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.
Pages not covered by other
XFD venues, including pages in these
namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Pages 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
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}}.
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
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process:(replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)
Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
I.
Edit PageName:
Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:
{{
mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{
mfdx|2nd}}
or
{{
mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly
transcluded page, use {{
subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{
subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.
The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"
Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.
Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:
{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the
page history or
talk page of the page and/or use
TDS' Article Contribution Counter or
Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.
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.
This is a very concerning userbox considering the recent events because Wikipedia has Israeli users.
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (
talk) 02:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This userbox advocates for abolishment, elimination, destruction of the State of Israel and therefore extending the territory of the State of Palestine over all of its territory. As both Israel and Palestine are
ethnocratic nation states in character, bringing all of the (then-former) Israelis under the rule of a state with a predominant Palestinian Arab character can not happen peacefully, and the Jews are a majority demographically on this territory so imposing a state that does not symbolically represent this majority, and only bears the ethnic character of the minority is an extremist fantasy, that is most commonly resolved by imagining mass expulsion, which is then justified by evil deeds of Israel.—
Alalch E. 09:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've yet to see proofs that Palestine is ethnocratic in character rather it's just a secularised name of the land unlike "Israel", at least the name isn't considering that you can't say the same about Mandatory Palestine and that it was literally used by the early zionist organisations for example. Furthermore, stating the demographics of that land is weird, please keep in mind that there are a lot of Palestinians who are expulsed from it and still bear the right to return. — Yours Truly,⚑ AtikaAtikawa 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Considering the current circumstances, this userbox praises the violence against Israelis (especially those that had nothing to do with the conflict). This nomination is from a user who supports Palestinians rights who also believes that Israel can defend itself from Hamas.
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (
talk) 02:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The userbox does not call for that nor does it even imply it. In fact the documentation of the userbox clarifies its meaning. It simply states that the Israeli apartheid is the main promoter for this violence. — Yours Truly,⚑ AtikaAtikawa 02:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are Israeli users you know and they do not take that sort of stuff very kindly. Do you know what happened when the Arabic Wikipedia put up a solidarity banner last year?
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (
talk) 03:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how content here should please everyone, especially on user pages, I'd even argue that this sounds like a
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. After all, there are many Anti-"something" userboxes which obviously make partisans of the "something" not very happy.
I'd love to know if there is some standard I broke when it comes to making userboxes, I am aware that
Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country/Palestine says at its top that "Before placing any of these userboxes on your userpage, please consider that many Wikipedians believe that the use of such userboxes runs contrary to the spirit of the guidance given at WP:USERPAGE, because they can be seen as being polemical", but it also says that "There is no requirement that you follow this recommendation, which has no official status" [edited]— Yours Truly,⚑ AtikaAtikawa 03:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unironically good faithed question: What happened when the Arabic Wikipedia put up a solidarity banner last year? — Yours Truly,⚑ AtikaAtikawa 03:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I usually don't like to get involved in userbox disputes, especially political userbox disputes (but most of the userbox disputes at MFD are political), and I haven't agreed with anti-Israeli viewpoints until about two months ago, but this userbox not only is a reasonable statement of a viewpoint, but also acknowledges the tragic nature of escalation of violence.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 05:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete pro-terrorism userbox that propagandistically endorses Hamas' and other extremist groups' violence. Relativises real and large-scale atrocities and other crimes, terrorist acts and other acts against Israelis by presenting them as natural, just, and needed. You can excuse every evil in the world using this "logic".
Delete - This is a little different from the usual
copy from mainspace because it is both not in English and seven years old, but is still useless. It isn't a speedy
U5 because it could be construed as a request to translate the article, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted; it should be deleted. These get differently more absurd.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete on principle as a theoretical attribution hazard even as a copy of an article from another-language Wikipedia.—
Alalch E. 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - A useless good-quality
copy, and a
redundant fork. It is an image of the article as it was in 2015; an image of the article as it was in 2015 is available in the page history, so that this is useless for that purpose. It is harmful otherwise as a copy of the article, because it hasn't been updated in nine years.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - If this is correct, it is a low-quality unreferenced
BLP. If it is incorrect, it is a
hoax. Those are both reasons to delete.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Test page that seems to be wholly or in part composed of text
copied from an old version of
Love.
Flounder fillet (
talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unattributed, and unreferenced because the references were dropped. Not even a current machine translation, but of the 2016 version. Another one-and-done piece of junk.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - A properly formatted
copy of an existing article, but a
redundant fork from 2017. Another one-and-done fragment.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is a malformed partial
copy, which breaks the formatting and the references. The broken references make this an unsourced BLP.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unsourced BLP.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unreferenced BLP. Normally I would allow some time for the originator of a BLP in draft or user space to finish it, including to add the references, but only if it isn't be used for any other sort of misconduct, such as making vandal additions to articles.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This LTA page seems to be not necessary for this particular sockmaster. By all accounts, this LTA report seems to go against the
WP:LTA instructions. "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well attested cases". This sockmaster seems to be a relatively small nuisance, there are many sockmasters that have a lot more socks and have caused a lot more disruption that do not have LTA pages. v/r - Seawolf35T--
C 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is a small nuisance. If that is based on the small amount of examples found in this report, that should not really give the impression that the disruption was limited. I can easily bloat the report by countless diffs by the LTA. The LTA has been socking continuously for 3 years, has edit-warred, removed content, misused copyrighted content, added pieces of information either unsourced or with sources that do not support the change aimed at misleading other editors. Lately, the sockmaster has been using IPs to evade the block, which the SPI report or the LTA report does not cover, although I could have added those to this report. It is often possible to find socks or IPs used by the sock (evident from behavioral cues) lingering here and there as they circumvent detection. The track record is pretty long to fully elaborate. This is not at all a small nuisance.
Aintabli (
talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Do the instructions for
long-term abuse pages need to have advice for when these pages should be deleted? My opinion is that these pages, once created rightly or wrongly, should not be nominated for deletion without a reason, and that maybe nominating them for deletion should be restricted to SPI clerks. The reasoning behind nominating LTA pages for deletion may be
Deny Recognition or
Do Not Feed the Troll, but nominating the page for deletion gives the sockmaster (whether or not a troll) more recognition. These pages should only be created in egregious cases, and, once created, should be left alone unless there is a reason to expand them. Maybe we need instructions.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Appears to be an accidental creation that should be at
Talk:FairVote. –Sincerely,
A Lime 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Closed Limelike Curves: It looks like you are right, but I don't think this requires a week-long deletion discussion. Why don't you just ask the person who made the comment if they meant to do so at the other page, and if the answer is yes just move it there. Regards,
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 17:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect (as is already done).
If someone makes this mistake, so might someone else, and this is good enough to have a redirect. Redirects are cheap.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as is, accidental creation, sure, but its still a useful redirect. -
Samoht27 (
talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep after Redirection - The tag {{R from miscapitalization}} has been applied to the redirect. This is one of the many uses for redirects.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep irrespective of redirection. The page does not even need to be redirected. There is some talk history. The nomination is erroneous. Pages such as this never need to be deleted.—
Alalch E. 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Reasonable draft, no good reason to delete. The subject was a public figure. As it is old an abandoned, but not hopeless, one might
WP:Move to a subpage (drafts should not sit on the main Userpage, even if the user is the subject, and blank. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to Draft or Delete - As a user page, it would be
U5. The only rescue is to move it to
Draft:Ronald Mugula as a draft of a sports person.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is a Userpage. It does not fit U5 because it is a plausible draft of an article.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
True. On rereading U5, I see (again) that it has two parts, and this is a combination that we very seldom see.
U5 has to do with pages having little or nothing to do with Wikipedia by editors who have made no or few other edits. We very seldom see a page that is a plausible draft by a user who has made no other edits.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Weak keep, weak blank. I have added {{Userpage}}. It is a Wikipedia article style Userpage about the user himself. There is a url in there. It is not unsourced, and as it looks like a draft it is not eligible for
WP:U5, but is very close. The intention appears to be self promotion for a political candidate, who did not win. Probably it should be Blanked, and pages like this should be blanked instead of being brought to MfD.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Blank. Despite
WP:FAKEARTICLE indeed suggesting deletion, there is a negligible probability that anyone will ever even view this content once blanked, or will want to restore it to be able to keep editing it or to copy it somewhere else on Wikipedia, and its nature is not such that applying a "
high degree of sensitivity" would point to a need to make the content inaccessible from page history. So deletion is not realistically, meaningfully better than blanking, and if deletion is not better than blanking, blanking is better than deletion.—
Alalch E. 02:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This would be a marginally valid use of userspace by a user who was editing Wikipedia. The user is not editing Wikipedia, so that this is
U5 and is
web hosting.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you read “except for plausible drafts” at
WP:U5. This page is a plausible draft, even if it is an autobiography.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes. We very seldom see plausible draft autobiographies by users who do not otherwise edit Wikipedia.
I agree with that. Not meeting U5 doesn’t mean it is not misuse of Wikipedia, just that it is formatted like an article.
I think pages like this, involving a public person autobiography, might be better blanked on sight than put through MfD, but I don’t oppose deletion.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Exactly Sample page but some words are altered with languages inappropriate for wikipedia, with no intent of changing it up after over 7 hours. Originally CSDed under G3 but has been contested by a different editor as too hasty.
ABG (
Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. After giving it a little time, it seems unlikely that it will ever meet the
userpage guidelines. (comment from CSD contestor)
QwertyForest (
talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is a test page of a different sort, a test to see if the reviewers notice the naughty words. Of course we did.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per others.—
Alalch E. 12:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - as Samoht27 says, ugly, malformed, useless.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom, but the whole thing is also a
BLP violation because the references have been garbled, and a
redundant fork.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.—
Alalch E. 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete although this is not nearly as stupid as some
fake articles. It is properly formatted and has references. But it is an
autobiography in user space.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems to be a copy from a The Walking Dead wiki or something similar, which makes it at least as bad as
WP:COPIES of Wikipedia mainspace articles.
Flounder fillet (
talk) 09:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
But as it’s fixable, it’s not eligible for G12.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 14:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is an "interesting" concept in that this
fake article purports to be a biography of the user whose user page it is on. If it were true (if we were in this post-apocalyptic world), it would be an unsourced
biography of a living person. But it is something else that still needs deleting.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, I agree with the above.
Bduke (
talk) 23:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete.
✗plicit 23:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - There are at least two types of "copy-pastes", ones that are from the wiki markup, and so look like
fake articles, and ones that are from the web browser display, and so have lost formatting. The latter are not exactly
copies, and are stupid. Maybe we need an essay ridiculing them. This is one of them.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This Userpage definitely matches
WP:COPIES. It is a content fork from mainspace (worse, unattributed). You can make any condition false by slipping in the extreme word “exactly”, and make meaningless words. We do not need essays to ridicule.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Old business
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC) ended today on 25 May 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by
Legobot and need no further action.
Unused talk subpages. Contains copy pasted template code, but was never filled in with unique content. It's a numbered bulleted list but the bulleted list is blank. Intended for transcluding, but never filled in. Page creator has retired. I thought about G6ing these, should be completely uncontroversial. But better safe than sorry :) –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, none are useful now, and none appear to have been useful in the past. -
Samoht27 (
talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Wrong venue for 6th thru 9th items - They are templates, and are not userbox templates, and there is no special provision for them to be discussed at MFD.
These trains are in the wrong station. They are templates, and be unloaded or reloaded at
TFD.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 13:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete 1 thru 5 per nom. I'd almost support deleting the versions of them with content too, hah. But this helps clean things up. No personal opinion on 6 thru 9. Crossroads-talk- 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There should be a speedy criteria for this.
Yoblyblob (
Talk) :) 17:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Absolutely not. Half the time, requests that look like this are attempts to violate copyright best practice, hiding the evidence, but someone who created a content fork. Each one requires tedious examination, and usually
WP:SRE applies.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If you can identify the article, redirect the new draft to it. Otherwise keep.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I could not find the corresponding article. There is a speedy criterion for this, which is
Speedy Redirect from draft space to article space. I am not ready to redirect this draft to
voiceless alveolar fricative.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The BLP is already in the main NS at
Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
History merge.
User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first.
Awesimf (
talk·contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t see a justification to revdelete anything if it was already in the history. So I support a history merge to fix the accidental fork, even if it is a small thing. Redirecting the draft to the article is a middle solution.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - This nomination is
vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to
Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The
good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a
Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about
Speedy Redirection.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here.
Martinp (
talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Bad faith is not required to correct something to how it should have been.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Only the first fiver revisions are important to history merge, and these create no parallel history.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Martinp and Pppery (parallel histories). Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.—
Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Selectively History Merge: As per others in this discussion. There's no overlap with the first 5 revisions. TarnishedPathtalk 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes
stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. -
Altenmann>talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, there is
the RfC where the thing had been talked through and out, nothing more to say.And thank you for reminding me of a Soviet cartoon of my childhood, The Bremen Town Musicians, where the stress goes ambiguous intentionally:
“
Тем, кто дружен, не страшны тревоги,
Нам любые до́роги доро́ги!
”
This is exactly what is mentioned in the essay as "very special cases".
And, as I've already told you, if you think that the RfC was "malformed and an imprpoperly closed" you are always welcome to open your own one. —
Mike Novikoff 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
These are not "very special cases", these are quite common cases. And the "nutshell" is plain false. -
Altenmann>talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Resolve this on the talk page and update the project page to make it correct. MfD is not for resolving policy dispute, including this page, whatever the tag.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. -
Altenmann>talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s an essay on how to do things, in mainspace. That’s definitely on the small p end of policy.
Project-related essays should not be deleted, but fixed. If only the author supports it, it can be userfied.
Project space essays do carry weight and will influence editors. If the essay is wrong, it is important to fix, but mfd is not the forum for fixing essays.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. -
Altenmann>talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Take this problem to
Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at
WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a
WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, disagreed. There is no "conflict". The page is based on the provably false premise, see the top here; hence, MfD. -
Altenmann>talk 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I see only an assertion. Not proof. Not consensus. I see a dispute between two editors about something. There is no valid reason to delete. Keep.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Not proof" - Nonsense. Right here I cited a Russian source for punctuation which describes the usage of "nonexisting" stress marks. -
Altenmann>talk 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What about the
2021 MoS RfC—@
Altenmann:? Is the essay mostly inconsistent or mostly consistent with the RfC?—
Alalch E. 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to
WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in
WP:MOSPRON nor in
MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by
user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —
Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement-
Altenmann>talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —
Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. -
Altenmann>talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As a starting point, OK. Later I will add specific advice based on sources. -
Altenmann>talk 19:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
P.S. I was reverted with the edit summary of
WP:OWN : "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - which reaffirms my strong opinion for deletion of an essay which is not an explanation of any wikipedia guideline, just an opinion of a single strong-hanged person. -
Altenmann>talk 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Userfy, as a disputed single-author essay. Noted
WP:OWNership issues are serious and will be solved by userfication. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
Please note that the essay has been successfully edited by many users, passed a
WP:RM with discussion, and had
a consensus version from September 2023. Then suddenly Altenmann appeared
with this in January. —
Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete this has no business in wikispace and given the author of it was banned for civility issues around this topic i don't really see the point of userfying it—
blindlynx 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Who was banned? Where? Around what? —
Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Shit sorry i thought Taurus Littrow wrote most of this, i didn't realize i wasn't looking at the earliest history—
blindlynx 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The essay, in its current version, as seen in
Special:PermanentLink/1223433915 is consistent with the 2021 RfC and can't be described as a "disputed single-author essay". The problem is located in the previous wording: "Stress marks don't belong ... and should be removed on sight". And while that language was not fully consistent with the RfC result, it was not very far from it either. But now the wording has been tweaked to truly match the RfC, and that is how it should be. If someone wants more flexibility than the RfC allows, start a new RfC. If someone wants more rigidity, start a new RfC. In my opinion the existing RfC is satisfactory, and this essay is okay.—
Alalch E. 10:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Legitimate explainer of extant consensus and past discussions akin to
WP:RSP.
Nardog (
talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply