exclusively promotional" and in fact lists some drawbacks of the product), yet searching turns up mostly sales pages and product listings rather than reliable sources. Let's make a decision one way or the other--I can see both sides. ChromaNebula (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 3, 2022[edit]

Draft:Brown Jovi[edit]

This is a throw a way character to make a joke (Brown Jovi / Bon Jovi) that appears in about 10 seconds of a Ms. Marvel episode, and is in no way notable for an article, let alone a draft, about them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete never going to become an article, totally stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, but since it's been nominated from deletion we might as well get rid of it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but this clearly isn't going to become a mainspace article. Why let it languish between being as it currently is for six months, or other editors coming across it and trying to submit it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many, many drafts like this one, some even more nonsensical than this (example 1, example 2). That's where G13 comes in, so editors don't need to send them to MfD every time. There's no harm in keeping these drafts since they're never going to become articles anyway, and even if editors try to submit them to AfC they will 99% be rejected. Just let them be automatically G13'd after six months. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s here, we should just snow delete it, WP:NOTBURO Dronebogus (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Stupidity is not a reason to delete a draft. Stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Throwaway or not, it has sources only a week old. This is the purpose of draftspace. Don’t bring worthless harmless things to MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Interstate 885 (NC)[edit]

These two talk pages are completely unnecessary for these two redirect pages. They are both byproducts of the page moving process when the exact name of a new article was being determined. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryJosh This is the wrong venue for this discussion. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD regardless of namespace. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies. Feel free to take down this request. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryJosh Sorry, there's a mistake on my part, the second page is a redirect that needs to be sent to RFD, the first is a talk page that should be discussed here, apologies. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Understood. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Speedy keep. Talk pages aren’t deleted for being unnecessary (doing so is unnecessary), or wrong forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 30, 2022[edit]

User:Mishadworken[edit]

Apparently abandoned draft (for several years now!), or possibly an attempt to recreate a deleted article in userspace. Potential BLP issues. --ais523 05:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:688 Club logo.jpg[edit]

Talk page of locally deleted file that contains no discussions. Tagged with {{G8-exempt}} and not eligible for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#File talk pages which consist only of boilerplates, wikiproject tags, and/or text which has been copied to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason to tag a page with G8-exempt if it doesn't contain anything. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "It doesn't contain anything" is patently false. It contains a WikiProject banner. Were they consulted? We've long held that WikiProjects alone are to be the arbiter of what's appropriate to a WP. We're now saying that other project areas are entitled to exercise unilateral veto power on account of their local consensus? Sounds like a hijacking to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the statement We've long held that WikiProjects alone are to be the arbiter of what's appropriate to a WP. is totally accurate. WikiProjects can, for sure, provide valuable guidance when it comes to sorting out issues, but a consensus achieved at a WikiProject is also a local consensus and it can't supersede a community consensus. Is there's any value to keeping this talk page other than it has a WikirRoject banner on it? The {{G8-exempt}} template was added by Miniapolis back in 2015 and maybe there was a reason for doing so back then that no longer applies. File talk pages (even ones tagged with G8-exempt) often end up deleted when the corresponding file is deleted if the reviewing admin feels there's no value to keeping the talk page. This file was originally uploaded as non-free content, but it was deleted per WP:F8 by Miniapolis after the file was moved to Commons in 2015. I've posted a {{Please see}} about this discussion on Miniapolis's user talk page; perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the ping, Marchjuly. I used to delete pages like this until I was told in no uncertain terms by Diannaa that, according to WP:G8 (which is policy), they should be kept. The project tag was placed in 2008 by Roswell native, who hasn't edited here since late last year. I don't see why pages like this need to be kept, and it may be time to open a discussion at WP:VPP. All the best, Miniapolis 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The policy states "This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: [among other things] Talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons" and that's what this talk page is. So policy states that it should be kept. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Diannaa's and Miniapolis's comments above. While its encyclopedic value seem sketchy, WP:G8 does list this file talk page as a type of page that qualifies for {{G8-exempt}}; so, there's not a strong policy based reason for deleting the page even via MfD, unless someone wants to try and argue WP:IAR should be applied in this particular case. Although I don't agree that nominating the page for deletion here at MfD qualifies as a kind of "hijacking" in any way, the consensus to keep pages such as this is a community one that appears to be well established. Of course, there's always WP:CCC, but that should be something discussed at WT:CSD, [:WT:DELETE]] or even WP:VPP. For reference, a previous attempt to do such a thing at WT:CSD#Proposal: expand F2 to cover certain file talk pages did not establish a new consensus for any such change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a bit touched F8 IIRC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per User:Diannaa and User:Miniapolis. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:3amdigital.jpg[edit]

Talk page of locally deleted file. Tagged with {{G8-exempt}} but doesn't actually contain any discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#File talk pages which consist only of boilerplates, wikiproject tags, and/or text which has been copied to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant misuse of G8-exempt. There is literally nothing to keep here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless User:Miniapolis can explain within five days why this is useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Robert McClenon !voted "weak keep" several minutes later in an identical discussion. As an admin, I'm tasked with upholding policy until it's changed; the place for that discussion is WP:VPP. (FWIW, I think the WP:F8 criteria should be changed.) Miniapolis 00:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is what comes of reading one MFD at a time and !voting on them in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lucknow Super Giants[edit]

Duplicate of article already in mainspace Spike 'em (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added redirect to this article too. Spike 'em (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Lucknow Super Giants. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlvinJamesSaldanha[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. User has contributions outside of userspace however they are almost all 5+ years old, the user page was created somewhat recently. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Autobiographical user pages aren't unusual. This user page should be fine as long as he doesn't attempt to turn it into an article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellohi! WP:UPYES mentions limited autobiographical content. This page seems more like a resume and has no mention of anything related to Wikipedia, it may be more about self-promotion than Wikipedia. Being written in 3rd person, WP:FAKEARTICLE is likely also relevant. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning.

I will not be attempting to turn this into an article. There is PLENTY about me on the internet and this was not an attempt to be featured on wikipedia. I use wikipedia a great deal and correct a great many grammar and spelling mistakes, even if I am not logged in. It would be wonderful to have this not deleted, but I respect your decision.223.182.97.2 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin J Saldanha 223.182.97.2 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This really looks like resume and self-promotion to me. —Sundostund (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like web hosting of a resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 28, 2022[edit]

Draft:WWWJ-FM[edit]

This is a speedy declined by the creator. The article purports to describe a 94.7 FM radio station in Atlanta, which does not exist. (Atlanta has WUBL on 94.9, so there couldn't be one.) There is also no radio station with the call sign WWWJ at this time. This is a blatant hoax, no matter what the creator claims, and it should be deleted as unsuitable to become an encyclopedic article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article specifically, this station has not yet been added to a broadcasting tower but is in the process of doing such. Second of all, that isn't a government website. Rfmanradgh (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FCCData.org is a reliable aggregate of information from the FCC's database systems. That it is not directly operated by the agency is immaterial to the issue at hand. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC records do not show this station exists, there is no WP:SIGCOV through reliable sources, the website used as a source for three of the four citations is very suspicious and Rfmanradgh, the author of the page, is claiming to own the station. Which, if it was the case, would be a massive WP:COI and he would have no business working on it. Support the speedy deletion as a hoax per nom. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If y'all beleive I am fake, you are highly encouraged to delete it. I am not a hoax and I don't need to prove it to a private non-profit. Rfmanradgh (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the station is for real, that's all well and good. But articles need to have reliable sources and significant coverage in the media to back up claims. You can't cite just the station's website and social media pages. Moreover, you can't write an article on something that you own. It's simple common sense. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was declined by user:Johnj1995, not the creator. I don't think it's a hoax as it does seem to exist online. It has no chance of being accepted in its present state, but we normally give drafts time to develop. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, it IS a hoax as it claims to be a physical radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and it clearly is not. Internet radio stations can have articles but if there's lots of SIGCOV to justify it, not by simply citing the website. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to be licensed by the FCC. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I highly stated and bolded in the article, it clearly states that it is not license by the FCC and is not publicly on radio currently. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed doesn't mean license with FCC, I just have a royalty license so far.. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as you made this edit a full two hours after this deletion request was posted by Sammi Brie (after previously claiming the station signed on at 94.7 FM on January 1, 2022) we do not do articles on terrestrial radio stations that don't exist, internet radio notwithstanding. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: This is a topic area where it takes one search of 30 seconds or less to learn what's a hoax and what isn't. This isn't even the first draft G3 for this very reason: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KFBG-TV (2nd nomination). An article on a nonexistent broadcast station has no chance of meeting the GNG by definition, and the vast, vast majority of internet stations are not notable at all. I can start an internet radio station and call it WSMM, but it takes one easy search to learn that there is no station that currently broadcasts with that call sign. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above arguments appear to be about whether an article satisfies verifiability. But this is not an article. This is a draft. Drafts are not deleted on account of notability or verifiability. They are declined on account of notability and verifiability, and that is not the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon. Draft MFDs are not a duplicate of article AFDs, and we allow some latitude for this.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kashifm786[edit]

Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable BLP. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight as unwarranted personal information. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Greenbaum[edit]

Unsourced stub biography of living person that does not make credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:0mtwb9gd5wx/List of Trojans for Representative Government members[edit]

Inappropriate use of wikipedia, speedy deleted already as A7, but then restored. There is no imaginable potential for an article. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable compilation of encyclopedic information in userspace. Obviously unsuitable as an article in this form, but the fact that so many people later involved in the Nixon administration and Watergate were tied to a single student election is significant, and I for one was not previously aware of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within reasonable leeway for a contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 27, 2022[edit]

Draft:The Handmaid's Tale Novel - Parents' Guide[edit]

Violation of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTGUIDE. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 19:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's a draft. It needed declining or rejecting. The reasons given are reasons to decline or reject a submission,and it was declined. It may or may not be able to be made either into an article or part of an article by attributing the opinions to reliable sources. The nominator should stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fails WP:NOR, but we don’t delete most drafts per WP:NDRAFT; bringing them to MfD defeats the purpose of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These wholesale draft MFDs are getting out of hand.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete this didn’t need to happen in the first place but since it’s extremely obvious this is not intended to be a useful contribution to the encyclopedia but rather a weird essay/soapbox that wouldn’t even be useful to its intended audience then why not just delete it while it’s here? Dronebogus (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Speedy delete criterion? To call “speedy delete” after “keep” !votes displays nonconcurrence with the spirit of WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can probably be covered under the spirit of WP:A11, WP:U5 using WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. This is not an attempt at making an encyclopedia article, anyone can blatantly see that, and there is no way it’s going to be salvaged. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure IAR does not apply to CSD for very good reason; the last person who tried using the CSD like that ended up desysopped by ArbCom. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abhay prakash[edit]

Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable BLP. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 19:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced draft BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced and unserviceable BLP. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2022[edit]

User:Charlie Wilson1702[edit]

Per this SPI, there should no longer be any sock tags implied to newer puppets whenever this LTA causes havoc. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the comments at the SPI, it is standard to tag the socks, to track disruption. Giant Snowman 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to keep this user page per the above response as we recognise the usual user name pattern going on. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any harm in keeping this for our records, I want to note that there is no WP:LTA file for this person yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates