Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions
Tags: Manual revert Reverted |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
===May 21, 2024=== |
===May 21, 2024=== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Cyril Byron.jpg}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Fairvote}} |
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Fairvote}} |
||
Revision as of 20:18, 21 May 2024
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 29 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 19 | 29 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
May 21, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Fairvote |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Keep The page at the time of closure is already a redirect, so this closure expresses no opinion on whether the BLARing is justified. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Talk:FairvoteAppears to be an accidental creation that should be at Talk:FairVote. –Sincerely, A Lime 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 20, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Georgiagayle |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) User:GeorgiagayleCopy of Buford, Wyoming. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ronald mugula |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Move to draft * Pppery * it has begun... 19:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) User:Ronald mugulaWP:FAKEARTICLE, poorly referenced BLP. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joe Neilson |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) User:Joe NeilsonAn unreferenced WP:FAKEARTICLE about a possibly living person. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 17, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kadenphill394745/Sample page |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Kadenphill394745/Sample pageExactly Sample page but some words are altered with languages inappropriate for wikipedia, with no intent of changing it up after over 7 hours. Originally CSDed under G3 but has been contested by a different editor as too hasty. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sayyad Mohsin |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Sayyad MohsinCopy of Holkar Stadium. Flounder fillet (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AutarchistPapers |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:AutarchistPapersCopy of Autarchism. Flounder fillet (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vaibhavrocks2580 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Vaibhavrocks2580Crude copy-paste of a list or several lists. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smallet20 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Smallet20Crude partial copy-paste of Stewart Downing with a BLP violation added at the beginning. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Calitoz |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:CalitozCrude copy-paste of Acid sulfate soil. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tricia Andres |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Tricia AndresWP:FAKEARTICLE Flounder fillet (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paige Grimes |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Paige GrimesSeems to be a copy from a The Walking Dead wiki or something similar, which makes it at least as bad as WP:COPIES of Wikipedia mainspace articles. Flounder fillet (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete all The editnotices in template namespace could be speedy deleted as G8 once the pages they relate to are deleted, so the venue issues are unimportant. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus
Unused talk subpages. Contains copy pasted template code, but was never filled in with unique content. It's a numbered bulleted list but the bulleted list is blank. Intended for transcluding, but never filled in. Page creator has retired. I thought about G6ing these, should be completely uncontroversial. But better safe than sorry :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kun123z |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Kun123zCrude copy-paste of an old version of Hockey. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shrachik agrahari |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) User:Shrachik agrahariCrude copy-paste of an old version of Topology. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 16, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Voiceless alveolar median fricative |
---|
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 18:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Draft:Voiceless alveolar median fricative
Article for the voiceless alveolar median fricative exists 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Template:Voiceless alveolar median fricative |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Draft:Template:Voiceless alveolar median fricative
Not a template, created by IP who is known to vandalize IPA and Cyrillic-related articles 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demo0012 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) User:Demo0012A copy of Microsoft. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ROYAL RED ft. LADY TAPA |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) User:ROYAL RED ft. LADY TAPAcopy of Seini Draughn. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 15, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gretselle |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) User:GretselleAn unattributed copy of an old version of Science and technology studies. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 14, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 03:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844
Draft with a very strong whiff of the WP:HOAX. It covers off the obvious quibble that nobody's ever heard of this with a claim that it was suppressed until recently, but even the sourcing isn't bearing that out.
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Geode (Geometry Dash) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Draft:Geode (Geometry Dash)Only sources are User Generated and Self Referencial, and it is unlikely a reliable source will be found. Tw294. User | Talk | Contribs 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 14 June 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
May 6, 2024
Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Matrinp. There are WP:Parallel histories here so this can't be histmerged. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Martinp and Pppery /... and Extraordinary Writ; switching back to my original recommendation: after a more careful look it is now clear to me that the histories are unrelated and I agree the question of who gets the credit is not important/ (parallel histories).
Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.—Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) - Selectively History Merge: As per others in this discussion. There's no overlap with the first 5 revisions. TarnishedPathtalk 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with a redirect as the page history will be preserved. TarnishedPathtalk 00:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. History merges at best make the history harder to decipher and at worst give a misleading impression of what happened. In this case there's no legal attribution issue, and giving someone "credit" is not a good enough reason to resort to a histmerge, in my opinion. (Requests like this are regularly declined at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words | |||
---|---|---|---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I was reverted with the edit summary of WP:OWN : "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - which reaffirms my strong opinion for deletion of an essay which is not an explanation of any wikipedia guideline, just an opinion of a single strong-hanged person. - Altenmann >talk 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
|