Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Information

From Wikipedia

Administrator instructions

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

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

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Book:, , 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

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.
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

How to list pages for deletion

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.

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}}


{{ mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{ subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{ subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transclued pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
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.
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
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

XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 33 23 56
TfD 0 0 2 1 3
MfD 0 0 4 6 10
FfD 0 0 2 2 4
AfD 0 0 0 36 36

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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.

April 17, 2021

Template:User Tour operator

Template:User Tour operator ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Unused uncompleted template created by a now blocked tour operator. Cabayi ( talk) 07:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unfinished template that appears to have been intended to be a userbox (though this might be better discussed at TFD, since it doesn't actually contain any userbox code, it's a weird edge case). ( talk) 12:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

April 16, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Shivam Rajput
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: speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11. plicit 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Shivam Rajput

Shivam Rajput ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Non-notable. Editor is trying to create wikipedia about himself DasSoumik ( talk) 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

April 15, 2021

Anjula Mutanda

Anjula Mutanda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

The original wikipage was deleted by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjula Mutanda, the creator of this page has not edited it since August 2020. Devoke water 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • If this was left alone G13 would’ve taken care of it in February. SK2242 ( talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Leave for WP:G13. G13 was created so that things like this do not this individual processing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Per above. You may be interested in the essay WP:NDRAFT, and particularly how nominating things like this to MfD delays their deletion. Vaticidal prophet 09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Knighthood ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

i have moved the page, no need for this one to exist any longer The helpful 0ctopus ( talk) 13:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Fix the Redirect and Keep. It's completely standard to have redirect from draft space to the resulting article, and since you moved the page by cutting and pasting rather than using the page move function some of the page history has been left in the redirect, so this will need to be kept for attribution reasons. As an aside redirects (regardless of namespace) are discussed at WP:RFD. ( talk) 15:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • G6 as an unwanted trailing redirect with no history. Alternatively, overwrite with a redirect to the matching article for this title, which is Knight. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 14, 2021


MediaWiki:Editinginterface ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Empty, less explanatory than default, not edited since 2008. 54nd60x ( talk) 11:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • redirect to mediawiki:Editnotice-8. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC) withdraw opinion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep @ 54nd60x: deleting this page will cause it to show the mediawiki default for this message, in its current state it does not show the message; and the message that @ SmokeyJoe: mentioned is already displayed. We also don't use redirects on interface messages like this, when needed we do the reverse and transclude one message in to the other. With this new information do you still advocate for deletion 54nd60x? — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This doesn't really belong at MfD in my opinion, this should be discussed at the WP:Interface administrators' noticeboard, where people who actually know what they're doing can discuss this to avoid breaking edit notices across the entire site. Per above having a blank page may be intentional, as it supresses the default output of the software, I fail to see why "less explanatory than default" is an issue since it isn't in active use, and this isn't a page that should be edited regularly, so I also fail to see why "not edited since 2008" is important. As an aside I'm a fan of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" when it comes to mediawiki since the software is literally held together with duct tape, and there is no benefit whatsoever to deleting this harmless blank page and the potential for catastrophic damage if something is still using it. ( talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per the explanation of the purpose of the page by Xaosflux above. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 21:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep After reading this new information, I request the message to be kept, but <p></p> can be removed so that the result is a blank message as I don't see the meaning of those HTML tags. 54nd60x ( talk) 10:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why? If they're not affecting anything leave them alone, they might be there for a reason, and we shouldn't be deleting them because you don't know why they're there. It's a blank fully protected page in a part of the encyclopaedia that no one accesses on a regular basis, there is no benefit whatsoever to changing it and it's possible that there's some kludge out there still using it for something. ( talk) 11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The are still holding the class tag on their element in the output, can you describe an actual problem that is occurring here? — xaosflux Talk 00:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 12, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Kingdom of Jeruslaem
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: Speedy Delete (G6 as a dupliate). — xaosflux Talk 13:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Kingdom of Jeruslaem

Template:Kingdom of Jeruslaem ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Unused userbox; misspelled duplicate of User:Tablecloth1389/KingdomofJerusalem. Lennart97 ( talk) 13:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unnecessary duplicate. Political and potentially controversial user boxes should normally be kept in userspace per WP:UM and WP:UBXNS. Since both were made by the same editor with the userspace one being made a few minutes after the template space one it seems it might have been made in the wrong namespace to begin with? ( talk) 14:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as an obvious typo. Since the duplicate hasn't been transcluded, deletion does no harm. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

April 11, 2021


Help:Glossary ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

This page, first created in 2008, aims to be a reader-focused glossary, contrasted with the editor-focused glossary at Wikipedia:Glossary. However, I question the need for such a glossary to exist.

A reader is someone who, basically by definition, has not delved deep enough into the weeds of Wikipedia to find a page like Help:Glossary, so it's not surprising that it's averaged only about 10 pageviews per day. For readers that do arrive at the page, either they're looking to find the definition of a specific term they encountered (meaning we've already failed, because we should be defining on the spot any jargon we use in reader-facing places), in which case ctrl+f will work just as well at WP:Glossary, or they feel a need to read the whole thing in order to navigate Wikipedia, which is an utterly unreasonable ask to make of visitors to a general-use website (luckily I think we're good enough about using plain language that there aren't really readers in this category).

The page is out of date (it calls wikilinks "free links", a term I don't think anyone uses nowadays), poorly scoped (a reader-focused page shouldn't be defining the community portal), and just generally not that helpful (it's not somewhere I would want to link from a reader-focused intro to Wikipedia). It should be redirected to WP:Glossary to reduce the maintenance burden, reduce the cluttered maze of beginner help pages (something they regularly report to be overwhelming), and eliminate its potential to make editors think they have license to use undefined jargon words in reader-facing areas. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: WT:Help Project. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Having read the short Help glossary, I think that it is helpful for new editors who would rather not deal with the longer glossary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WP:Glossary per nom. I do question the contents of this glossary and the need for a separate glossary for readers - most Wikipedia articles are written to either avoid jargon or to explain it where it occurs, like the footnotes on disambiguation pages which clearly explain what a disambiguation page is. This seems to contain a random selection of words with limited relevance to readers. Why is "Coordinates" included in a Wikipedia glossary - that's not specific to Wikipedia and basically any reader should figure out what they are. Why does it talk about "discussion" pages, there is no discussion link - it's called a talk page. If this is intended for readers with no intention of editing why are concepts like IP editors, namespaces, page histories, free links and page protection explained (wikilinks are actually explained 5 times under various names, none of which you'll come across as a reader, and I would hope we don't need to explain what a link is in a glossary). Why are skins explained in an introductory glossary if they're only available to logged in readers? only a tiny fraction of our users have an account. I could continue here but basically all the terms here are either not Wikipedia specific, are already explained wherever a reader would come across them or are irrelevant to readers, and I don't see any value in keeping this over the complete glossary for editors as the selection of terms seems to be fairly random and this is quite badly out of date. ( talk) 13:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to the suggestion that we critically review this to sort out just the entries relevant to readers - I think if we sorted through this list thoroughly there would basically be nothing left for a reader facing glossary. looking at the current entries on the list:
Extended content
  • admin - Readers will likely never come across an admin, they only interact with editors. Terminology is not used in articles
  • article - self explanatory, does not need a definition. "This article is about X" is not going to confuse anyone
  • broken link - this terminology is not used in articles
  • blue link - this terminology is not used in articles
  • category - this might be worth having, but every category has a help link to Help:Categories which does a much better job of explaining what they are.
  • Community portal - Not terminology used in articles, most readers will not come across the community portal. If they do click on the link in the sidebar the first thing on the page is a massive "welcome to the community portal - this is what it is" notice
  • coordinates - general concept not related to wikipedia
  • disambiguation - general concept, all disambiguation pages already contain a template explaining what a DAB page is
  • disambiguation page - duplicate of previous
  • discussion - the concept of a discussion is not wikipedia jargon, discussion pages have been called talk pages for years
  • editor - self explanatory, not Wikipedia jargon
  • external link - this one seems reasonable, most articles have external link sections and it isn't explained what makes a link external
  • Featured article - most readers will have no interaction with the featured article process except spotting the stars in the corner of articles, which already have rollover text telling you what they are.
  • free link - obsolete terminology, not used in articles
  • GNU Free Documentation License - general concept, not wikipedia jargon
  • hatnote - not used in articles, readers will come across hatnotes, but they won't come across the term "hatnote"
  • history - only place a reader will come across this is in a few cleanup templates, which already explain it refers to the page history.
  • interwiki - not a word used in articles
  • IP - general term, not Wikipedia jargon. Not a term used in articles.
  • IPA - general term, not Wikipedia jargon. IPA usage in articles is already linked to Help:IPA
  • ISBN - general term, not Wikipedia jargon. already linked to ISBN when used in references
  • link - general term, not Wikipedia jargon. I think we can assume anyone on the internet knows what a link is.
  • Main Page - self explanatory, doesn't need a glossary definition, not used in articles
  • MediaWiki - not used in articles, only place most readers will come across this is the main page, which already states it does wiki software development
  • namespace - not used in articles, readers will not come across this term
  • page - fairly self explaitory. The difference between a page and an article is irrelevant for most readers.
  • Portal - This one is reasonable - lots of templates for related portals and the like use this jargon
  • protected page - not used in article, readers will not encounter page protection outside maybe noticing the padlock icons in the corner of pages
  • Random page - self explanatory, already has rollover text explaining what it does
  • Recent changes - not relevant to readers, this is something only editors will use
  • Redirect - this is reasonable - used a lot in hatnotes and the like
  • Red link - not used in articles, readers will not come across this name
  • Reference - general term, not wikipedia jargon
  • sister project - The only place readers will come across this is the main page, which explains what each sister project is, or soft redirects, which also link to information about the projects
  • skins - advanced feature only available to registered users, does not belong in an introductory glossary
  • stub - already linked to the help page anytime it appears in a template.
  • Talk page - Most readers will not come across a talk page, and talk pages already have an editnote telling you what they are and how to use them
  • wiki - Not used in articles, not really Wikipedia jargon
  • Wikibooks - don't know why only wikibooks gets a mention, but anywhere it's mentioned in templates it's already linked to Wikibooks
  • wikilink - Not used in articles, readers will not come across this name
In my opinion I think that of the current definitions in the glossary the terms that Wikipedia readers might come across in articles that might need definition are category, external link, Portal and Redirect. ( talk) 02:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, but simplify. It is good to have simple Help:Glossary for newcomer readers, in contrast to the comprehensive Wikipedia:Glossary for Wikipedians. While it is ideal to not need a reader glossary, this does not justify deleting the glossary. Instead, them listings in Help:Glossary should be critically reviewed, with respect to whether they are needed, and whether the use of these terms on reader-facing pages can be altered. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The only incoming link from mainspace is Glossary. Does any reader every find this page? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
It gets ~13 pageviews per day [1]. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion about venue
  • Keep. Speedy keep WP:SK#1. No rationale for deletion. This is an archive, or redirect, or merge and redirect proposal. That calls for a talk page discussion, and there is no justification for the MfD seven day deadline. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ SmokeyJoe: I'm less familiar with MfD than I am with AfD, so I'd appreciate your insight if you are, but recent discussion at the village pump affirmed that AfDs by nominators seeking to delete (in the non-technical sense) and redirect rather than just delete are perfectly okay. Is that non-applicable here? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    Hi Sdkb. The difference depends on whether the redirect is Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. Other cases include: fixing a content fork; or a smerge and redirect. I think this case is one or both of the other cases. AfD has higher propensity to act because there is the need to get inappropriate stuff out of mainspace. At MfD, you have to make the case that the page is inappropriate, not just that there is a better way. What I see here is that you are making a reasonable case for merging the two Glossaries. This amounts to a WP:Request to merge. Requests for merge are not properly done under the threat to agree or see it deleted. If your proposal to merge is disagreed with, the next step is RfC, not XfD. There is no need here for either haste or deletion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I suggest that you move your proposal to Help talk:Glossary, and if there is no substantial disagreement, redirect. This makes for a lower-stakes process, you don’t have to be certain you are right, another editor later may revert the redirect if it seems to not be working out. This is the wiki way. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:SK1 requires that the nominator "fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection" and has done since this 2015 RFC. As the nominator has advanced an argument for redirection SK1 does not apply. I also can't see that a merge proposal is the right way to go about this - Help:Glossary is just a cut down version of WP:Glossary so there's nothing to merge into the Wikipedia page. Until someone creates a "Requested redirect" process this seems like the best place to discuss this. ( talk) 15:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to switch to a different venue if there's a more appropriate place, as I don't want the venue question to distract from the redirection question. But since there seems to be some uncertainty about that and some editors have begun !voting on the redirection question below, I'm going to separate this out into its own section if that's alright, so that we can continue trying to figure it out but not get muddled. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What is TCM

What is TCM ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

There is already a Traditional Chinese Medicine page in the article namespace and the draft topic is wholly redundant to that of an existing article. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 10, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bigbigbignthvsd
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: Keep, blanked. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


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

User page of blocked vandalism-only account. No useful info. TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 18:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Do not try to use MfD as shadow SPI clerking. If the blocked user's page needs deletion, the blocking admin can ask. At a minimum, these requests should come from a qualified SPI clerk. You might decide to blank it, an any-editor action, but do not create a community discussion without good reason. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe. Vaticidal prophet 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Blank if possible, but I do agree with the statements above. – Cupper52 Discuss! 08:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I can go blank it as there's no useful info about the user. So far, the only edits from the user is pure disruption or vandalism, plus misuse of user warning templates. The user page is complete trash.
    I don't fully know if this is a sock of another blocked user, but do you have an idea about any previous user describing themselves as "the best Wikipedia user"? - TagaSanPedroAko ( talk) 20:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe. No need to bring such pages here. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 21:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

April 9, 2021

Starship SN15

Starship SN15 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

This is another draft on a space test vehicle. The unregistered editor wants to include all of the Road Closure information, which is an indiscriminate collection of information. This draft was declined twice and then rejected, and now the editor has asked me (see comments copied to draft talk page) to undo the rejection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do this! ( talk) 18:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Starship development history. Already in mainspace. Collaborative editing will solve the issues of level fo detail. Do not use draftspace to fork content, unless that is the consensus on the article talk page. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Starship development history#Starship SN15 per SmokeyJoe, which already covers the Starship. No need for a spin off article full entirely of WP:CRYSTAL material, and anything important that can be properly sourced (i.e. not road closure announcements and sections that consist of nothing except Pending) can be covered in the exisiting section. ( talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Starship SN11

Starship SN11 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

This draft has been declined seven times by five different reviewers. There is no reason to think that this particular SpaceX test vehicle is about to receive significant coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - anything that is of value can be added to the main article, this particular version of the SN series is not special enough to need it's own article. This particular author also has a hard time following the suggestions of reviewers and enjoys repeatedly submitting duplication content forks. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 04:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like information that belongs in mainspace, but not as its own article. Why can’t I find an article on the SN series of starships? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Starship development history is where the most pertinent information can be found. This particular draft consists nothing more then that of an overly detailed timeline for a single version of the vessel supported primarily by Twitter posts. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 14:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the author. I have worked very hard on this, but I understand what you mean. It can be deleted. I will move some parts of it to Starship development history. Please reply here and on my talk page. ( talk) 15:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Best Movies ( 2001-2020 )

Best Movies ( 2001-2020 ) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

I don't see why this blatantly POV draft is in any way deserving of being on Wikipedia. There's already List of films considered the best, which isn't restricted to 19 years. Dominicmgm ( talk) 00:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 8, 2021

Music notes for beginners

Music notes for beginners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

WP:NOTGUIDE Kaseng55 ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Old business

April 8, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jirass
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: keep. Consensus is that this is a WP:NMFD "should never have been nominated" case. (non-admin closure) Vaticidal prophet 16:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Jirass ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Clearly not going anywhere Nearlyevil665 ( talk) 14:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:NMFD. — csc -1 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete because we are here and the originator has been blocked. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G5 Ignore The creator of this draft is blocked for advertising, it will just be removed in 6 month. Kaseng55 ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
No Kaseng55, that’s not how G5 works. G5 is for pages created by sockpuppets after the sockmaster account was blocked, and pages created by editors who are serving a topic ban where the page concerns the topic. SK2242 ( talk) 02:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arccosecant and Kaseng55. "Not going anywhere" is not a good reason to list pages here. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

April 7, 2021

Shopping Gears

Shopping Gears ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Appears to be promotional. Kaseng55 ( talk) 23:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, a plausible topic, and not offensively promotional. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete — sole paragraph is incredibly promotional, but this really didn't need to be sent to MfD hours after it was created. — csc -1 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Not quite G11. While reviewing the feed on drafts is necessary because of BLP violations and stupid stuff, this isn't stupid enough or promotional enough to need deleting from new drafts. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wise The Gold Pen (Oficial)
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. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Wise The Gold Pen (Oficial)

User:Wise The Gold Pen (Oficial) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

It's unclear to me what the intention for creating this user page was or where the content comes from, but it appears to be a Spanish-language version of Wise (composer). This user never edited anything again after creating this page in 2014 and there's no indication that any of the information here could be useful for improving Wise (composer) or any other article, so it can probably be deleted per NOTWEBHOST. Lennart97 ( talk) 22:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - User came in 2014, left this nothing which does not comply with user page guidelines, went away.
      • Concur with nominator that this is web hosting.
      • This page was created in 2014, but has tags that are dated 2011, attesting that this was scavenged.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Renga
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. — xaosflux Talk 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


Renga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

What is this? Some sort of promotion or what? Kaseng55 ( talk) 01:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - There isn't a guideline that says that Wikipedia is not for stupid stuff, but Wikipedia is not for stupid stuff. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Draft fails core policy WP:NOT and should not be allowed to remain on the site, even for 6 months as Wikipedia is not a web host. SK2242 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete — per WP:NFT, clearly not a serious attempt at an article. — csc -1 14:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

April 6, 2021

Tanner Fox

Tanner Fox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Non-notable person, which has deleted 4 times before. Frontman830 ( talk) 07:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep: Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. (Where did I read that line the first time? Should it be an essay? It should absolutely be an essay. Any regulars object to me writing it?) As draftspace articles are automatically deleted under G13 after six months, an otherwise unproblematic draft for a non-notable subject should not be MfDed. That said, the number of prior deletions indicate there might be a time to MfD this, if it's being tendentiously resubmitted or if editors are trying to evade G13 -- but there's no indication of that yet. Vaticidal prophet 10:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Also, ironically, by nominating this you've delayed its deletion. It hadn't been edited since January, so it would have been deleted in a couple months, but now it'll make it quite late in the year. Vaticidal prophet 10:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just only a draft article of a non-notable YouTube personality, but sometimes rejected (without reliable sources), and it was repeatedly recreated 4 times. -- Frontman830 ( talk) 13:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Struck !vote by nominator. Vaticidal prophet 22:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Partially reverted strikethrough to just the bolded duplicate Delete !vote, the nom can make further comments if they wish. SK2242 ( talk) 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep:
      • It's a Rejected Draft. It needed rejecting.
      • It has been deleted from article space four times, twice after discussion, and twice speedily. That isn't a reason to delete from draft space.
      • Leaving it in draft space as Rejected will be useful, and will slow down further resubmission.
      • It doesn't need deleting from draft space.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Rejected drafts only can be deleted for nomination (even longer than several months). -- Frontman830 ( talk) 03:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMFD. — csc -1 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMFD. Notability is not considered in regard to drafts as it would be for a page in the mainspace. No need to bring such things here. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

April 3, 2021


FootyClubTaskForces ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

This is a grouped MfD. See below for list

Consensus has been reached on WikiProject Football multiple times that club specific task forces are not needed, as well as the fact they all appear to be inactive. See discussion 1, disccussion 2, and discussion 3

A previous task force deletion required 3 separate deletions to completely purge it: Real Madrid deletion vote 1, Real Madrid deletion vote 2, Real Madrid deletion vote 3 - not sure if there is an easier way.

These are the ones that have not been deleted yet: there's 10 total: Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Celtic, DC United, Liverpool, Manchester United, San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Sheffield United, and Sheffield Wednesday. None of them are active based on their Talk pages.

I have placed the MfD tag with links here on each of those pages. This is my first 'grouped' MfD so I hope I did it correctly.

RedPatchBoy ( talk) 22:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatchBoy ( talk) 22:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not a member of any of these task forces, but I do not think talk page activity should necessarily be the bar for the use of a task force. For contrast I and many others edit many articles related to the United States and Canada task force, yet there is minimal talk page activity. I also know for a fact that there are a few very active members that are a part of the Sounders task force. I'd like to get an opinion from the most active editors from the respective task force pages nominated here before any additional input. Jay eyem ( talk) 23:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Quick addendum, I actually would be in favor of a procedural keep to evaluate task forces on their individual merits. Some of the task forces are clearly more active than others and bundling them together like this isn't prudent for discussion. I also agree with SmokeyJoe that there are better alternatives to deletion, such as archiving. Jay eyem ( talk) 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect Without prejudice to perhaps renoming a still-born one individually. Just picking at random Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Liverpool task force clearly has history worth preserving. There's no real value to deleting inactive projects or taskforces anyway. WikiProjects are inward facing by nature so projects and taskforces without participants are nowhere facing and cause no harm. Taskforces don't even contribute to template clutter, which can in any case be dealt with by collapsing. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 ( talk) 01:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to expand a bit if the WikiProject doesn't want to use taskforces anymore, file WP:BOTREQ to remove taskforce parameters from all existing template transclusions, modify the template to longer support those parameters and then mark all TF pages as historical. If you really don't like them they can be blanked as well. But absent a good-policy based reason I can't see why talk page discussions should be removed from visible history. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 ( talk)
      • In light of SmokeyJoe's comment below I've added the redirect option which could be done for both the main task force pages and their associated talk pages. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 ( talk) 03:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are non-trivial histories here. Please explain why archiving or redirection is not sufficient. Note WP:ATD is deletion policy. The wiki way means avoiding deletions without good reason. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Archive. Were used, aren’t wanted going forward, that means archive. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The task forces are inactive and most were only active for a short period of time. WP:FOOTY is the logical task force here. Commission a bot to remove these task forces from articles and point to that one, if not already pointing there. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:FOOTY is the project itself, from which there are additional task forces. How are you determining that the task forces are inactive, out of curiosity? Jay eyem ( talk) 04:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see no reason why individual clubs need individual task forces. Giant Snowman 07:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @ GiantSnowman: Some clubs have a lot of content that needs attention. The Man Utd task force covers more than 1,500 articles, for example. – Pee Jay 20:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment one of the points that I didn't mention was that nation task forces exist already. And these individual clubs are already part of those (ie Bayern part of German foory task force, real Madrid part of Spanish FOOTY task force etc. The nation ones would remain RedPatchBoy ( talk) 09:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete this has been discussed at WT:FOOTY before (will look for links), we don't need task forces for specific teams, task forces for countries is more than sufficient. And can we also delete associated pages to the taskforces too (so we don't need 3 MFDs like the Real Madrid task force deletions)? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as has been noted above, the individual clubs are already part of nation task forces, so it's a bit redundant to have a Bayern TF if we already have a German one (and, honestly, I'm also for deleting nation task forces, as I don't think they serve much of a purpose). Nehme 1499 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I think they do still fulfill a role in focussing editing on specialised articles. For example, Matt Smith (footballer, born 2000) might not have got as much coverage just under the England task force, but it did under the Arsenal talk force. Some may be irrelevant and small (Seattle and DC) due to a lack of history and subjects to cover that can be easily adsorbed, but others like Arsenal and Celtic have a lot more to focus on. So I think, at the very least, this one size-fits-all-approach isn't suitable. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment Amount to focus on doesn't appear to be relevant for example with the Celtic one you referred to, that task force looks like it was created in 2011 and then nothing. It has one article listed in the open section with a start date of 2011 and then nothing. Also, of the five members of that task force, they have a combined edit count of 1 edit since 2016 on wikipedia (on a non-celtic article in 2019 to boot). So, at best Celtic should be deleted for the same reason as the Real Madrid one was. If some of the others ones could be shown to be active, then I could be inclined to saying they could be "grandfathered in" since the past WT:FOOTY consensus said no new ones should be created, but I don't think any of these are active. RedPatchBoy ( talk) 19:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It's not necessarily about the chat, it's about the work. Arsenal is one that I can say certainly is active by looking at the featured content it is consistantly producing. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 07:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete they seem pretty redundant, are adequately covered by the nation-wide task forces and are mostly inactive anyway. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all A club is to small a scope for a task force and is redundant to larger scope task forces. -- SuperJew ( talk) 19:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all I really don't see the point of these club task forces, but you haven't listed any here. So I don't know what ones we have or exactly how many, what we are deleting. Govvy ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Govvy: I listed them in the third paragraph of the nomination. RedPatchBoy ( talk) 23:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Even if the wider community doesn't see the value in these any more, they're not doing any harm and deleting them doesn't really help anyone. Why don't we just tag them all as inactive in case there's a desire to give them a proper go again? Deletion undoes a lot of work that would take a long time to restore if we ended up changing our minds. – Pee Jay 20:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all, and set status to defunct, as well as mark as historical. These task forces have a history even if going forward the wikiproject has decided that they are no longer needed. The decision to no longer make use of these task forces does not mean that the pages must be deleted. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I checked the Arsenal task force as a sample held up as among the most likely to be non-trivial, but see for yourself - there's nothing relevant on its talk page, nothing but a list of interested users. There isn't anything to "save" here. If wholescale deletion does not find consensus, redirection would be my second preference - the few actions that did happen would be recorded in the page history, and there'd be an easy history in the unlikely scenario of an interested group of users resurrecting it in the future. As noted before, there's not even enough "interesting" parts to mark historical, these projects seem largely stillborn. SnowFire ( talk) 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • If your sample includes only one task force then you haven't looked very hard. At least at the start, the Manchester United task force was very active, so to assume that no task forces have ever had any activity just because the Arsenal one wasn't is kinda silly. – Pee Jay 15:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above, redundant and generally inactive.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment would it be better if we close this and then re-propose each individually to assess each individually, given some of these are not and never were active, while some were more active in the past? I wouldn't propose all 10 as individual ones at once. Maybe two at a time and they could be assessed that way? RedPatch ( talk) 16:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

March 31, 2021

User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence

User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

page is a draft by now blocked user. Based on original research and novel interpretations that are completely out of step with mainstream scholarship on the subject, this draft was clearly created as an attack on Aboriginal Australians - It's essentially racist in its tone, aims to present Aboriginal Australians in worst possible light, to make them look like savages by massively exaggerating the severity and extent of what we know about inter-tribal violence. The creator of this draft is now indef-blocked for blatant COI and advocacy issues which amounted to a racist attack on an Aboriginal author. This kind of racist attack page doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia Bacon drum 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Depends on how the content is framed, one can write an essay or an attack piece and attach many great sources without reflecting them accurately, absent of the broader mainstream and contemporary view. Especially when dealing with Aboriginal Australians, historians and anthropologists need to be considered very carefully. This is a country with a profound history of racism. Regardless, this draft article is a load of racist nonsense, we have no comparable article on Wikipedia, Aboriginal people should not be singlesd out in such a manner, presenting only the most negative claims available, mainstream contemporary scholarship does not treat this subject in such a manner and it is fair to say that doing so is bald faced racism. Bacon drum 03:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficiently scholarly to overcome perceived racial offensiveness. Anyone may attempt to pick this up and work with it, for the improvement of mainspace. It’s deletion would smack more of censorship. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I immediately looked for a link to Quadrant, it is in the magazine's online "opinion" section, by some fella citing the editor, Keith Windschuttle, entitled "A blacked-out past — Part III". ~ cygnis insignis 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe. Vaticidal prophet 01:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Unsuitable for mainspace at the moment, but has the potential to be useful after editing. Zoozaz1 talk 22:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Reasonably-sourced start to an article, though I'd remove the and Violence from the title to remove the "savages" connotations if moved to mainspace. We have countless articles on European wars, so I don't see the need to delete this singular draft. Somnifuguist ( talk) 22:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per those above. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 20:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

March 30, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Virus Text
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: keep unanimously. (Aside: although the draft in its current state is a WP:NOTGUIDE issue, I wrote a DYK about something quite similar.) Nominators are reminded that there is no need to bring WP:NMFD situations to MfD. (non-admin closure) Vaticidal prophet 16:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Virus Text

Virus Text ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Blatant WP:NOTGUIDE violation. – Mario Mario 456 16:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:NMFD, as this does contain an encyclopedic description of the topic in the lead. Should this be repeatedly submitted and rejected, then I'd support deletion, otherwise just leave it for G13. — csc -1 20:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Was already rejected, and could possibly have been reworked after discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Under the current system, unfortunately, G13 will eventually overtake this anyhow. Thus, there is especially no need to list such things here. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

March 28, 2021 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Not sure if this is promotional or what, but it may be promoting an education website. Kaseng55 ( talk) 22:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Not obvious what this is, but it hasn't been submitted yet and isn't CSD material. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like advertising, but there are no references and it probably isn't notable (Google book search finds a few mentions, but they don't look like significant coverage), and the username looks like it represents an organization associated with Peter James ( talk) 22:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - the genie of G13 will poof this into obscurity should it go unedited. No need to list such things here. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

March 27, 2021


User:Thewhitebox/ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

Draft article in user namespace of blocked user; not edited since 2014 Peter James ( talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Plausibly notable or mergable. Blocking users does not include clearing out their subpages. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    It wouldn't be accepted if submitted as a draft, and would have been deleted years ago. Whether subpages are deleted depends on the user; in this case they were disruptive, using sockpuppets, and probably evading a block. If an account is blocked it doesn't make the subpages exempt from deletion. Peter James ( talk) 22:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, but you need a nomination rationale better than "blocker user". I don't see a reason not to leave this here for someone to pick up. A quick search on "Walmartsucks" shows interesting stuff, google suppression of criticism of major brands, trademark issues, etc, involving multiple big brands. Unlikely to be notable on its own, but it might fit in a larger topic. G13 was implemented due to the tens of thousands of unreviewable drafts including BLP and copyright violations. I have reviewed this userpage and decided there is no such issue here. It is not an AfC page, and we do not routinely delete usersubpages for being old and unedited. The user may return, and anther user may find it by the title and make use of it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I respectfully disagree with SmokeyJoe. We don't need dung that has been sitting around for seven years from blocked users that never had a purpose. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You are not being respectful to a reasonable standard. This draft is not comparable to dung, presumably you mean "animal feces". It is a serious topic, serious legal issue, censorship issues. It is serious references. Many things that might be useful and will be lost if this is deleted. "Never had a purpose"? Disagree, this draft fits will the purpose of userspace, to build up material that might add to mainspace. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or draftify. This is most of a reasonable article and I wouldn't mind working on it. jp× g 05:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Draftify ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#Stale userspace drafts #8); WP:User pages allows it for long-term inactive users' pages. Peter James ( talk) 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain and oppose draftification because of G13, which was expanded after some of the above guidance was incepted, and because of the systematic failure of the draftspace (i.e. it is not much more likely to be discovered and expanded there than where it is at). The only thing that will very likely occur from draftification is deletion ( WP:DUD). Secondly, there is no need to delete this over that of an older draft in the userspace of any other blocked user; thus, I oppose their deletion on a class basis. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Although there's no specific time limit for drafts in user namespace it is not intended to be somewhere to keep pages permanently - five years is long enough as the user is inactive and unlikely to resume editing from that account. There are other reasons not to keep it there - most of it is quoted from sources, and although it is not a biographical article most of the content refers to living people. Peter James ( talk) 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates