Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
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:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
[edit]Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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]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.
|
Administrator instructions
[edit]V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 13 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 48 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
September 22, 2024
[edit]Speedy delete: It's a fake Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The two previous revisions of the page are copyvios of https://henbord.com.mx/acerca-de/ and possibly others. Promotional content and username. Paradoctor (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. While there is no need to delete technical no-harm copyright violations from the history, in this case all the history is a gross copy. These things should be deleted, even if the copyright violation is fixable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - We don't need this, and we do need to be rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Aramea was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself is almost an exact carbon copy of WikiProject Assyria, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would normally suggest keeping archive as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. Moxy🍁 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is:
- "If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's userspace or nominating it for deletion at MfD. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see Wikipedia:Project namespace#Deletion of project pages."
- Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it. Support deletion given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
September 21, 2024
[edit]Wikiversuite pages
[edit]- User:Carol45azel/WikemPG (including subpages)
- User:Hazel45onnie/User Page Builder (including subpages)
- User:Tonymax469/Wikiversal/WikemPG (including subpages)
- User:Tonymax469/Wikiversal/Wikiversal Getting Started (including subpages)
These pages were all created by in 2012 to document and promote a piece of software written by User:Planotse intended to generate wiki content. All of these users appear to be sockpuppets created with the express intent of hosting one of these mini-sites and, in some cases, promoting it to new users - I'm not quite sure what Planotse was up to here, but it seems more than a little "sus".
This software is no longer available, so these pages no longer serve any purpose. I'm nominating them for deletion as part of a cross-wiki cleanup; some of them are linked to from pages created by Planotse on other Wikimedia projects (cf. b:Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Wikiversal generated pages).
Omphalographer (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose using mfd to background clerk MfD. Do not delete unless the request is agreed to by a SPI clerk or a checkuser. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: this activity all occurred in 2012, and, as far as I'm aware, all of the users involved have been dormant since then. It's beyond stale; there's no chance whatsoever that CU will intervene here, and I don't expect them to do so. Omphalographer (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- You have 237 edits. You arrived to go straight into XfD stuff. Now you’re clerking very old userpages of blocked users, and you’re telling me you known the behaviours of CUs. I suspect you to be violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace not using your main account. What prior accounts have you used, and how do you come to concerned about these very old pages, which have no pageviews or incoming links? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is part of a cross-project cleanup. Please refer to my global account list if you're concerned about my low edit count on this project. Additionally: some of these subpages are actually linked from other projects using direct URLs, e.g. on b:User Page Builder/Topic List. Omphalographer (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - Please assume good faith on the part of User:Omphalographer. They are primarily a Commons account with 33,000 edits. If you look at the pages that have been nominated, and the contributions of the former editors who created those pages, you will see that the editors who created those pages came to Wikipedia user space twelve years ago, not to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to peddle software. The fact that they used four accounts is not the reason why their stuff is being nominated or why it should be deleted. This was U5, misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, apparently to promote the sale of software. The fact that they used four accounts is incidental. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, this is part of a cross-project cleanup. Please refer to my global account list if you're concerned about my low edit count on this project. Additionally: some of these subpages are actually linked from other projects using direct URLs, e.g. on b:User Page Builder/Topic List. Omphalographer (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- You have 237 edits. You arrived to go straight into XfD stuff. Now you’re clerking very old userpages of blocked users, and you’re telling me you known the behaviours of CUs. I suspect you to be violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace not using your main account. What prior accounts have you used, and how do you come to concerned about these very old pages, which have no pageviews or incoming links? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: this activity all occurred in 2012, and, as far as I'm aware, all of the users involved have been dormant since then. It's beyond stale; there's no chance whatsoever that CU will intervene here, and I don't expect them to do so. Omphalographer (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete All:
- A review of the contribution histories of the contributing authors shows that none of them made any contribution to Wikipedia other than these edits to peddle software, so that these pages all qualify as U5, web hosting.
- The contributing authors could also have all been indeffed as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, because they were only here to peddle software.
- As the nominator points out in passing, Tonymax469 was trying to promote their software to new users. That would have been a reason to block them. This is a deletion request, and the reason for deletion is that this is a misuse of user space.
- The fact that the three contributors were probably sockpuppets is only an observation and not the reason for requesting deletion.
- Maybe the authors and Planotse should have been reported to SPI twelve years ago. That is not important.
- It doesn't matter whether there were three humans behind the accounts, or one human with three accounts, or if one human did all of this with one account. It is spam.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
September 20, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Defunct project with no views. Chances of revival is almost null. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've got no problem at all with deletion, if it comes to that, but don't we usually just template these things as {{historical}}? Either way, it's completely useless as it stands. SerialNumber54129 17:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's possible to truly delete wikiprojects (and all subpages, templates, and categories), but that is done with the abortive new ones created out of process that in addition to nominally existing maybe only spam talk pages with banners and don't exist as a group that does something (usually one user's creation). That's not the case with this wikiproject. —Alalch E. 12:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: I know. I do not know why you tell me this. I deliberately softened my phrasing to make it a less offensive way of saying BS nom. Thank you! SerialNumber54129 14:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, you know, sorry and you're welcome. —Alalch E. 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: No problem at all! Always good to get affirmation, and extra eyes is no bad thing. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 14:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, you know, sorry and you're welcome. —Alalch E. 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: I know. I do not know why you tell me this. I deliberately softened my phrasing to make it a less offensive way of saying BS nom. Thank you! SerialNumber54129 14:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's possible to truly delete wikiprojects (and all subpages, templates, and categories), but that is done with the abortive new ones created out of process that in addition to nominally existing maybe only spam talk pages with banners and don't exist as a group that does something (usually one user's creation). That's not the case with this wikiproject. —Alalch E. 12:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, do not delete. Consider tagging defunct, or archiving, or redirecting to a larger WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Leave Marked Defunct - See the guideline on inactive WikiProjects. It is true that the project is inactive. The work of a WikiProject is mostly done on the project talk page, and the talk page for his project had 9 pageviews in the year 2023 and 30 in the year 2024. Those are annual pageviews, not daily pageviews. The project is already marked defunct, and should be left that way. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep legitimate defunct wikiproject. These nominations are erroneous.—Alalch E. 12:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Draft:Gorilla Tag. Paradoctor (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not a RFORK. No articles involved. Do not bring draftspace junk curation to mfd. There may be some unimportant copyright noncompliance. Fix by redirecting the new draft to the old draft with a note that the new one is a partial copy of the old one.
- Starting a new draft with a subset of the content of another draft is not inherently bad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in draft space. Do not redirect to the other draft, which was rejected. The two drafts can each be reviewed independently. This draft is a draft, and will self-destruct in six months if left alone, but not if diddled with. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
September 19, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a horrible "template" that makes the simple process of adding or following discussions on a talk page, extremely hard. It's also a duplicate of the Wikipedia:Tip of the day for no reason at all. Compare the current version of Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day to this version. While projects can style their project pages how they want (within reason), the talk pages should be as simple as needed. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Have you raised this on a talk page anywhere? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
September 18, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All prior XfDs for this page: |
Unclear what has changed since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. The few new editors that just signed up to Wikipedia is hardly a sign this project will survive. At best that needs to be a task force (if even that). Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep due to no deletion rational proffered by the nomination. This should be a talk page discussion. The claim, This project has now attracted about 20 editors, and we've made a significant contribution to wikipedia. Please see the campaign here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/southern_african_music__sound/programs, should be discussed on the talk page, not at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The deletion rationale is the same as for the first deletion nomination in March 2024, which was closed as delete. The work of a WikiProject is normally done at its talk page. The talk page of this project had 159 pageviews in the year 2024, which is less than 1 daily pageview, and 113 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024, in connection with the previous MFD. The project page itself shows 399 pageviews in the year 2024, or approximately 1 daily pageview. and 117 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024. The activity for both the project page and the project talk page is in two clusters, the first between 13 March 2024 and 1 April 2024, and the second between 18 September 2024 and 20 September 2024. It appears that this project and its project talk page were entirely unused between 2 April 2024 and 17 September 2024. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the deletion rationale or the circumstances are the same. The March 2024 MfD was not closed as delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
September 17, 2024
[edit]This was submitted to AfC draft review queue - user space page filled with obscene/graphic content (warning to discussion participants) ostensibly to prove a point about WP being uncensored, but seems like a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT to me. I don't see a real reason for this page other than trolling AfC reviewers and wasting time that could be spent on more important tasks. ~Liancetalk 20:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Page seems to want to intentionally shock the readers, and that's not what userpages are for. Doing so to make a point only makes it worse. (Note: the user has not edited since last April). Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good point about the user not editing since April, I should've caught that but just wanted the page out of my sight at the time of nomination (seems like an IP submitted it for review)... I'm still standing by my deletion nomination as this is a pretty obvious violation of WP:UP#NOT ~Liancetalk 14:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Very close to qualifying for Speedy Delete as Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Blank. Attempting to achieve an outcome by shocking AfC reviewers is maybe disruption. I see this as a collection of links to Wikipedia content that Yumuli (talk · contribs) thinks should be deleted. They may be correct, the videos are of dubious encyclopedic merit, and I believe that amateur self-photography submissions were discouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's Commons files. The standing sex vid was kept in a deletion discussion, and the cunnilingus one is used on the Asturian Wikipedia. In general, these files aren't going anywhere. They're not low-quality enough for a Commons consensus to delete. —Alalch E. 11:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sheepish (film) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. JBW (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Revival section is a hoax. Page creator has created a bunch of drafts that were complete hoaxes. Likely this one is completely unreliable. William Graham talk 00:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
|
September 16, 2024
[edit]Revival section is a hoax. Likely the rest of the draft is tainted by other hoaxes. William Graham talk 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is about an unsourced assertion of an announcement?
- Theres an editor behavioural allegation underpinning this. Take it to WP:AN. Or stop trying to curate draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Why does the nominator say that the revival section is a hoax? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I answered the above question. The statement about the September 2024 revival announcement was put into the draft in July 2024. That statement is a hoax, and the whole thing is part of the pattern of vandalism by IP editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
This movie was announced in July 2024, but everything else in the draft is a hoax. William Graham talk 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Does the nominator have specific evidence of incorrect information in this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as Cambalachero Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frenzy Animation |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. JBW (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Appears to be a hoax. William Graham talk 23:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Entire lead is a hoax. William Graham talk 23:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - BLP violations, using the names of real people without verification, and we do get strict with BLPsde;ete. Likely hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:22 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that the bluelinked names amounts to a BLP violation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – We need @SineBot: over here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since I’m over here already; might as well !vote. I’ll say weak delete per @Robert McClenon. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. Unsourced, but probably true. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax William Graham talk 23:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Biographies of living persons violations: Full of names of real people with no verification of their involvement. Hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:NDRAFT, and the content is NOT a BLP violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax. William Graham talk 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
KeepDelete - Biographies of living persons violations. Probable hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)- Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT, and I disagree that there is any BLP violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft talk:Untitled Don Hall project (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by IPs responsible for many hoax drafts. William Graham talk 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. (Note: I assume that you nominated the empty draft's talk page rather than the draft itself by error) Cambalachero (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The Don Hall and Blue Sky Animation pages confirm that there is an untitled Don Hall project. As previous editor notes, nominator appears to have tagged draft talk page rather than draft page. Can an admin rename this MFD or otherwise clean it up? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There may well be a problem here somewhere, but the nomination lacks sufficient quality to proceed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax William Graham talk 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - There is no evidence that this is a hoax, and there is evidence that it is probably correct that this is a film that has been in development limbo for twelve years.
The nominator should stop making idle claims that drafts are hoaxes,especially when there is some evidence of truth.Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax William Graham talk 23:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Apparent hoax. The draft states that the studio began operation in March 2025
, and has other dates that are in the future presented as though they were in the past. The Heymann criterion should be, if the studio exists or existed in the past, for the author to correct the dates, and provide reliable sources. Makes unverified statements about the careers and plans of living persons, which are biographies of living persons violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)- This is going too far. The listing of bluelinked movie professionals on a draft about a sequel that they are probably involved with is not BLPPRIVATE and is not a BLP violation. The page is presumable correct, about intentions. It’s failure is being unsourced, but being unsourced is not (currently) a deletion reason in draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The renown Canadian studio (as everyone else knows it) has been in business since 1971. Shouldn't we convert this into a redirect for the upstream Nelvana article? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Apparent hoax. William Graham talk 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I will check the plausibility of this draft within the next four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I find no evidence that Kelly Asbury had a son Kevin Asbury. So this appears to be a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Couldn't find any evidence of a "Kevin Asbury" playing a role in either of these films. Agree that this is probably a hoax. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Unsourced possible hoax and possible BLP violation. The hypothetical son is a private person. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Most of the information on this page is incorrect. Edited by IPs that have created hoaxes. William Graham talk 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is an unverified biography of a living person. It is probably a hoax, but in any case, draft biographies of living persons are an exception to the rule that drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources exist confirming Mark Koetsier did co-direct Paws of Fury (then known as Blazing Samurai) during production. It doesn't look like he had any role in Hitpig!, and, in fact, this source on Hitpig! only mentions him separately as the director of Blazing Samurai.The incorrect parts can be removed and the correct parts can be sourced without having to delete the draft. Not sure if he is or isn't notable (he appears to have directed several films, so he might be), but that alone shouldn't be an issue for MfD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- After looking a bit more into it, the other work that he directed was the 2022 short film In The Between which itself doesn't appear to be notable, so no RS on this side. Koetsier is probably non-notable, but, again, the draft can be kept in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Untitled Wild Kratts film |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. JBW (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Hoax. William Graham talk 23:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
|
- Draft:List of animated television series of 2029 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fiction. William Graham talk 23:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The list's topic is suitable for Wikipedia. There are no examples to fill it right now, but there's no harm to keep it in draft space until such examples appear and the list can grow to a decent size (and rest assured that examples will eventually appear) Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Likely Hoax. The one reference returns a 404 error. References are not required in drafts (except of BLPs), but broken references give reason to question the good faith of IPs whose good faith has been lacking. When a good-faith editor wants to create a good-faith entry in the list, they can request undeletion of this draft as a skeleton. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete until 2028 – I was only being nosy looking through stuff; not necessarily intending to comment on anything; but I’ve got to comment on this.
- I might not necessarily have a whole lot of experience on policies; but to create a draft of animated television series slated to be released five years from now is ridiculous if you ask me. There are probably animated television series that’ll end up being released in 2029 that haven’t even begun production; probably series that haven’t even been conceived yet.
- Now that said; when we get to about October, November of 2028; I would fully support someone drafting this. But until then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:List of animated television series of 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All of this information is a hoax. William Graham talk 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It is all unreferenced, yes, but it is an unsubmitted draft, let them fix things. And no, it is not all a hoax: at least the Asterix & Obelix film already has a subpage in the Netflix site. Cambalachero (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Prime Focus |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a huge number of drafts made by a group of editors using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. JBW (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Appears to be a hoax. William Graham talk 23:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Appears to be a hoax. William Graham talk 23:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability concerns. Drafts are only deleted as hoaxes if there is evidence that the draft is a hoax, not just a lack of verifiability. This draft in particular states that it is not ready to be submitted for review, but can be updated when the film is closer to release, and then submitted when the film is released. This draft is a stub, and stubs in draft space are useful to grow slowly until they are ready for submission. Robert McClenon (talk)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shedd (film) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. JBW (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Appears to be a hoax. William Graham talk 23:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
|
September 15, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brownconsultinggroup/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Promotional WP:RFORK of Sledmere House. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 04:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 September 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. |
September 14, 2024
[edit]clearly not notable; users Quantasticpn (talk · contribs) and Johnvasta (talk · contribs) have only worked on this article, making me wonder if it's a COI? Snowman304|talk 15:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Drafts are not deleted based on notability. And it's not unusual for just one editor to be working on a draft. How would other editors know it even exists? Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I could have been clearer. I found it funny that these two users have worked on only this article. The same applies to Quantastic (talk · contribs). For all three, their global contributions are only related to Bharti.
- The bulk of Bharti's works where I could find a publisher are self-published. Call me cynical, but it feels like WP:NOTRESUME or some flavor of WP:COI might apply. Snowman304|talk 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Tag for possible COI - Liz is right. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. This draft is at the point where it should reasonably be Rejected if tendentiously resubmitted. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete drafts. COI is not a reason to delete drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
September 8, 2024
[edit]WP:RFORK of Vaddera. Paradoctor (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not a redundant fork of Vaddera. It is partly an expansion of Vaddera, and partly all sorts of other things, and is in a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. Appears to copy content from a facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/100075997032735/posts/1482649895319567/ —Alalch E. 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paradoctor: If you're interested in redundant forks, you may want to look into Vaddera and Waddar —Alalch E. 23:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure what the original source was, but it certainly doesn't seem to have Thiru9959, and in this context we can err on the side of caution. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep unless the nominator provides a link to the other draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Earliest edit I could find. Please note that that sandbox was moved to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.[1].
- Weak Delete this is older than the article that was created is (2017 vs 2023), and this editor has been inactive over 7 years and non-responsive to their talk page. All appearances of being abandoned. TiggerJay (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Blank. The article and the much older abandoned draft don't have a shared history. The draft is about a living person and is poorly sourced and mildly promotional. There was no need to nominate this for deletion because involvement of administrators and other editors is not required.—Alalch E. 19:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
September 6, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Popular pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Useless only has 1 page and apparently only has ever had 1 page as per page history Isla🏳️⚧ 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mark historical' and revert to last functional version, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of garbage in, garbage out as, until my actions at Talk:Winter Storm Helena (which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the assessments special page search results. I've removed it from the bot's config page. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading the documentation and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the templates were merged/deleted. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
August 30, 2024
[edit]Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal
. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: as a well-known portalista I'm generally inclined to keep the portals which are left as examples of type (like old ships kept in "mothballs"). This is a portal of a very odd style; like User:Robert McClenon, I find this unusual construction compelling as a menu. I'm also interested in the intact digital artifact. Because of the coding, many older-style portals fall apart when moved from portalspace, but this one should move to project space fine. FYI, while pagecreator User:Bermicourt self-reported as retired in January, they've edited as recently as two months ago. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't odd, it's German. This is how they make them over at dewiki. Essentially they are outlines with some added visual structure. —Alalch E. 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)