Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, 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}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
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.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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.

I.
Edit PageName:

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

{{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, use <noinclude>{{mfd}}</noinclude> as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

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.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and 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 and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 3 4 84 0 91
TfD 0 0 4 0 4
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 13 12 0 25
AfD 0 0 97 0 97

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.

December 2, 2020[edit]

Draft:Areo Magazine[edit]

Draft:Areo Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Repeatedly declined draft. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I dream of horses, we don’t come to mfd for “repeatedly declined draft”, unless it is being resubmitted without improvement. You have only just now REJECTED it for the first time. Wait for the next submission before coming here for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: Who is this "we" you're talking about? Perhaps you're referring to a consensus I'm unaware of? If so, can you link to it? Or is this an unspoken rule that I can safely ignore?
    • I've done something similar before without complaint (reject a repeatedly declined draft and nominated it for deletion). The draft was deleted. Unfortunately, the name of the draft escapes me, and it would take an unusual amount of determination to go through my contributions simply to jog my memory. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) (Fixed formatting at 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

ec

I dream of horses, “we” is the nebulous concept of Wikipedians, with respect to how we deal with inept newcomers banging their heads and wasting our time in draftspace. I do think there is an undocumented consensus that we’ve established here in mfd discussions and at WT:AfC to follow a stepwise escalation pathway in response to poor drafts, to (1) DECLINE with encouragement to improve and resubmitted. An RfC, I think linked downstream of WP:DMFD established (2) that tendentious resubmission can/should be responded by MfD nomination. (3) if the draft is definitely hopeless, “improvement” to mainspace-worthy is not possible, then REJECT. (4) If the draft proponent continues after a REJECT, then bring it to MfD.
Here, you REJECTED and then immediately nominated at MfD. Perhaps you consider it an especially egregious REJECTED draft? Or do you think all REJECTED drafts should be discussed for a week at MfD?
I think this draft should be left to be deleted by the WP:G13 process. This gives the author six months to fully consider whether they have encountered an unreasonable reviewer, or whether the topic is simply not suitable. A shorter deadline doesn’t help anyone or any thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not convinced this topic is woefully non-notable. A number of sources are sort of close. I consider it complicated. I advise it’s proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More than three sources of low quality tend to irritate reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not convinced this topic is woefully non-notable. A number of sources are sort of close. I consider it complicated. I advise it’s proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More than three sources of low quality tend to irritate reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I'll reply on the talk page here. You'll receive a ping when I do. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 08:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

December 1, 2020[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ladakh[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ladakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A dead or probably never-alive WikiProject. All the interlinked articles have been edited only by me and FlyJet777, except few minor edits by other editors to correct wrong transclusions of templates/categories. The WikiProject surely doesn't really seem useful as there has been no collaboration by other editors, which happens to be the purpose of having a WikiProject in first place. It was created in February 2020 and 7-8 months is a good period for editors to give chance to revive the project. Seems that such thing has not happened. In fact I don't even think this Project was even created by consulting multiple editors. Seems to be just one man army working here and Project is not needed for one single (now two) editor. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of creating WikiProjects about subregions of Kashmir, I suggest renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kashmir and creating task forces under the Project for the subregions. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - as a subproject of WP:WikiProject India. The parentage on the page suggests that it is a subproject, but the articles have been getting tagged as being handled by a separate WikiProject (see Talk:Ladakh for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete whether as a subproject or as its own project, two people do not a project make. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A dead or probably never-alive WikiProject. All the interlinked articles have been edited only by me and FlyJet777, except few minor edits by other editors to correct wrong transclusions of templates/categories. The WikiProject surely doesn't really seem useful as there has been no collaboration by other editors, which happens to be the purpose of having a WikiProject in first place. It was created in February 2020 and 7-8 months is a good period for editors to give chance to revive the project. Seems that such thing has not happened. In fact I don't even think this Project was even created by consulting multiple editors. Seems to be just one man army working here and Project is not needed for one single editor. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of creating WikiProjects about subregions of Kashmir, I suggest renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kashmir and creating task forces under the Project for the subregions. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?[edit]

Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Per WP:FORUM; this is for places like reddit or quora Firestar464 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, topical archive. Maybe a {{talkarchive}} tag should be added/protection should be applied to stop new posts though ... Graham87 07:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:User lang[edit]

Template:User lang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

The purpose of this template is similar to {{Userbox-level}}, which has more options than this template. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:User la-1 hic[edit]

Template:User la-1 hic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

100% identical to {{User la-1}}. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard[edit]

Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Please see previous MfD. Accidental closure as keep when only one user voted. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 05:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Thesilenthero794/sandbox[edit]

User:Thesilenthero794/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Fake article, almost entirely copied from Gippy Grewal, an Indian actor born in 1983. However, the actual subject of this user subpage is a Punjabi individual born in 1998. Seems like attempted self-promotion and serves no encyclopedic purpose. ƏXPLICIT 03:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 30, 2020[edit]

Draft:Typing.com[edit]

Draft:Typing.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This draft page was recently created and does not have any true facts about Typing.com. It tells about opinions about Typing.com, for example, the only thing that i, the writer of this document do not enjoy about this educational game is when you go on a part of the game called 'stories'. See "Wikipedia is not an essay" and "G11". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

keep just let g13 take care of it. This MFD is a waste of both your time and the rest of ours, there's nothing immediate that warrants this deletion, it hasn't been tendentiously submitted. Just let it be. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, please read WP:G13. Note that G13 only applies to draft spaces or userspaces with {{AFC submission}} that have not been edited for at least 6 months. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please save the lectures. This nom is ridiculous and an abuse of MFD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Seventyfiveyears, this page is in the draftspace, so it will eventually be eligible for G13. If anything your MFD has pushed back that date by four months now. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete because we are here. As noted above, should have been left alone, because an MFD nomination has the effect of restarting the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is an unsubmitted draft and shouldn’t come to MfD for such objections. It is verifiably real. “Opinions” are exactly what is wanted, except that the opinions need to be published. Facts can come later from the non independent sources. I think it unlikely to ever be a stand alone page, but it could get a mention at Typing game. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with DGG below that the current content is out of scope. It could be offered as a user review on an independent website, which does not include Wikipedia. On looking harder, this is just another worthless very specific WP:CORP and it has no chance of becoming suitable. I disagree that this means it should be processed by MfD. The AfC process of DECLINE or REJECT suffices. Are these not readily available on unsubmitted drafts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete personal opinions about a web site are out of scope for Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:BushelCandle/3RR Evidence[edit]

User:BushelCandle/3RR Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This page was created over a year and a half ago to collect diffs on me. I believe this is a violation of WP:POLEMIC and serves no purpose any longer by this point. If I should be bringing this to a different place to request deletion, please let me know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Noting that nominator requested user take the thing down but was rebuffed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:POLEMIC. Negative material about others must not be kept live without a very good reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is not really what the guideline against polemics is about, but not everything undesirable is covered by a guideline, and this is undesirable. It is close enough to the meaning of several guidelines for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It is squarely what the POLEMIC third dot point is about. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 29, 2020[edit]

Draft:List of curse words[edit]

Draft:List of curse words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This is basically just a really bad/weak original research with poor wikilinks. Enjoyer of World💬 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 28, 2020[edit]

Draft:Mel Robbins (talk show)[edit]

Draft:Mel Robbins (talk show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Constantly resubmitted with no attempt at improvement. After it was rejected the author tried to move it into mainspace itself, and when the page got draftified it was instantly resubmitted again with no improvement. SK2242 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • user:Praxidicae should be TROUTed for move warring. Use of draftspace is NOT mandatory, and if an author does not want to use draftspace, the answer is AfD. At AfD it would be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
perhaps you should be trouted for assuming bad faith. I didn’t move war. I was patrolling new pages and saw a poorly sourced dubious article that should be draftified and did it. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Praxidicae is not move warring. They only moved the article once.
  • The editor who is move-warring is Michaelstarwolf9.
  • In view of the history, it would have been even better for User:Praxidicae to AFD the article. As User:SmokeyJoe observes, this was a case of a user who had already decided, against the advice of reviewers, that they were going to get the article into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Does User:Michaelstarwolf9 have a conflict of interest?
  • This illustrates the value of clarifying our policies and guidelines on disruptive resubmission.
  • Fellow reviewers: Please do not allow a disruptive submitter to cause us to argue with each other when the real issue is the quality of article space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Once a new page author has made it clear they don’t want to use AfC or draftspace, New Page Reviewers and others must not force them to. AfC and draftspace is not mandatory (declared or proven COI excepted). If the page does not belong in mainspace, and someone puts it back, use WP:AFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mainspace and, if desired, send to AfD - If the author believes this is an appropriate topic for the mainspace, it should be given its day in the proper venue. AfC is not mandatory (seems I am echoing SmokeyJoe here) and should not be coercive. This feels like back-dooring/back-rooming discussion of the topic to me. This venue should not be used to circumvent that process and if a draftication ([Draftification] is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion.) is clearly undone and opposed, it should not be forced (perhaps this was not fully realized as the draftications were by two different individuals). On a tangent, the subject is mentioned at Mel Robbins#Career.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The only person trying to circumvent any process here is the author, who has ignored several declines and rejections and refuses to communicate or improve their draft. We should not be rewarding them by sending their crappy draft to mainspace, and even if it does go there AfD will hopefully kill it. It's a waste of everyones time to try and force it into mainspace just for it to die. SK2242 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, AfC is merely voluntary. One does not have to use it if they do not desire to. Morever, WP:DRAFTIFY (again): the aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace, i.e. incubation and not to set it up for prompt or eventual deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There has been no improvement here. The draft is the exact same as when it was rightfully kicked out of mainspace the first time. Again there’s no point in sending this to mainspace when we all know it won’t survive for more than a week there. SK2242 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not it was improved is irrelevant. It seems we disagree on the nature of draftification, but I believe my view is in agreement with the relevant policies and guidelines (some of which I have linked above). Finally: proper process is important, especially in matters of controversial deletion, so I disagree that my suggested action is pointless. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Process is important, but it's not a hill to die on. SK2242 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the amount of disputation regarding the deletion of drafts over the past few years, that, my friend, is a matter of perspective. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Mainspace and AfD. There are many routes towards removing this, we should do what will work best. in practice, AfD is accepted as the more definitive process. Especially a second deletion at AfD. That tends to greatly discourage attempts to re-create. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 27, 2020[edit]

Template:User WP Punjab (India)[edit]

Template:User WP Punjab (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

There is no WikiProject named as such. We already have WP:PUNJAB, which cover the Greater Punjab region instead of just the Indian state. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as historical. See this. J947messageedits 08:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    There's no point in keeping the member template of a WPJ that is merged to a bigger WPJ. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    That sounds more like a case for potential redirection than deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep in some way per J947. Still in use by some users. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Verify whether those users are active. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Merely pointing out that it is in use; not really concerned with their recent activity. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regions[edit]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Redundant to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

REDIRECT to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location. I'm the author.  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

November 25, 2020[edit]

Draft:Alfie Whiteman[edit]

Draft:Alfie Whiteman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Govvy with the reason "Already have a draft at User:Govvy/Alfie Whiteman" FASTILY 23:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Draft duplications are never a reason, never a sufficient reason anyway, for one user to have the other's deleted. The userspace draft, which Govvy ostensibly has some OWNership rights, is not actively edited. The newer draftspace draft is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Encourage a "merge and redirect". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Really, it was deleted last time when I said I had a better version in my sandbox I had worked on. Numerous times the article had been created by others when he hasn't even played a first-team game yet to qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge the two drafts and work on improving it. GiantSnowman 18:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @GiantSnowman: Merge what and where? Also, I have the exact same information on my draft, so that can't be a content merge. @SmokeyJoe: Which way round is the redirect and what exactly are you merging?? Govvy (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge the histories of the two drafts at Draft:Alfie Whiteman. GiantSnowman 19:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but considering he just made his debut, delete this draft! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No, you would merge the draft with any mainspace article (and then delete the redirect). That is the point of drafts. GiantSnowman 11:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Again what is the point in merging what is already there. I really don't think WP:DUP applies. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SK2242: I don't think you're suppose to have cross-namespace redirects. Govvy (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You’re not suppose to have redirects leaving the main namespace. Read WP:CNR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Alfie Whiteman per WP:SRED. No prejudice against a merge. If the author expresses a desire to have their own workspace, then userfy this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:User in Daman and Diu[edit]

Template:User in Daman and Diu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Dadra and Nagar Haveli is merged with Daman and Diu in January this year. Therefore, delete this template, redirect it to {{User in Dadra and Nagar Haveli}} and rename that template to {{User in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu}}. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Why delete it before redirection? No need to obscure the history if this is to still exist in some form. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Doraemon broadcast in India[edit]

Draft:Doraemon broadcast in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This page has been REPEATED recreated and deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doraemon_in_India, the original AFD, The history of the original page in all of it's sordid glory, and Draft:Doraemon (Indian Version) which was created by the same editors a few weeks ago and speedied. Speedy here was declined, so to AFD we go. All of the same reasons at the original AFD apply here, it's the same article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete and ECP SALT in draft space. With this long history of pointless re-creation in article space, there is no point to a draft except to waste time and try to game the system. Create-protect it in draft space so that a neutral reviewer can create a draft and then request its acceptance, in the unlikely event that a neutral reviewer thinks it is worth reconsidering. But delete this draft, and block any more SPAs from creating more drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and ECP SALT in draft space. Eventually alternative title options are going to be used up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Ravensfire: I found another one... Draft:Doraemon India. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, but on examination, the calls to SALT overstep RFPP guidelines. SALT the mainspace title, sure, but logs do not show draft pages in a delete-recreate cycle. Also, especially in draft space, this could lead to a game of chasing chickens. Better is to warn and then block the accounts doing the repeated disruptive re-creations, thus creating clearer to follw user_talk page records, should it go that far, which it has not. Behavioural problems are better responded to on user_talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also Draft:Doraemon Movies India which is almost a direct copy of the "movies' section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and ECP salt. Spam. SK2242 (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete delete and ECP -- (it is worth noting that this is not exactly among the intended uses for ECP, but it's the only thing that's likely to work) DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles using British English titles[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles using British English titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Incomplete list of articles using British English, and is superseded by Category:Use British English- which shows all articles that this applies to. Therefore, this page is misleading as it doesn't give a full picture of which articles use British English, whereas the category does Joseph2302 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:User WP Azad Kashmir[edit]

Template:User WP Azad Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WikiProject Azad Kashmir was deleted as an inactive WikiProject created by a sock. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 05:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Zeeshan Khan (businessman)[edit]

Draft:Zeeshan Khan (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Resubmitted after rejection in a spammy form by a disclosed paid editor. The editing history of the page suggests that a WP:G13 deletion seems unlikely as at least one paid editor is continuing to work on the draft past rejection JavaHurricane 04:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I have replied that the place to ask about a page that has been nominated for deletion is in the deletion discussion (this deletion discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - There have been two editors working on this draft, User:Sanjaysharma5882 and User:Imdavid21. The first one has not edited in the last few months. The second one, who asked me the question on my talk page, says that they do not know the first editor, who may or may not be working for the subject. So the subject of the article is probably using two different paid editors, who are gaming the system by resubmitting the draft with minor changes after rejection, and only asking a question after the draft is tagged for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - The author has not followed up within 24 hours after being advised that this was the place to discuss. The author did not really deserve another chance to explain, but I gave them a chance, and they didn't explain. As per nomination, this is a case of tendentious editing by a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Paid editor refusing to drop the stick. SK2242 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete paid editing with no chance of being accepted. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 24, 2020[edit]

User:TeamUSA2020/sandbox[edit]

User:TeamUSA2020/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

First line is "Kokusai himitsu keisatsu (国際秘密警察シリーズ, International Secret Police) is Japanese spy comedy action film series." Sockpuppet creation. Contents of this and similar pages repeatedly re-created under various names, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oliverdrinkstars57 and the contribs, logs, and filter logs of the various sockpuppets. Unfortunately this was created while the sockmaster was not blocked, so {{db-banned}} does not apply. See also: #User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Tora no kiba immediately below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as sock lint. Can these be bundled if there are any more of them? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Tora no kiba[edit]

User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Tora no kiba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Sockpuppet, contents repeatedly re-created under various names, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oliverdrinkstars57 and the contribs, logs, and filter logs of the various sockpuppets. Unfortunately this pre-dates the original block so {{db-banned}} does not apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - Will go away in three months unless new socks come along play with it. Might as well delete it so as not to have it be sock bait. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's in user space, it hasn't been submitted as a draft, it shouldn't be tagged G-13. I may be opening other MFDs for this user's user-space drafts in the next few days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bvoocord[edit]

Draft:Bvoocord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Clearly non-notable. Pahunkat (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Notability has very little to do with deletion of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy delete G11. Blatant promotion of http://discord.me/biocord, and not a hint of regard to the purpose of Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMFD. If it is speediable, speedy it. Maybe the author believes it will become notable shortly or in time. Otherwise, G13 will overwhelm eventually anyhow. No need to bring such pages here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete No point in its existence. SK2242 (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rusted Warfare[edit]

Draft:Rusted Warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Not in English, and is therefore not suitable for an English encyclopedia. Opalzukor (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as not a valid draft for the English Wikipedia. (Might be a valid draft for an encyclopedia in the language that this is, which is written in the Cyrillic alphabet.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Standard draft topic. English is not required. One of the biggest remaining tasks of Wikipedia is the translation of articles between the different languages, and en draftspace is useful for that. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMFD. It may get translated; otherwise, the G13 roomba will navigate to there and sweep it up eventually. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I wouldn’t have tagged it myself but since we’re here might as well get rid of it and point the author to the appropriate language Wikipedia. SK2242 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UltraUsurper[edit]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UltraUsurper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This is a weird mix of aspersions (claiming that Prahlad balaji is a sock puppet) and an apparent ad for some VPN. It is not useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Indeed, I do not know why Prahlad balaji was blocked (other than it had something to do with Oversight); however, I do know that he was was not a sock, especially given there has never been an SPI launched into him. This is definitely a WP:CONSPIRACY theory. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Author has made no edits except to create this, and a CheckUser does not think this is a valid LTA case. We can let the nominator investigate who the author really is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, noting that the nom is the checkuser involved in the related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UltraUsurper/Archive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: Useless LTA case that casts WP:ASPERSIONS and gives demonstrably false information (e.g. Prahlad balaji's location). This is not something that should be kept. JavaHurricane 04:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

November 23, 2020[edit]

Draft:EOS (Company)[edit]

Draft:EOS (Company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Seems like an advert, on the verge of requesting CSD Pahunkat (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - It is currently submitted for an AfC review (and has been since mid-September); if it is not speediable, then it deserves a fair shake in that process. It can be declined as promotional if that is due. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - It needed to be declined as promotional. I have declined it as promotional. It was probably in AFC review for two months because of its length, which made verifying corporate notability tedious; but it reads like a marketing brochure. The author has been asked about conflict of interest. In my opinion, it is not G11 because it can be trimmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November 22, 2020[edit]

Draft:Rocket League The Movie[edit]

Draft:Rocket League The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

No evidence of the subject film's existence and the creator (JorgeGiu1990 (talk · contribs)) has been indefinitely blocked for other unsourced additions. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:NMFD. The rolling rites of G13 will desecrate this if nothing comes of it anyhow. No need to bring such things here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Editor was blocked for unsourced additions, and unsourced additions to drafts are permitted, and the editor is more likely to come off block than a sock would. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G3. Tagging now. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • No objection to deletion if it is indeed speediable. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. Not a notability issue, but a WP:V issue, which we can and should be deleting (yes, even in draftspace!) ♠PMC(talk) 08:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates