Wikipedia:Miscellany for 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

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

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	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. 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.

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. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	15	27
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	0	20
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	8	37	45
AfD	0	0	0	8	8

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 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.

March 20, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alan0445/Barry Audia

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 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC) User:Alan0445/Barry Audia User:Alan0445/Barry Audia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Same user created the mainspace article [1] the day after writing this draft, so attribution is taken care of. There is nothing to merge. No reason to keep the copy or create an unnecessary cross name space redirect. Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Template:Wolf-Williams Racing

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 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Template:Wolf-Williams Racing Draft:Template:Wolf-Williams Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wolf-Williams Racing will not have a page of its own. It is covered by Frank Williams Racing Cars. The creator of this draft is a disruptive IP hopping editor who is well-known to the F1 project and who has tried multiple ways to create a page for Wolf-Williams. Eagleash (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC) This IP hopping, non-discussing editor never listens to anyone, and just keeps trying to create articles and templates which are redundant, repetitive or non-notable. When he's knocked back, he just has another try. Let's just cull this here and save ourselves the trouble of getting rid of it later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per Eagleash and Bretonbanquet, also noting that navigation between the articles linked from this template is already provided by Template:Frank Williams Racing Cars. DH85868993 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per above. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:Template:Iso-Marlboro in Formula One

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 00:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Template:Iso-Marlboro in Formula One Draft:Template:Iso-Marlboro in Formula One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Has no uses. All aspects are covered in related articles which have their own suitable templates. Eagleash (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom: no point in this template as all this info is covered elsewhere. We don't need endless repetitive templates about very minor Formula One teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per Eagleash and Bretonbanquet, also noting that navigation between the articles linked from this template is already provided by Template:Frank Williams Racing Cars. Delete as this template is not a defining characteristic for any of the people on it. Also, Iso-Marlboro redirects to Frank Williams Racing Cars, so this seems like they're the same/similar team, and we already have Template:Frank Williams Racing Cars. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2016 (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/Portal:Current events/Calendar box

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. — xaosflux Talk 12:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Portal:Current events/Calendar box Portal:Current events/Calendar box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This portal is currently not transcluded on any pages. The month links at the top now redirect to the year article and the previous history of these pages is now under subpages of Portal:Current events per an archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Weak keep. Mark as historical and/or redirect to Portal:Current events? It was used before and I don't like the idea of deleting actually used project pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Archive per Ricky. Don't delete things once used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Keep and tag atop with {{Historical}}. North America1000 07:08, 9 April 2016 (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/User:Zcisco0/The Sheeler Uncertainty Principle

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. This could be WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax - "$\mu _{i}$ is defined by the content and volume of Sheeler's lunch", forsooth! JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) User:Zcisco0/The Sheeler Uncertainty Principle User:Zcisco0/The Sheeler Uncertainty Principle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Nonsense from October 2013 of an alleged mathematical "principle" based off the classic non-reliable source of a facebook post. It could also be a U5 situation but I think that's a stretch. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete assuming no one can find verification. Superficially plausible looking nonsense to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as unsourced and probably nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2016 (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/User:Alatanar/Psychic archaeology

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) User:Alatanar/Psychic archaeology User:Alatanar/Psychic archaeology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Editor seems to have copied without attribution a draft of Psychic archaeology from June 2013 in their userspace. Temporary drafts are fine but WP:UP#COPIES suggests that after this much time, it should be deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:House of Spyra

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:House of Spyra Draft:House of Spyra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unsourced, twice-rejected draft. Reads like borderline nonsense OR, particularly considering that it was created by 37.201.5.161 (talk · contribs) / 37.201.4.42 (talk · contribs), whose editing history consists mainly of adding implausible unsourced content about the ethnic history of places to various articles, e.g. here something about the Buddhist origins of a Gallic tribe.  Sandstein  08:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete this stuff is nonsense created by someone trying to use us to promote their own ideas. I've run into this Perun stuff before. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as pure nonsense.--Yopie (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2016 (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/User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC) User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I can't figure out where this stale draft is trying to go. It lacks context and references. We don't have Dynamic modeling or Dynamic Modeling as articles. I suggest we delete this. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. There is no need for someone not interested in the topic to try to figure it out. It is a good draft, with references, and there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Not a copy of State diagram. Viable options are to redirect to State diagram (implying that the user should work there instead) or replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} or do nothing (keep). There is additional material in this draft, and the information is not stale. Remove the AfC template if that is the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Not a copy. Fine in userspace indefinitely. If it were in DraftSpace, I would say "Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:State diagram, consistent with the policy WP:PRESERVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful". That is an opinion. Opinions like this belong on talk pages. Merge and redirect to talk:State diagram. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Delete as a stale draft of a user who has not edited in 5 years and as a duplicate of State diagram, so there's no useful information being lost. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC) It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful. There may even be some copyvios concerns - at least one sentence is a direct copy from one of the sources. And there is simply no substantive difference between placing {{Inactive userpage blanked}} on a page versus deleting and mentioning WP:REFUND in the deletion message. ~ RobTalk 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. It's the same topic. If a separate draft were to be created, it would be subject to deletion because it would be a duplicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. We don't leave old stale draft lying around indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:26, 8 April 2016 (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/User:Nucletron CN/近距离治疗

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 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Nucletron CN/近距离治疗 User:Nucletron CN/近距离治疗 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Extensive article in Chinese long stale Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete - Nothing comprehensible for accepting. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. A close copy, probably a not so old version, of Brachytherapy. Probably (AGF) used to update the Chinese Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2016 (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/User:Nilocia/Transformice

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. MER-C 04:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC) User:Nilocia/Transformice User:Nilocia/Transformice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Userspace draft from August 2010 of Transformice. The original version was created, deleted in July 2010 by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice and this fork was created. The mainspace version was recreated here so there's no need for this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as a probably WP:UP#COPIES violation, probably reposted from an offline save of the deleted page, though I am not sure. I think to be sure one would need to access the deleted page revisions. I have some suspicion that a history merge should be considered, despite the new article's first edit claim. For the benefit of Nilocia, refer to the article Transformice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and SmokeyJoe. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:23, 8 April 2016 (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/User:Mpolson92/2014 Rose Bowl

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 01:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC) User:Mpolson92/2014 Rose Bowl User:Mpolson92/2014 Rose Bowl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Userspace draft from September 2012 that is already covered by 2014 Rose Bowl. No connected history, editor's single edit was this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Redirect. Redirection does not imply attribution, it just sends the returning editor to the relevant place, and does not require community review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Delete per Ricky81682. - I can't find anything to show that a redirect should be considered for a userpage. If I'm mistaken about that, I have no issue with a redirect being created. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. No redirect necessary, if editor will ever be back (not likely considering only 1 edit back in 2012), (s)he should be encouraged to edit mainspace. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:21, 8 April 2016 (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/Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Because i beat up my little sister

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 page has been deleted. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Because i beat up my little sister Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Because i beat up my little sister (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Obviously a fake page, look at the usernames... —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 05:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Speedy keep and move to WP space. The accounts are real, and they do like sockpuppets going by the similar style of usernames. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator: I believed this user created the page as a joke because they had used a semi-protected edit request in place of a move request and had used weird usernames. My mistake... —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 10:15, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Daniel Hoey

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 deleted per G10. Agreed it is stupid but there are rules against poorly sourced pages that reference living people and this one fell under that as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Daniel Hoey Draft:Daniel Hoey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTBLOG. North America1000 01:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Warn - Stupid, but in draft space we normally decline rather than delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Wingnikki

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 00:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Wingnikki Draft:Wingnikki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America1000 00:58, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Okello Benard

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 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Okello Benard Draft:Okello Benard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 00:57, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Данчо Владимиров

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 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Данчо Владимиров Draft:Данчо Владимиров (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 00:57, 20 March 2016 (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/User:Aj jackko/sandbox

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC) User:Aj jackko/sandbox User:Aj jackko/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a blatant NOTAWEBHOST and Fake Article violation. Claims to Notability include speculation "he is amphibious mammal" coming in 10,757th in a half marathon, 3,561th in a 10K, engaging in fantasy football and exhibiting photos in a private residence. It's a funny read, kind of, but not a suitable use of wikipedia space. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Note that this was created in August 2012 with an editor who never came back. It's possibly mocking enough to fall under G10. It's entirely based on non-reliable sources with no evidence of notability from this drafts and the promotional links to his webpage and flickr account are sufficient for me to say that deletion should be preferred over blanking. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Trev Trevor

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 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Trev Trevor Draft:Trev Trevor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Why not speedy U5 these? Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Because they are not in user namespace. WP:U5 only pertains only to "pages in userspace". North America1000 00:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Speedy delete per WP:G6. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Never underestimate what is uncontroversial. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Non-notable biography on a non-notable individual that has already taken up way more time the effort put in to create the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2016 (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/Draft:Sanky

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 deleted. kelapstick(bainuu) 19:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Sanky Draft:Sanky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America1000 00:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as Hoax. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:HORROR STORIES

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 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:HORROR STORIES Draft:HORROR STORIES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 00:06, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:How much does Erin love Austin?

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 as WP:CSD#G13. Was clearly never going to be an encyclopaedic article. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:How much does Erin love Austin? Draft:How much does Erin love Austin? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTESSAY. WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 00:02, 20 March 2016 (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 19, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fryfrmry/Fry Brothers Golf

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 Blanked. Brustopher (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure) User:Fryfrmry/Fry Brothers Golf User:Fryfrmry/Fry Brothers Golf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'm not seeing this as an encyclopedia article. A single purpose account connected to the family build and abandoned it years ago. Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Replace with template:inactive userpage blanked. There's no CSD issues and it doesn't look like it's a deleted mainspace version or the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Replace with template:inactive userpage blanked. Historical matters, 1923-1980, are not great promotion concerns to be responded to so decisively, like is current promotion. This looks like a family history interest, but it is an interest, and it well may have Wikipedia-notable aspects. It is fine to be let accessible in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page, per point #2 of WP:STALEDRAFT. North America1000 07:24, 9 April 2016 (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/Draft:The great lemon-shuriken war

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 deleted under G3 already. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:The great lemon-shuriken war Draft:The great lemon-shuriken war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 23:31, 19 March 2016 (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/User:Fsbof/Leader Garden

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC) User:Fsbof/Leader Garden User:Fsbof/Leader Garden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A 428 Unit condo development is not likely to be a notable article regardless of how many references show a piece of real estate exists. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Based on Category:Condominiums by country, the premise is wrong in that it is possible/likely to happen. This is just a poor example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. A once productive editor, this page is probably unlikely to be ever suitable for mainspace, but this is not certain. Similar buildings in New York are considered notable. It is a well worked draft, and we should not hide the user's edits from himself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Delete as stale draft that is "unlikely to be ever suitable for mainspace". -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:17, 8 April 2016 (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/Draft:Bahria Town’s Grand Jamia Masjid

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. MER-C 04:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Bahria Town’s Grand Jamia Masjid Draft:Bahria Town’s Grand Jamia Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft from July 2015 that was created following some sort of dispute at Grand Jamia Mosque, Lahore. It seems to already be covered at Bahria_Town#Karachi and at Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi so it seems like the editor should instead work on the mainspace versions rather than use draftspace to complain and post unsourced statements. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Not sourced or substantiated, if it were I'd say add it to the article's talk page. The author should be encouraged to express opinions on mainspace pages on their talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (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/Draft:Ghetto hip blaster

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 21:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ghetto hip blaster Draft:Ghetto hip blaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTMADEUP. WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 22:17, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Happtube 1.1

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 (G3 by Sphilbrick). — xaosflux Talk 11:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Happtube 1.1 Draft:Happtube 1.1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTESSAY. WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 22:15, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:130Ayad

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 17:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:130Ayad Draft:130Ayad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 22:13, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:TheMiningBoyAlpha

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 17:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:TheMiningBoyAlpha Draft:TheMiningBoyAlpha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:34, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Ghel Santos

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 17:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ghel Santos Draft:Ghel Santos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:34, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Wiggermosh

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 Deleteby NuclearWarfare. — xaosflux Talk 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Wiggermosh Draft:Wiggermosh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America1000 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete is that even a thing? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Mary chizwick

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 03:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Mary chizwick Draft:Mary chizwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:31, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Freedom and Responsibility

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 03:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Freedom and Responsibility Draft:Freedom and Responsibility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 21:29, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Ye Swann Htet

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 03:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ye Swann Htet Draft:Ye Swann Htet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:28, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Schyler Mitris

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 03:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Schyler Mitris Draft:Schyler Mitris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:28, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Casey Hennessy

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 deleted. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Casey Hennessy Draft:Casey Hennessy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:24, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Dj untouch

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 03:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Dj untouch Draft:Dj untouch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:23, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:The Cara Delevingne Interview

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 14:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:The Cara Delevingne Interview Draft:The Cara Delevingne Interview (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:20, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Disadvantages of reality show

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 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Disadvantages of reality show Draft:Disadvantages of reality show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Blank. No reason to discourage editor retention. Nothing wrong with blanking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.187 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2016 (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/Wikipedia:Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV

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 userfy. Author had already moved it to his userspace; I have done a history merge so that the whole history is there. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV Wikipedia:Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'd like for this page to be moved into User space and out of Wikipedia space. Essays reflect the viewpoint of their authors but they typically concern the project of editing on Wikipedia, not Egyptian politics. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Alright then? Did you really read the article deeply yourself? Well, it's not about Egyptian politics itself, but about how you can improve Wikipedia's coverage of modern (2013–present) Egyptian politics. I think one of the numerous problems is that Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptian politics is too biased in favor of the Brotherhood. NPOV should be taken into account and the pro-Brotherhood, anti-government bias should be removed. Yeah, it's an essay, reflecting my own views. I've put it into my userspace for now. See User:Zakawer/Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV. Zakawer (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC) History merge the Wikipedia page into the userspace one and let's move on. Zakawer, Liz isn't arguing over the view within the essay itself, just its location at the moment. And essays typically proscribe issues with behavior on Wikipedia not particular content. Conduct an RFC or other mechanism on the Egyptian pages and work your point involving some points like WP:TERRORIST ("coup" can be contentious) rather than this essay. There is a parallel I can see but your essay does not help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Comment: Okay, Ricky81682. I can understand that. I've done an RFC on the talk page for the article I feel is the primary problem. See Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état for more details. Zakawer (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Userfy at minimum (following Ricky81682 above), but I'm leaning toward delete per WP:SOAPBOX. (By the way, this sort of statement is not encouraging, in view of the rest of the content of the essay: "I, for example, modified the entirety of Rabia sign to remove a lot of POV". The changes made to that article should be reviewed.) —Nizolan (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Userfy. Fair user essay, not by far, but fair. Clearly intended for project purposes, fair opinion of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (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/User:Acilegnasantos/Jasmine Sanders

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC) User:Acilegnasantos/Jasmine Sanders User:Acilegnasantos/Jasmine Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Stale draft from 2011. User long inactive. References are poor. Subject is a radio personality but no solid notability demonstrated. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. No evidence that this could become a legitimate article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. Reads like a résumé, so also delete as per WP:NOTRESUME. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:35, 31 March 2016 (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/User:Ace Mendiola/Forerunners National Youth Movement

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 19:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC) User:Ace Mendiola/Forerunners National Youth Movement User:Ace Mendiola/Forerunners National Youth Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The page for the parent organization Tabernacle of Faith International has been deleted 4 times for various reasons, including notability. An article on their youth group is therefore going no where. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. This version was created in July 2012 by the same editor who then created a more extensive mainspace version at Forerunners National Youth Movement in September 2012 which was deleted in January 2013 pursuant to the combined Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabernacle of Faith International. As such, it would have been deleted or redirected really back in September 2012 and then deleted in January 2013. We should just treat this as finishing off the old deletion and if there's interest in creating a new one, someone can argue for it at DRV to get the full histories and begin on a new draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and User:Ricky81682. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and User:Ricky81682. A subtopic of a deleted topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 5 April 2016 (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/User:Hacar25

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. Deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:G11. North America1000 16:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC) User:Hacar25 User:Hacar25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This userpage is like a non-English article. Greek Legend (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Speedy delete per criterion G11. It is obvious even through the rough translation in Google that this is unambiguously promotional. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:Rashid mirza

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 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Rashid mirza Draft:Rashid mirza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTRESUME. North America1000 10:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:Maninder singh panaich

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 14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Maninder singh panaich Draft:Maninder singh panaich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Billy Coskun

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 14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Billy Coskun Draft:Billy Coskun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:Cindy Alexandra Desir

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 14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Cindy Alexandra Desir Draft:Cindy Alexandra Desir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Dork Muffin

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 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Dork Muffin Draft:Dork Muffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Original research. North America1000 10:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, I cannot come up with a speedy deletion criterion for this... but delete for reasons that should be rather self evident. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "Original research" is rarely a good reason for deletion. Delete, no more than a slang neologism. Appropriate outlet is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dork+Muffin --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Comment – Also delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America1000 00:11, 20 March 2016 (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/Draft:Minecraft Questions from me

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 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Minecraft Questions from me Draft:Minecraft Questions from me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 10:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Wikipedia is not a site for asking questions about things other that articles or Wikipedia. NOTFORUM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Success in iit

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 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Success in iit Draft:Success in iit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:EAGLE-EYE YOUTUBER

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 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:EAGLE-EYE YOUTUBER Draft:EAGLE-EYE YOUTUBER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:20, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:JimathyJing

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 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:JimathyJing Draft:JimathyJing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:Garrett "GRRTT" James Crawford

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 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Garrett "GRRTT" James Crawford Draft:Garrett "GRRTT" James Crawford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:14, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Wombo draft

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 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Wombo draft Draft:Wombo draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft:Wombo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:STALEDRAFT of no potential that would be problematic even if blanked. Non-notable term. North America1000 10:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Junk Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) @Northamerica1000: what about this is so problematic that it cannot just be blanked? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC) One reason probably is it's in draftspace so why keep it around? This isn't some user's page, it's the equivalent of the common area. If someone dumped nonsense in Wikipedia space, template space, project space, mainspace, talk space, it's perfectly fair to delete it and not just blank it. It's borderline vandalism and blanking it to hope that the vandal has learned their lesson about not creating nonsense is naive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Wombo has been deleted six times since 2007 and SALTed since 2008. Draft:Wombo is similarly idiotic and is further evidence why blanking these pages just encourages the idiocy. I've added it to this MFD to save time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2016 (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/Draft:How to make a simple braid

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 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:How to make a simple braid Draft:How to make a simple braid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTHOWTO. North America1000 10:10, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Kid MARLEY (Kid M.A.R.L.E.Y)

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 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Kid MARLEY (Kid M.A.R.L.E.Y) Draft:Kid MARLEY (Kid M.A.R.L.E.Y) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:05, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:WILSON MALICK MZILAWOSI

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 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:WILSON MALICK MZILAWOSI Draft:WILSON MALICK MZILAWOSI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:02, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:The blades clan group

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 speedied G11. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:The blades clan group Draft:The blades clan group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:01, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Purpreezy

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Purpreezy Draft:Purpreezy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and fails WP:MUSIC. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as no signs of any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 31 March 2016 (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/Draft:WilkSHAKE

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:WilkSHAKE Draft:WilkSHAKE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 10:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and fails WP:MUSIC. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as nothing suggesting a better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 31 March 2016 (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/Draft:How to write an entry on wikipedia

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 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:How to write an entry on wikipedia Draft:How to write an entry on wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTHOWTO. North America1000 09:56, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:KZO III

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 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:KZO III Draft:KZO III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 09:56, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Strictly down sharjah

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 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Strictly down sharjah Draft:Strictly down sharjah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 09:41, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:HolyGhostCeaux

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:HolyGhostCeaux Draft:HolyGhostCeaux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 09:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and fails WP:MUSIC. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as none of this suggests actually accepting any time soon. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 31 March 2016 (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/Draft:New Nintendo 3DS's update: registering your amiibo

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 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:New Nintendo 3DS's update: registering your amiibo Draft:New Nintendo 3DS's update: registering your amiibo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTHOWTO. North America1000 09:32, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Between inernational business and forgien business

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 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Between inernational business and forgien business Draft:Between inernational business and forgien business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:STALEDRAFT of no potential that would be problematic even if blanked. North America1000 09:31, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:THE OMNITRIX MAY NOT BE SCI FI AMYMORE

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 21:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:THE OMNITRIX MAY NOT BE SCI FI AMYMORE Draft:THE OMNITRIX MAY NOT BE SCI FI AMYMORE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTESSAY / WP:NOTWEBHOST North America1000 09:30, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Дарко Величковски

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 21:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Дарко Величковски Draft:Дарко Величковски (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 09:01, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:YGRN

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:YGRN Draft:YGRN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 08:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete I'd even argue it's an attack page when it freely admits that the singles were considered "lousy". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and fails WP:MUSIC. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:45, 30 March 2016 (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/Draft:Bov Bovril's travels

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 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Bov Bovril's travels Draft:Bov Bovril's travels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:36, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Colden Lawrence

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 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Colden Lawrence Draft:Colden Lawrence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:34, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Nock

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 00:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Nock Draft:Nock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America1000 07:29, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Coolaybo

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 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Coolaybo Draft:Coolaybo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:28, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Arjun T 4 TEchInfo

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Arjun T 4 TEchInfo Draft:Arjun T 4 TEchInfo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete non-notable YouTuber. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per nom and User:Ricky81682. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:43, 30 March 2016 (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/Draft:Smutt

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 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Smutt Draft:Smutt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTDICTIONARY. North America1000 07:26, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Ky howey

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 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ky howey Draft:Ky howey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:25, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:MOHD MUZAMMIL HUSAIN

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 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:MOHD MUZAMMIL HUSAIN Draft:MOHD MUZAMMIL HUSAIN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTRESUME. North America1000 07:23, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Fire 5 Girls

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 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Fire 5 Girls Draft:Fire 5 Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:22, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:RALSUN LEADER

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 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:RALSUN LEADER Draft:RALSUN LEADER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:20, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:La D2 di capitan Fabio Sparrow

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 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:La D2 di capitan Fabio Sparrow Draft:La D2 di capitan Fabio Sparrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:19, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:MTL swagger

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 00:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:MTL swagger Draft:MTL swagger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:18, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:ROSINE RUSAGARA

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 21:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:ROSINE RUSAGARA Draft:ROSINE RUSAGARA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 07:18, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:RMGCREW

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 21:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:RMGCREW Draft:RMGCREW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:STALEDRAFT of no potential that would be problematic even if blanked, leaving a placemarker title for a non-notable group. North America1000 07:15, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Water power cost

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 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Water power cost Draft:Water power cost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 07:10, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:BANDINTEXAS

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 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:BANDINTEXAS Draft:BANDINTEXAS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTNEWS. North America1000 06:56, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:SWETANK SUMAN

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 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:SWETANK SUMAN Draft:SWETANK SUMAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 06:52, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:DHARMIN BUILDER

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 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:DHARMIN BUILDER Draft:DHARMIN BUILDER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTWEBHOST / WP:NOTADVERTISING. North America1000 06:49, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Will I live or travel in Vanuatu?

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 03:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Will I live or travel in Vanuatu? Draft:Will I live or travel in Vanuatu? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Basically self-explanatory from someone who apparently believes Wikipedia may be a journalism website and there's simply nothing to suggest this can be kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as non-article, personal essay, inappropriate to WP goal. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:37, 29 March 2016 (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/Template:Indian Sinosceptic

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 Note: WP:GUS may have been applicable, however as no one wanted to claim these, and as they are orphaned there is no need to keep. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Template:Indian Sinosceptic Template:Indian Sinosceptic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Another sinosceptic template. This userbox is inappropriate because sinosceptism means that you are afraid of people from a certain country. I also nominate these other templates by the same user for the same reason: Template:British Sinosceptic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Tibetan Sinosceptic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:East Turkestani Sinosceptic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC) No - you're thinking of Sinophobia which despite the redirect from Sinosceptic is a different thing. Scepticism is more rational and fact-based, milder and not based on "fear", whereas a phobia is more intense and more emotional. For instance it's common for British Eurosceptics to say that they love Europe as a place (and are certainly not afraid of Europeans), but they can give you a dozen reason why the EU is a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Having said that I'm not sure it's a great idea to have these kind of templates available, because of the potential for adoption by those with less lofty motives. So I'd be a Weak Delete but wouldn't be too upset if they survived.Le Deluge (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Delete all. I'm not seeing how these are helpful at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (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 18, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mark Bern

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 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Mark Bern Draft:Mark Bern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Main namespace article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bern. North America1000 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Speedy Delete G13. The normal G13-o-bot didn't flag this as it doesn't have an AFC header, but it would appear to meet all criteria of G13. CrowCaw 17:58, 19 March 2016 (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/Draft:Redefy Real Estate

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 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Redefy Real Estate Draft:Redefy Real Estate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Repeated resubmission of promotional article about a non-notable firm. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as certainly questionable, best restarted later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per the draft reviews: advertisement with only 1 source providing significant coverage. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:31, 29 March 2016 (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/Wikipedia:Advocate J. Aslam Basha

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 WP:CSD#G6. Copies of this have been spammed all over the place: I am deleting all except Draft:J. Aslam Basha (2) which is in the queue for review. JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Advocate J. Aslam Basha Wikipedia:Advocate J. Aslam Basha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This draft has apparently been created both in draft space and in Wikipedia space by mistake. Please delete version in Wikipedia space, which is not where it belongs. (If someone sees an appropriate speedy tag for this version, please apply it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2016 (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/User:Suger king/מבחנים משפטיים

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 11:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Suger king/מבחנים משפטיים User:Suger king/מבחנים משפטיים (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Old draft in Hebrew. Not going to become an article. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2016 (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/Module:Sports table/WDL-Chess

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 11:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Module:Sports table/WDL-Chess Module:Sports table/WDL-Chess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Mostly copied from Module:Sports table/WDL by an editor who only edited this submodule and one other edit. The functionality also be done in main WDL submodule and there is no need for this one. Qed237 (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Delete I guess. I guess this is akin to an orphaned, unused template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2016 (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/Template:User Hamoud

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 without prejudice for recreating without category in userspace at a later time. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Template:User Hamoud Template:User Hamoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Wikipedians who drinks Hamoud was deleted on the grounds of advertising on 31 July 2012 (it's an Algerian soft drink), a category that supported this template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le_Deluge (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 March 2016 (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 17, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shivraj Kamble

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 By NuclearWarfare. — xaosflux Talk 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Shivraj Kamble Draft:Shivraj Kamble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Redundant to article Shivaraj kamble which has also been nominated for deletion. Whpq (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete since the mainspace version was also deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2016 (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/Draft:Dan Pero Manescu

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. Mike V • Talk 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Draft:Dan Pero Manescu Draft:Dan Pero Manescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) I know this is a fairly recent draft, but there are good reasons for deleting it now. First, an article on the topic was deleted back in 2012. Second, the creator of that article and at least one sockpuppet were indefinitely blocked: one, two. Thus, there is good reason to assume that the draft creator, also a single-purpose account, is himself a sockpuppet. Third, the draft was declined and there is no realistic chance of the topic being accepted. - Biruitorul Talk 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2016 (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/Draft:Edwin Yeator Tukpah

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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Edwin Yeator Tukpah Draft:Edwin Yeator Tukpah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Relisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC) This badly formatted draft autobiography is being tendentiously resubmitted without adding in-line citations and without providing any evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Delete and I removed the latest submission for review as none of this suggests any notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. The references indicate notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Given "This draft has no references to establish notability, and there is no claim of satisfying association football notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)" and "tenditiously submited", I think we should delete. Undelete if more sources are provided, if they add to evidence of notability, or if the author engages in conversation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: So you're changing your !vote? Before you stated "the references indicate notability" so should the keep be stricken? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC) I think they do, but there are degrees of notability, and per Robert, on review, I don't think the required threshold is met. Given the tenditious point, I would like to support deletion, weakly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC) I think if moved to mainspace, it would be deleted, based not on current state, but on limited potential and lack of further sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2016 (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 16, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eric Buchmann

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 00:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Eric Buchmann Draft:Eric Buchmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Probably a biography of a person that is not important enough to be included. Peter Sam Fan | chat? 18:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: Not notable now nor in the foreseeable future, thus an inappropriate use of draftspace. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:58, 16 March 2016 (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/User:Echovictor3/Bret thomas

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Echovictor3/Bret thomas User:Echovictor3/Bret thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) POV issues, possible test page Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete, possibly U5 eligible. Wikipedia is not the place to brag about your (or someone else's?) sexual prowess. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Improve and mainspace. Plausible draft and WP:V doesn't apply to drafts. According to it, it would easily pass WP:GNG. 166.170.45.122 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) I'm pretty sure Time doesn't crown a "Tonguefingers Man of the Decade" for prowess in cunnilingus. Might be G3-eligible as a hoax too, though I'd prefer to AGF that it's a test page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Offensive hoax test page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete and ignore the troll with the "WP:V doesn't apply to drafts". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2016 (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/User:Ahtnasmas/Wildfire Divine Favour

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. MER-C 11:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Ahtnasmas/Wildfire Divine Favour User:Ahtnasmas/Wildfire Divine Favour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Person using this nickname (I presume this is a nickname) exists, but non-notable. It is pretty promotional and hosts multiple links to his websites, ebooks, blog etc. The only edit by this user back in 2010 so not much chance they are coming back to do anything. More likely a throw away acct used to build links for SEO purposes. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as a WP:STALEDRAFT/WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wikipedia is not the place to promote this individual's ebook. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Promotion by a non-contributor. CSD#U5 applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2016 (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/User:Aeromyspace/Sri Lanka Cancer Society, Kandy Branch.

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. MER-C 11:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Aeromyspace/Sri Lanka Cancer Society, Kandy Branch. User:Aeromyspace/Sri Lanka Cancer Society, Kandy Branch. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Not suitable for an article in present state with nearly no info. Can't see a redirect target like Sri Lanka Cancer Association and this is stale since 2011 when the editor made three edits to this page and one to their userpage - then vanished. Deletion is the best option. Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: Not only a staledraft, but reads like advertising copy. I suspect this may be a copyvio, either via translation or of something that isn't a web source. I would argue that a protective principle counsels deletion here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. "Stale" is irrelevant, but delete as promotion/advocacy by a non-contributor. The topic is plausibly notable, but this abandoned stub contains no source based creative content, and so has little worth should someone want to write about this topic. Undelete for anyone on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2016 (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/User:Aegism100/sandbox

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 no consensus. North America1000 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Aegism100/sandbox User:Aegism100/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Aegism100/The Conjunctive Theory of Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC) This term never caught on. It seems to be something coined in one book in 2007 and ignored by the world [8] The user never did anything but create these pages. There is no prospect this will be or should be improved or moved to mainspace. Basically a NOTAWEBHOST violation, not really hoax but definitely something invented with no RS backing it up. Delete both pages. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Reasonable draft idea, reasonable draft material including references. Verifiable, may be useful in other articles. This is not the sort of cruft that should be deleted as definitely worthless, it is OK indefinitely in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Did you even check the linked [9] search? Which of the 3 non-Wiki stale draft related sources would you suggest we build the article out on? Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC) I did. It looks like a topic where useful sources may not be online. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Stale, unreferenced stub. It does not appear that a reasonable case of notability could be made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC) To delete on the basis of questioned notability contravenes the clear consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia_talk:N#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. To examine wikipedia-notability properly takes a lot of effort. At a minimum, the links provides at AfD should be presented. I'm thinking we need a WP:DfD, Drafts for Deletion. MfD is not set up for notability-analysis. Criteria for deletion of drafts are different to that for deletion of articles. Please stop these nominations and work with the community in developing a consensus for what to do with drafts of unclear potential, like this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC) To be clearer: I think that this stub should be deleted because it is stale--created and abandoned in 2012 by a SPA editor who has also abandoned WP. That it also appears to be unnotable is a reason not to attempt to salvage the material, however miniscule. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as a stale draft that's extraordinarily unlikely to yield anything of use to the encyclopedia. ~ RobTalk 21:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Keep - this is a good-faith, non-problematic draft. Its deletion provides no benefit to the project (or can someone point out a benefit?). A2soup (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (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/User:Afalse/Alexander Sergeevich Afanasyev

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Afalse/Alexander Sergeevich Afanasyev User:Afalse/Alexander Sergeevich Afanasyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This stub was created in mainspace back in 2010 by an account that has not edited since 2010. It has been handled, moved, tagged, moved, untagged CSD's twice, etc by 8 different editors now. The linked in profile it is based on includes nothing that would suggest any reason this guy should have a wikipedia article. This should be deleted and is a prime example of why we need to clean up stale drafts that waste everyone's time. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Why do you need to introduce disingenuous statements? Untagged CSD's twice? One untagging was of your overreaching tagging, the other was judged by an admin as suitably dealt with by userfication. Your last statement is particularly unreasonable. This page has problem that you fail to enunciate, getting rid of al old unedited pages will indeed include this one, but it would be disruptive and damaging to the project due to the rude and pointless deletion of a lot of worthwhile pages. Given the difficulty of accurate nominations and reviews of these worthless but harmless pages, please just blank them with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Differences of opinion as to the applicability of CSD tags are not uncommon. Userfication in 2010 did not work. You did not articulate a reason to keep this draft. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Because I am grumpy with your nomination style, often, such as here. The page should be deleted because it is promotion of a non-notable person. Not because of anything you actually wrote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2016 (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/Draft:Saudis in USA Organization

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. MER-C 11:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Saudis in USA Organization Draft:Saudis in USA Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The author of this unreferenced draft has been blocked as a shared account for promotion. Unless someone is willing to "adopt" this draft and provide independent reliable sources within seven days, it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Good topic, but WP:TNT. Needs to be rewritten starting from independently sourced commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Disagree on points: "this unreferenced draft" Draft is referenced. It is just not referenced independently, which is a notability concern not a critical failing at draft stage. As an organisation supporting all Saudi students studying the in the USA, I have little doubt that notability can be demonstrated. "blocked as a shared account for promotion" looks unjustified. The blocking admin, Alexf, might care to explain the block better (certainly better than he explained at User_talk:Saudis_in_USA_Organization#Your username). Are there deleted contributions justifying a promotion block? The reviewable contributions don't. I see a WP:BITE violation, including the aggressive usernameblock template used. If blocked merely as an apparently intended shared account (my guess), that is not a real block, just a forced rename. (the method is unfortunate, being crude and confrontational, it better serves as an forced introduction to WP:SOCKING; the user is well advised to create a new, less-transparent account and to never connect to the blocked one). Ideally, the editor (realistically, so for there is only one!) will create the account Saudis in USA Organization, editor #1, with which he will be allowed to merrily continue editing, including editing of this draft. — SmokeyJoe 04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below The username is of an organization, and shared use, which is a clear violation of the username rules. On top of that, they wrote a draft for an article with the same name as the organization. This is promoting themselves. If they want to create a new individual account, (the blocking notice explains to them how to go about it), request help on writing a proper article, within the rules, and they can show the organization is notable, then they can follow that path. -- Alexf(talk) 13:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) The username and the promotional tone can be fixed, these things do not require deletion of a draft of a notable organisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC) The draft covers a notable topic for which we have no article. There is no good reason to impose a seven day time limit on the addition of sourced material from independent sources. The author should be encouraged to adopt the one-persons-one-account policy, including appearances, and to continue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Speedy delete per G12: This is an unambiguous copyright violation. I have tagged it accordingly. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Disagree. The author here is clearly the same author there (facebook, linkedin), and therefore is the copyright holder and is allowed to post his work. The promotional aspects can be fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC) If you are correct, then that author must follow the instructions for WP:DCM before we allow them. This is standard practice with G12. If the page creator chooses not to go through the appropriate process. Besides, I think you're probably wrong in terms of copyright. It's very likely that, if the plagiarized text comes from the organization, the person who created the article was not given the authority to deed the copyright to that text. This is part of why we don't allow role accounts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Agree abut the implied role account, but note that WP:BITING is occurring. In terms of copyright, I think you are taking facebook and LinkedIn too seriously, copyright concerns in cases like this are overblown. I am confident that the author either owns the copyright, or is working with permission or instruction from the copyright holder. The real issue is that the material needs to be based on other independent sources, and thus entirely rewritten. It needs to be rewritten from first person plural to third person, for example. Pointing the author to WP:DCM is not helpful in this regard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Well, speedy got declined as deferring to MfD, which is a weird outcome. In any event, still delete as a copyvio as there's no OTRS indication that the author owns the wording and has the authority to post it. Copyright is a non-negotiable problem, and runs entirely contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia: That as much content as possible can be reused under a free license without worry that some copyright issue is going to fly out of left field. It harms the reputation of the project to let something like this slide because it shows a blasé attitude about copyright. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC) I dispute that it is a likely copyright violation, but more importantly note that the real question is "Is "Saudis in USA Organization" a possibly notable topic, and that if the answer is "yes", the content is to be rewritten anyway. In the short term, the page can be stubified to eliminate your concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete WP:TNT. The potential copyright violation needs to be nuked and the promotional tone necessitates a complete rewrite from someone not connected to the subject. clpo13(talk) 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as copyvio, COI, promo, stale, badly written and trout the editors that are in love with garbage. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as a copyright violation. There is no evidence that this text has been released under a sufficiently free license. I don't why Smokey Joe is so confident that it is. For all we know, somebody in the organisation gave an intern some vague instructions like "Raise our social media profile." and somebody started copying their press release everywhere. And speaking of press releases, this draft is simply spam which would require a rewrite from scratch. So copyvio + spam = double the reason to delete this draft. Notability of the organisation is irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC) I am confident because the facebook and LinkedIn material displays the same writing style, and because the intern would have the authority to do it. On other points made, I don't dispute them. Probably WP:TNT is correct. I did already note that the entire content needs rewriting. However, I wish it noted that the topic is quite plausible notable, and could go to mainspace if only it could be built on third party sources. The NOTPROMOTION issues here are not so strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC) That provides no proof whatsoever that the person has the organisational authority to release material under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Proof is a tough ask, but note that you have already convinced me and I already changed my !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (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 15, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BreeAnna Marie

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:BreeAnna Marie Draft:BreeAnna Marie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is an unreferenced draft about a living person, but its author, who is a corporate account that acts as her agent, has been blocked. Unless someone is willing with seven days to "adopt" this article and improve it, it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Not unreferenced. Blocking of author is not a reason for deletion. Imposition of a seven day deadline is not policy nor supportable. Instead, speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 the tidies and most clear cut criterion already used today to delete the same thing in mainspace, BreeAnna Marie, done by User:KrakatoaKatie. Undoubtedly blatant promotion. Not also the G12 rationale, copyright infringement of the source noted in the deletion log, which means that it is not appropriate to suggest that someone adopt this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete same as mainspace version Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2016 (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/User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology

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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). North America1000 16:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC) User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp to sort relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Old userspace project-looking page that seems to have been the precursor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology. I don't know if this is needed now but I asked at the project page. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) NB. the userpage guidance against userpages that look like project pages was imposed in the very early days to discourage and prevent further instances of policy documentation being located in userspace. Back then, policy was supposed to be at meta, but early evolutionary steps saw editors preferring to keep policy discussions on the same site. It was never intended to be a rule against things looking like WikiProjects. However, organising old pages by putting them in their proper places, whether Portal Space, of WikiProject subpages, might seem a good idea. I would disagree that it is a good idea, observing that Portal Space and WikiProjects, with few exceptions, are very far into terminal decline, and that a cleaning service for ghost towns is probably not a productive endeavour, but do feel free to wikt:knock yourself out, seeking permission at MfD to do this is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:16, 25 March 2016 (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/User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier

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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2007 userspace page that looks like a project page (although it's explicitly a "temporary" project page) for a non-existent WikiProject Fraiser. It seems as though there was no interest at WP:WikiProject Television but someone else created a joint task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Cheers task force for both Cheers and Frasier which also showed little interest. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Reasonable use of userspace. So-called cleaning up of old userpages like this is not a positive action. It risks alienating old Wikipedians, and has no benefits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete wikiproject style pages are forbidden in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Rubbish. You can draft a WikiProject in userspace. Important point is that it is not a WikiProject. It can be left indefinitely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC) It says its part of a wikiproject, but has not been edited since 2007 and is in the space of a user not seen in 3 years. Temporary is not 9 years. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC) You are still allowed to draft WikiProjects in userspace. Not forbidden. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC) If you can, then why is there a policy against project pages in userspace? What exactly does that cover in your mind? If you want it moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Frasier task force so that it's left for historical reasons (although I don't see the historical value in a task force that never went off the ground), that's one thing but keeping it in userspace isn't supported by userspace usage policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as redundant to WP:WikiProject Television/Cheers task force which also handles Frasier, and clearly inactive (9 years since last edit). If this editor cares to return and be part of such a WikiProject, they can head to the task force. ~ RobTalk 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC) I'm also very convinced by Ricky's argument about user space policy above. ~ RobTalk 20:56, 23 March 2016 (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/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus

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 - no content. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp to sort relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC) This page consists nothing more than its creator asking a question. This is not a draft... Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Merge and redirect to User talk:Denislachapelle2003 and answer the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as routine housekeeping. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2016 (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/User:Good Thinking Atlanta/Carbone smolan agency

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 all. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) User:Good Thinking Atlanta/Carbone smolan agency User:Good Thinking Atlanta/Carbone smolan agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft talk:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Page copied from a Wikipedia article with no additional edits. Stale now. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) I cannot find the article from which it was copied. Looks like a copy of something, but there is no records for Carbone smolan agency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Rodney Smith (photographer) mentions he is co-founder of Carbone Smolan Agency. Clicking the correctly capitalized title shows it was deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carbone_Smolan_Agency restored and userfied but not to this location, so this was likely a copy paste of the now deleted article. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I am surprisingly disappointed with the Wikipedia search engine. I am now finding Draft:Carbone Smolan Agency and Draft talk:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency. Will have to look into these later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Leaning... Draft:Carbone Smolan Agency:Move to mainspace. Notability is clearly asserted by the sourcing. The deciding issue is whether the sources are independent, or paid veiled promotion. The decision should be made at AfD. User:DGG?, I'm less confident on this one, WP:CORP being a lot tougher than WP:PROF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC) No, delete all. Already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carbone_Smolan_Agency, nominated by DGG. Maybe if someone could check that it is not significantly improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency is the deleted article userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as copies, User:Good Thinking Atlanta/Carbone smolan agency and Draft talk:PorterWritewiki:Carbone Smolan Agency. Their existence suggests a clumsy effort to promote, we should look out for more copies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Delete This is not the same as the originally deleted article--it's not at all suited for article space yet. But it is a sketch with the basic factual material and a list of references, from which an article could conceivably be written. On the other hand, the persistent effort to achieve an article for an organization that we see here usually does not result on an acceptable article. I think this is only likely to be productive if someone else altogether should do it from scratch. Ultimately, that last factor is what decided me to recommend deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as not convincing for an acceptable article yet, best deleted and restarted if needed. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Added two pages I've added the two additional pages - one being a talk page that is a copied version too - to this nom. User:SwisterTwister, SmokeyJoe, User:DGG any objections to deleting them all? Legacypac (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete all three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete at best, still questionable, best restarted if needed. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 17 March 2016 (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/User:Elyishiyiathywater/Isabella Christine Augustenborg

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Elyishiyiathywater/Isabella Christine Augustenborg User:Elyishiyiathywater/Isabella Christine Augustenborg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Self promotion (the username matches the username on the link to the subject's writings) from a user that only made this page. She is non-notable online writer who recently finished high school Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete, promotion by a non-contributor. The page content could have been suitable for the user's main userpage, except the user has never contributed usefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2016 (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/User:Ciunas/Greatest Achievements of Andrew Turner MP

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. MER-C 11:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Ciunas/Greatest Achievements of Andrew Turner MP User:Ciunas/Greatest Achievements of Andrew Turner MP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This title is quite unnecessary, as any possible content should be added to Andrew Turner (politician) . Nothing in this stale draft to merge. Making this page was the only edit ever from this acct. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. To be fair, it's possible for someone to suggest a spin-off article separate from the main page. In this case, it hasn't been edited since February 2015, has nothing there and while blanking is possible, given that this is for a living politician so I lean towards deleting the draft and if the editor returns and wishes restoration, I'd suggest that they be advised to work on the mainspace one where people are going to pay more attention to any possible BLP issues than they would with userspace drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Agree with everything Ricky just said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2016 (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/User:Rambutaan/List of Guild Wars Characters (proposed)

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 03:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Rambutaan/List of Guild Wars Characters (proposed) User:Rambutaan/List of Guild Wars Characters (proposed) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Userspace draft from 2007 for content already covered by and deleted based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guild Wars characters back in 2007. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Wait till it is at least 10 years old, or Delete it now if you want. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: It's not just a userspace draft, it's a userspace copy. Note the first revision, which contains article maintenance templates. The only reason for those to be in there is because it was copied-and-pasted right out of articlespace. This is a massive attribution hazard. Given the size of the article, I can't even imagine how many contributors it had. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:31, 16 March 2016 (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/User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Africa

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 Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/archive (with redirect). — xaosflux Talk 21:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Africa User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Userspace page from 2006 that looks like a project page at WP:WikiProject Africa. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 'Delete as not allowed use of userspace. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. It is an early version of the development of that WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Why redirect to that project page? I could at least live with a move to say Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/archive or something but a cross-space redirect seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Cross-space redirects are really about no redirects out of mainspace, and template/category cross redirects would be problems, but redirects from userspace are not a concern. Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/archive would be fine, but leave a redirect behind for the author to find. Main point is that it should certainly exist as an archive, your idea is probably better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2016 (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/User:Digit9o0/Force the Movie

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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Digit9o0/Force the Movie User:Digit9o0/Force the Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:STALEDRAFT from July 2011 created by a user that was blocked in September 2011. North America1000 06:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC) * Keep. STALE is not a basis for deletion. 166.176.57.236 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Banned user 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC) WP:STALE is certainly a reason for deletion. Please read it, where it states, "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion". It's also a WP:FAKEARTICLE, and an article already exists at Force (2011 film). North America1000 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Don't you think the onus is on you to substantiate, at least say something, about "no potential and problematic"? Without making a case, mention WP:STALE is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. No reason to delete. If so-called "cleaning up" of userpages is worthwhile, more beneficial than the down side of interfering with others' workspace with the associated risk of alienation, then do it by some form of blanking or categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC) I think the fact that the user who created the page was blocked in September 2011 would be significantly more "alienating" than the deletion of this stale, unused user page that will never see any improvements. North America1000 00:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC) There are many reasons for blocks, and some blocks are bad blocks. If you want to raise the issue of a block, you should say something more about it. Was it a username block? A 3R block? Did the block have anything to do with e content of the page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as useless and in the userspace of an indef'd user so unlikely to every be used. Its a fake article. Legacypac (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete Editor was blocked for being a sockpuppet. If the editor returns on their master account and requests restoration, they can ask for it. Otherwise, I have no worries about "alienating" a sockpuppet blocked for sockpuppet who hasn't been here in years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (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/User:DanCash2705/Jar Of Dirt

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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:DanCash2705/Jar Of Dirt User:DanCash2705/Jar Of Dirt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:STALEDRAFT – Has not been edited since February 2014. North America1000 04:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) STALEDRAFT is not a valid reason to delete, but do delete due to it being promotion by a non-contributor, WP:YAMB being a full explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC) STALEDRAFT is a reason to delete: "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion". Blanking the page will leave a blank draft page with the band's name in place forever about a non-notable band, which is problematic per Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 05:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC) STALEDRAFT is not a reason per se to delete, because it does not speak to whether there is any problem with the material. You are clearly alluding to the problem of promotion of the band's name persisting in the title. This is the reason for the problem and hence the reason for deletion. STALEDRAFT is irrelevant. The reason for deletion is unchanged even if the user returned monthly to tweak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. It is "if problematic even if blanked" not "if the page alone is problematic even if blanked." The problem is the encouragement of COI and promotional editors, which is why U5 was created. If in mainspace, it would be deleted. If unblanked, it would be subject to U5 concerns and possibly deleted. Why shouldn't it be deleted if brought to MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Agree with this, but note that the nomination does not even imply any of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2016 (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/Draft:John Paul Kelly

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 (G3) by User:Liz. — xaosflux Talk 04:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Draft:John Paul Kelly Draft:John Paul Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Another time stamp. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Time stamp correction for relisting below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) May 2014 draft already covered by John Paul Kelly. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Redirect to the mainspace article. There is no need or reason for deletion. These space-wasting nominations are to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Delete per JMHamo. No reason to redirect a draft back to mainspace. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Redirect to John Paul Kelly. North America1000 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Neutral. Going with the strike above. The redirect target I suggested is for a different subject. North America1000 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Redirect per User:Northamerica1000. This is the standard way of dealing with duplications. No reason to delete. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Redirect to mainspace article. This is the standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace. Please read the instructions at the top of the "Miscellany for deletion" page (the page you are looking at now): "Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." And under WP:STALE, stale drafts should only be deleted if "problematic even if blanked," which is not true here.Fagles (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Comment I've have completely discounted every above comment and relisted this discussion. It took me only ten seconds to see that this draft and the linked article are not about the same person (they don't even play the same sport, for God's sakes), and that the similarly-named John-Paul Kelly is yet a third person. As a result, every single above vote is based on a false premise, and this whole discussion needs to re-start from scratch. Courtesy pings: @Ricky81682:@Legacypac:@SmokeyJoe:@JMHamo:@Chrisw80:@Northamerica1000:@Fagles: Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete It's a BLP with no references. I can't find any confirmation he existed, so unless someone can come up with sources, it should be 'deleted. He is not either of the two Rugby players listed at John_Kelly either. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC) (I now think it is a hoax) Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Comment: Please don't strike-through my comments, my comment still stands irrespective. How do you know I was operating under a false premise? Chrisw80 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you Oiyarbepsy, you are quite right. It is a BLP, but I see no BLP issues. It makes some grand notability claims, without sources, and I fail to verify them using google. I would prefer to see it go through the normal Draft/AfC process. It is not the business of MfD to review every poor draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC) It's not an AFC page so there is not draft/AFC process at play here. If it's not the same person, it seems like a hoax then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Re Hoax? It is not a hoax, just yet another JPK footballer. I am pretty he is not Wikipedia-notable, but then I have a decided disinterest in WP:ATHLETE articles. I am tempted to say that most of them should be merged and redirected to list/table articles on teams by period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Re: not an AfC page. I have never understood the distinction between an AfC page in DraftSpace and a non-AfC page in DraftSpace. I'm a bit surprised that there is a distinction. I am aware of controversy concerning third parties adding the AfC template to userpage drafts, but that's a userpage user ownership issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC) G13 applies to AFC pages period, regardless of namespace. It doesn't apply to non-AFC pages. Draftspace is just another namespace and so deletion there falls under the general deletion guidelines. This is what User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report was created to find, old drafts from draftspace that would not fall under G13 since they aren't AFC drafts (the expansion of G13 has been repeatedly rejected). Now the draft itself alleges that this person played for Exeter Chiefs for over a decade including numerous championships. Ignoring the fact that Exeter Chiefs is a top domestic rugby level team, for all the lauding and congratulations on the page, there is no mention of him anywhere. The biography, if accurate, would pass Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_union but again, very strange. As such, I think it's more likely a hoax and given that it is unsourced BLP with almost nothing of substance, I tend to vote delete because I find many people do care about the creation credit for pages and having a draft already in existence but poorly done will keep away the people who care about that versus deleting it (analogous to how you see WP:REDLINKS policy here). Nevertheless, I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Draft:John_Paul_Kelly asking for confirmation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as apparent hoax. If the claims made were true, some confirmation could surely be found, but although "he represented Exeter Rugby Club for over a decade" he is not mentioned in this history of Exeter Rugby Club, nor does Googling "John Kelly captain Devon rugby" find any confirmation that he "captained Devon to countless County successes". JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I've now CSD'd it as a hoax. No one wants to keep it and nothing checks out here. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (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 14, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adamshanti/Povernomics

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 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Adamshanti/Povernomics User:Adamshanti/Povernomics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Not a social science but a trademarked term someone coined and made into a website. The stale draft list and the userpage are high ranked among the very few hits for the term, along with whois pages and the like. No RS found. [10] Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Povernomics and WP:UP#COPIES. An unimproved copy (or early version) of a deleted article (a clear deletion consensus, even of contested). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Two unreferenced sentences advertising someone's website. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2016 (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/User:Agkimball/JaLynn Prince

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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Agkimball/JaLynn Prince User:Agkimball/JaLynn Prince (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:NOTRESUME case. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Redirect to JaLynn Prince, or history-merge if someone has a need for administrative overkill. The state of the current article is proof that Legacypac fails to recognize a good draft when he sees one. Ban Legacypac from nominations, due to his frequency of perfunctory and erroneous nominationsretract, is an outlier in recent quality nominations --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, with only a single source to a church paper, it looked like promotion. Not sure that the target article passes GNG but a redirect is fine since it exists. I'll Withdraw' and redirect it. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC) That's why mainspace standards are not to be applied to userspace. Userspace is the backrooms, hidden away from the real world, not easily confused with mainspace. The article has better sourcing, and we don't evaluate the GNG at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2016 (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/User:Aginternational/Amida Group

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. North America1000 17:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC) User:Aginternational/Amida Group User:Aginternational/Amida Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:COPIES WP:UP#COPIES violation. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. The nom fails to substantiate the reason, failing to identify the source of the copy or the deletion discussion, but yes, it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC) It is a copy paste from +/- this 7 April 2011 version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PricewaterhouseCoopers&oldid=422861502 - with no subsequent edits [11] Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Textbook WP:UP#COPIES violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. Should be a speedy criterion for cases like this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:24, 24 March 2016 (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/User:AgentLady/M. E. White

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 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC) User:AgentLady/M. E. White User:AgentLady/M. E. White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Standard agent promotion of a new author of an ebook. If they become notable someone will write this up properly. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Promotion of a non-notable book by a WP:SPA. The book has only received one reveiw, at Amazon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Promotional page on a non-notable subject, in the user space of an editor who has not edited in two years. No reasonable prospect of it ever becoming an article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2016 (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/User:Shellywiki/NudeReviews

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 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Shellywiki/NudeReviews User:Shellywiki/NudeReviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This WP:STALEDRAFT seems to violate WP:FAKEARTICLE and would need independent sources to establish notability. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2016 (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/User:HeidiHalliwell/Call It Whatever (album)

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. MER-C 11:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:HeidiHalliwell/Call It Whatever (album) User:HeidiHalliwell/Call It Whatever (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Usespace draft from July 2014 just consisting of an infobox. There is already Call It Whatever (song) for the song but according to Bella Thorne discography the album was cancelled and instead Jersey (EP) was released. As such, a more extensive version already exists at Call It Whatever (album) which is now a redirect. There's nothing to merge into a current redirect. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as there is no chance of this being made into an article. See WP:UPNOT Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC) @Legacypac: Which part of WP:UPNOT makes this page unsuitable? A2soup (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Agree, there is nothing relevant at WP:UPNOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC) writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project... or an encyclopedia article... In this case the effort was a faulty crystal ball. Legacypac (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. (excellent nomination) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2016 (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 13, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Inspire/Allamah Zia ul Mustafa Qadri Azmi

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. North America1000 17:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC) User:Adam Inspire/Allamah Zia ul Mustafa Qadri Azmi User:Adam Inspire/Allamah Zia ul Mustafa Qadri Azmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User dropped this unreferenced glowing bio on this page years ago and has never been seen since. No claim to meet WP:N and very unlikely to be improved by another editor. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Blank and template with {{userpage blanked}} for promotional concerns. No reason for deletion - WP:N is does not apply in userspace and it is even less likely to be improved by another editor after deletion. A2soup (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC) BreachesWP:UPNOT and WP:UP#PROMO Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Hence the blank instead of a flat keep. A2soup (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Blank or delete. Possibly notable, but hard to tell for all the promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: Unsalvageably promotional, though perhaps just shy of G11. Editor created it and walked away. Wikipedia is not a webhost for content that cannot and will never be integrated into an article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 24 March 2016 (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/Book:Medical Wikipedia 0-E

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. Note:there are also user space copies of these 2 pages, not being deleted. — xaosflux Talk 14:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Book:Medical Wikipedia 0-E Book:Medical Wikipedia 0-E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Book:Medical Wikipedia 0-F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Pages created by User:Drsalmanshah165 whose only activity (from 22 July 2014 to 1 August 2014) was to create a huge number of Books like User:Drsalmanshah165/Books/Medical Wikipedia 0-D. No real problem with that (inside user space). But two of them: Book:Medical_Wikipedia_0-E, Book:Medical_Wikipedia_0-F have been created in the Book: space... Since then, their talk page is populated by a bot and are on template overflow. The titles are misleading since many articles are out of this range. These books don't compile. A random subset of 56 articles generates a 238 pages pdf, thus the book with 1262 articles would be over 5000 pages ! Nobody has ever edited these two pages (except from myself, today...), and the whole thing appears as a failed attempt. Only the two books situated in the Book: space are proposed for deletion, since the books in the user space are not maintained by the bots. Maybe useless, but harmless. Pldx1 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Delete Per nom pretty much. Brustopher (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2016 (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 12, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snoopy7717/Super World Adventures

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. MER-C 10:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) User:Snoopy7717/Super World Adventures User:Snoopy7717/Super World Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Stale draft about a non-notable iphone app. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete – a WP:STALEDRAFT that has not been edited since June 2011. North America1000 09:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Delete not-notable, will never be able to become a real article. Brustopher (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2016 (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/User:Doctorxgc/sandbox/Kindred3

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 (may be undeleted upon request if it will be worked on). — xaosflux Talk 00:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Doctorxgc/sandbox/Kindred3 User:Doctorxgc/sandbox/Kindred3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:WP#COPIES of Kindred (novel). There's no edits in the draft that require histmerge. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete Temporary copies are permitted but this hasn't been touched since May 2014. Editor is still active though so if the editor has a reason to keep this, I'm open to reconsideration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (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/User:Martintransports/Car shipping companies

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. MER-C 10:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) User:Martintransports/Car shipping companies User:Martintransports/Car shipping companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a how to article, not an encyclopedia article. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per WP:STALE. Creator has not edited since 2011 and the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHOWTO). clpo13(talk) 20:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. North America1000 09:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per WP:UP#GOALS as writings not related to Wikipedia's goals. WP:NOTHOWTO is also relevant, as this is fundamentally malformed for mainspace. WP:STALE does not indicate deletion in this case, as the page is not problematic even if blanked. A2soup (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (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/User:Studiolegalebentivegna/Enter your new article name here

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. MER-C 10:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) User:Studiolegalebentivegna/Enter your new article name here User:Studiolegalebentivegna/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unsourced bio not in English and a stale (darn phone) draft. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete - Assuming nominator means a stale draft not in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete stale draft (creator hasn't edited since 2011) of a non-notable lawyer. Unlikely to survive as an article. clpo13(talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (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/User:StrongbowSon/List of invited guests to state dinner in hounour of Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her official state visit to Ireland, May 2011

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 00:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:StrongbowSon/List of invited guests to state dinner in hounour of Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her official state visit to Ireland, May 2011 User:StrongbowSon/List of invited guests to state dinner in hounour of Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her official state visit to Ireland, May 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Should this be made into an article? Not seen one like this before. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Speedy keep #1. "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Bit weird, but not extremely so. There are weirder articles. Use of the "u" in hounour is a tad excessive. Recommend blanking now that we are here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. It could be an article (there are a lot more silly ones) or converted into an article about the state dinner or added to the visit article but right now, it's a series of names with a single source for all of them. Since the source material is already referenced here, it's closer to being a verbatim copyright violation than anything useful at this point and so I suggest deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC) A list like this is not copyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: Violates WP:NOT, namely WP:NOTWHOSWHO and by analogy to WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Even if the event itself may have been notable, an exhaustive list of all the guests invited would not be encyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't the society pages either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:19, 24 March 2016 (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/User:Strippersearch/Stripper (band)

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC) User:Strippersearch/Stripper (band) User:Strippersearch/Stripper (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Non-notable band article found in userspace Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Delete WP:STALE (user has not edited since 2011) and not suitable for mainspace due to not meeting notability requirements (WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC). Also note that it appears this band did have an article in mainspace (Stripper (band)), which was speedy-deleted per A7. clpo13(talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (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.

Old business

March 11, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32/Template:Rutgers

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. MER-C 10:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32/Template:Rutgers User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32/Template:Rutgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Orphaned template already covered by Template:Rutgers from 2006 in the userspace of a vanished user who is possibly a sockpuppet of a banned user. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Delete -- haven't got anything to add, since it's all been said. It's not exactly the same as {{Rutgers}}, but it still doesn't seem necessary. I can't say whether the owner is a sockpuppet or not. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 07:23, 13 March 2016 (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/User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32/RutgersRewrite

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 14:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32/RutgersRewrite User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32/RutgersRewrite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Old userspace draft for a temporary re-write of Rutgers from 2006 in the userspace of a vanished user who is also suspected of being a sockpuppet. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 13 March 2016 (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 10, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History

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. Nakon 04:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC) User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Another orphaned infobox for World War II. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with orphaned anything in userspace! The problem with this is probably that it is a pointless copy of an infobox in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) It's an infobox which to me is more akin to a template than an article when it's not used anywhere (some infoboxes show up in multiple places). At which point, if this was in template space, it would qualify for deletion under TFD based on non-use. Otherwise, fine, it's a draft for a portion of the World War II article when we already have that portion of the article in existence today at World War II right now in violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Do you think it should be kept? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Reasonable leeway and presumed responsibility for productive users to manage their own userspace. Nominating these things implies that you think leeway in userspace should be less that it is, and that these productive Wikipedians on wikibreak were irresponsible. In other words, deletion serves to alienate old Wikipedians. Entirely a negative action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Delete since it seems to fall under WP:UP#NOTSUITED Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per WP:UP#NOTSUITED. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:20, 18 May 2016 (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/User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/WWSInfoBox

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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/WWSInfoBox User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/WWSInfoBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Orphaned unused sidebox for World War I. I think the same policies behind WP:UP#COPIES would apply to portions of a draft page like this. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: Analogy to WP:UP#COPIES makes a lot of sense here, especially given the "template" content is content to be displayed in articlespace, rather than purely a navigation aid. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Properly attribution in the creation edit summary, the user deserves some credit for that. Redirect to the source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC) It's not good enough. Consider the second edit to the page, which said that the page was a copy of another template... which has since been deleted. The attribution hazard just isn't present right now. It may be present in the future. UP:COPIES is cut-and-dried that it should be deleted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC) OK, 2nd edit, delete now that we are here. However, navboxes are not a big issue because they do not contain copyrightable creative content. So it is a lesser than a WP:UP#COPIES issues. Copyrights is important, but copyright hysteria detracts from it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as I think WP:UP#NOTSUITED applies. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC) How so? The images are licenced suitably for userspace. There are no mainspace categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Categories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2016 (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/User:DMorpheus/Sandbox

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 Blank Soft Redirect to article left. — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC) User:DMorpheus/Sandbox User:DMorpheus/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Draft from 2007 already covered by Operation Cobra. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Blank and add {{Sandbox notice}} and {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page. North America1000 09:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC) What about WP:UP#COPIES? That template implies that the editor should continue working on that draft even though a mainspace version exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC) @Ricky81682: Scroll down on the page and notice the "Normandy stub" section, which is not present in the main article. The entire sandbox page is not a copy of the article. North America1000 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC) It's still a many year old draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to talk about WP:STALEDRAFT, is this page "entirely unsuitable"? A2soup (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC) WP:UP#COPIES doesn't apply. Redirect and blank noting the mainspace article are basically the same thing. Why relist this? There never was a deletion rationale, and still has been none. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (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/User:Hadseys/sandbox

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 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) User:Hadseys/sandbox User:Hadseys/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Looks to be a partial draft of World War II from 2007. Editor has been blocked since 2012. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2016 (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/User:Olly836/Ian Olliver

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 Soft Delete, should anyone want to adopt this and improve it request it to be undeleted and moved.. — xaosflux Talk 12:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC) User:Olly836/Ian Olliver User:Olly836/Ian Olliver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Autobiography of a musician found in stale draft list. No sources and no strong claim to notability. Maybe qualifies for NOTAWEBHOST. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Keep - WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply since the page is clearly written to be an encyclopedic article and can serve no other purpose. Tone is not promotional. WP:V and WP:N are irrelevant in userspace. No reason to delete exists. Per WP:MfD: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." To remove this page from the stale draft category, recategorize into maintenance category and blank+template are better options that I would be fine with. A2soup (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: It's a WP:STALEDRAFT, and contains unsourced claims about BLP subjects, not only the actual subject. STALEDRAFT #2 says that we should consider blank+template. I don't think that's adequate in this circumstance. STALEDRAFT #4 only applies if there's "some potential". I see no potential for this. From all appearances the only claim to notability this subject has is that he was one of the three members of the PJ Harvey Trio (which has no article, though PJ Harvey does); everywhere else he doesn't seem to have been a prominent member, or the band wasn't prominent. So I have a pretty strong suspicion this wouldn't survive AfD anyway... meaning no potential. In fact, STALEDRAFT #3 suggests we might consider U5: While it's not promotional, it is "otherwise unsuitable" (unsourced BLP), and Olly836 was never a serious Wikipedia editor. Even so, I think a straight delete is better here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) That's a very odd reading of WP:STALEDRAFT, seeing as the only point in that guideline that directly references non-U5 deletion is #6, which reads: "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." I can accept the no potential, but what here is problematic even if blanked? Note that BLP issues are specifically given as an example of when blanking would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Consider" does not mean "you must". I considered it and I disagree that blanking is sufficient to address the BLP issues here. None of the other alternatives appear reasonable for this situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC) If any BLP issues can be addressed by blanking, these can. They are about as minor as BLP issues can get - the draft is dully factual and makes neither positive nor negative nor extraordinary (or even very interesting) claims. Are there any cases in which blanking is sufficient to address BLP issues? If yes, what do those cases look like? If no, then you just disagree with the guideline. A2soup (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Keep but blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Some weak claim to notability, some decent content, this is not the sort of worthless of draft that needs deletion, could be useful, does no harm in userspace, and less harm if blanked. Anyone else interested will find it via its title in a Wikipedia userspace search. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC) There is an evident COI here. It's promotional in tone. It would not survive AfD, and yes I know that A2soup does not consider GNG to apply on a case like this, but if this is kept, it should be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC) ...but no one wants it in mainspace in its current state. It's obviously not ready for mainspace - that's why its still a draft. Why should it be tested in mainspace? Also, can you give a quote from the draft that you find to have a promotional tone? I don't see any. A2soup (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC) are you offering to adopt it and improve for mainspace? It is not going too be the creating editor, or a mythical future editor, so if not you, then why keep it? The user made three edits total, on one day in Sept 2011, and the other two were to add unsourced info to another related article. [12]. How long should we keep this... another year, two, 50 years? The existence of the page is promotional as it covers a person that fails GNG and the guy wrote it about himself. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC) I see, it's not the content of the page but its existence that is promotional. I don't agree with that application of promotion - see for example WP:COIATTRIBUTE, which seems to suggest draftspace as a place for COI edits to be drafted for copying to mainspace by other editors. In any case, the promotion here, if it exists, is so mild that blanking is more than sufficient. Re "why keep it?" - because deletion is a worse option that the alternatives - see my long post here, to which has also been added the additional alternative of recategorizing to an informative maintenance category. A2soup (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as none of this suggests the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC) What notability is "applicable" in userspace? A2soup (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC) It looks like "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project" See WP:UP#GOALS and WP:UP#PROMO since it does not pass GNG is is unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC) And again, WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Your disruption has no point. Quit it please. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC) This is just a reminder that when this practice was discussed, it was condemned by literally everyone who participated in the discussion except yourself. A2soup (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Discussed by a small group of editors with an agenda based on a faulty reading of an RfC. In other places it has been widely supported that a Keep at MfD is an endorsement of the content going to mainspace sooner or later. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) @Legacypac: Can you provide a link to one of these "other places"? A2soup (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Start with the ANi thread you participated in. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~ I mean, I wasn't going to mention it, because you would probably call it a personal attack, but in that thread I see an admin sanctioning you for the move. Liz condemns the move. The Voidwalker seems to have a problem with your supposed thought process, but doesn't reach a conclusion. Robert McClenon says it's not a conduct issue, but recommends reversing the move, which is certainly not an endorsement. SoftLavender says that moving pages useful to the encyclopedia to mainspace is fine. Rob says the move is WP:POINT. Ricky says most of your moves seem fine, but doesn't endorse the practice of moving to mainspace drafts not suitable for mainspace. Mendaliv is the only one to support the move, citing IAR. SmokeyJoe and I of course condemn the move. Then the discussion veers into policy and away from your moves in particular. So I count 6 editors (Martin, Liz, Robert McClenon, Rob, SmokeyJoe, and I) disagreeing with the move (and one sanctioning you for it), 3 (The Voidwalker, Ricky, and SoftLavender) not giving a definite view, and 2 (Mendaliv and yourself) supporting it. You're going to have to forgive me if I don't see moving pages into mainspace that you know are not suitable for mainspace being "widely supported" in that discussion. Any other discussions you want to point out? A2soup (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Comment this page was evidently written by the subject in 2011. It was one of three edits, all to insert himself into Wikipedia, within a few minutes. The editor was not here to build an encyclopedia. There are no references. No verification. Nothing that suggests this article or any article on this person would survive in mainspace. The keep comments here are just noise and nonsense for the sake of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC) I understand that is your opinion, but there is not clear consensus that it matches the opinion of the community. Dismissing others' opinions as disruption and promising to nominate thousands of similar articles regardless of the actual content of our guidelines is a problem. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Fails WP:MUSICIAN, and as a "autobiography" it is also WP:UP#PROMO. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:27, 29 March 2016 (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/User:Cube b3/senile team

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, history merge not needed as this is a copy, note this is NOT User:Cube b3/Senile Team which was the undeleted and userfied version of the same article. — xaosflux Talk 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC) User:Cube b3/senile team User:Cube b3/senile team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Fails WP:UP#COPIES. Hasn't been substantively edited since 2011, appears to have been copied into userspace to avoid an AfD that occurred around that time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I moved it to Senile Team several years ago.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC) @Cube b3: In that case, do you want this draft deleted? A2soup (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Admins have a history merge option, right? Maybe we can use that?--Cube b3 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Think so. Looks like the correct action here is WP:HISTMERGE with Senile Team. A2soup (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Histmerge is the wrong move here. This is an unedited userspace copy of an article that was pulled out of mainspace during an AfD. See this revision. There is no attribution requirement because the history of Senile Team predates this userspace copy. In fact, this userspace copy is, technically speaking, a copyright violation. I tagged a couple of Cube b3's other userspace drafts for histmerege where there was substantive userspace history from multiple editors that needed attribution. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Senile_Team_(3rd_nomination) kind of makes a history merge redundant. Delete per results of the recent AfD. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: as per @Legacypac rationale. Quis separabit? 12:50, 16 March 2016 (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/Draft:Pocket Gangsters

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 I moved the draft to the main space, and I close this discussion as moot. There is no prejudice against opening an Afd and moving the comments there (or providing a link), but it should not be discussed here anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Pocket Gangsters Draft:Pocket Gangsters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft has not been edited since January 2014, with the last edits to improve the page (not bot edits/cleanup of wikiSpeak/vandalism reversion) was in May of 2013. The "author" of this page hasn't edited since the same May 2013 date. Several facutal errors (such as the release date being claimed as July 2013 when IMDB (for it's flaws) lists it as January 2015. Suggest that this be deleted without prejudice to re-creation if/when there is content that can pass the WP:NFILM threshold Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Delete: I'd normally say fix it up and kick it to mainspace (since it shouldn't take much), but other indicators tell me that would be futile given this subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NFILM: There don't even seem to be indicators the film was ever released (I don't see any post-release press). There's some hype related to its production, but I can't tell if it's significant or independent enough to pass GNG. Taken with that, the right move is to just delete the draft as a WP:STALEDRAFT without prejudice to recreation. This is, of course, assuming that MfD is the right venue, given that this appears to have been originally created in mainspace, boldly incubated, and then moved to draft space after the article incubator shut down. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Delete for if moved back to main that would be it's fate most likely. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Was released in January 2015. All information indicates an amateur production, little better than a home movie. No reviews. User:MichaelQSchmidt, who saved it from PROD and moved it to the article incubator, might like to review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. It is not the place for immediatists/deletionists to impose time limits on content builders, especially not in DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Searches: title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Hindi:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) & WP:INDAFD: "Pocket Gangsters" "Hemant Nilim Das" "Vikram Shah" "Ciemme Entertainment" "Mukesh Bhatt" "Shivangi Mehra" "Madhur Mittal" "Vijay Raaz" Keep and move to article space as the film is released and production has the coverage it lacked in 2013 to now meet WP:NF. Being a stale draft shows the weakness of things being forgotten in draftspace, but Hasteur, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, Mendaliv... ping me and I'll gladly do some work on it when it returns. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC) The draft is live now and can be improved. Improve it demonstrating notability and maybe people will change their votes. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Yes thank you. I have been doing so, and it was I who added the search links to the discussion here that the MFD template did not. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC) But while 2013 was at that time a bit TOO SOON, I now suggest to Hasteur, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, and Mendaliv... there is no rush to improve now, for a completed released film which was easy to ascertain under applicable guideline and WP:NF that the film topic now meets inclusion criteria per Times of India (1), Times of India 92), India.com (1), Business of Cinema, India TV, Indiaglitz, Pinkvilla, India Blooms, Mizo News, India.com (2), Times of India (3), Bollywood Life, and many others. As the topic is now proven notable per guideline, this MFD is moot,and there is no need for continued discussion or a forced cleanup. Let's close this discussion and move this to mainspace so we can all get on with building an encyclopedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Even with MichaelQSchmidt's cleanups, if we were to play the WP:BURO argument through and promoted the page to mainspace only to have it back on the deletion wagon via CSD:Notability (Articlespace) or AFD (dye to the lack of notability demonstrated in the article) we would probably end up at the same exact discussion of noting how there isn't enough content here to justify inclusion in the English Wikipedia. This doesn't bar the film from existing in the Hindi wikipedia, but for the lack of independent reliably sourced content, I cannot justify doing the Burecratic shuffle only to end up at the same end game. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Also thank you MQS for making edits, because that gave me a backdoor to go ahead and put this previously unsubmitted draft into AFC review to challenge it's suitability/viability for mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Hasteur. It certainly was not ready back in pre-production 2013 and we had non-delete options even then... but now with its verifiable release, its coverage in multiple reliable sources will allow it to meet WP:NF. And note, according to WP:CSD itself, sourced film articles (even crappy and stubby one) are ineligible for speedy. I would have moved it to article space myself were it not for my editing it. With the move, this discussion has been rendered as unnecessary. Anyone can close as now moot. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Not moot, and if it is closed as such I will call the question at DRV for improperly closed deletion as the fundamental defect of WP:NFILM not having yet been met. Most of the sources are either directory listings (which do not confer notability) or Press tour interviews with people directly associated with the film (and therefore not independent). The only thing that contributes some notability is the two Times of India pieces about Raghubir Yadav's contribution to the film, but Notability is not Inherited. If this film was notable, it should have been present in the filmography sections of the 3 bluelinked actors. Hasteur (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC) It's fine that we disagree. But it does not matter if some of the pertinent significant coverage might be about an actor just so long as the film is spoken of directly and in detail. I remind that WPSIGCOV #1 specifically instructs that a source does not have to be solely about the topic being discussed. And personally I believe it is an unfortunate misrepresentation to imply that sources Times of India (1), Times of India 92), India.com (1), Business of Cinema, India TV, Indiaglitz, Pinkvilla, India Blooms, Mizo News, India.com (2), Times of India (3),and Bollywood Life, are simply "directory listings" when they are not. I will not be the one to close, and putting a scare into others will likely prevent a proper close 11 days after this discussion was opened, but I believe a WP:DRV would agree with my evaluation that even if it still needs work, the topic is now proven notable per guideline and that this MFD is moot and a timely close as keep is proper... for if seen as notable, there is no need for continued discussion or a forced cleanup. And conversely, if deleted through scare tactics, a DRV would support an overturn. Jus' sayin'. I am not invested and there is no harm in waiting. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Of course it's fine. Michael is a rabid inclusionist, and the project would be far less than it is without the inclusionists. Maybe even unviable. Imagine if these processes and policies were in play in the first three years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Some label me an inclusionist. Okay, fine... I'd rather fix something I determined as fixable, rather than delete it simply because it lacked some easy-to-do work. And yes, SmokeyJoe, it would seem reasonable to assert that improving articles to better serve the project is the way an encyclopedia is built. I do however balk at the use of "extreme inclusionist" or "rabid inclusionist", as use of such negative adjectives toward other editors turn "inclusionist" into a slur. I am not "extreme", and a simple check shows I am just as willing to opine for deletion of an article at AFD as I am a keep. And I am not "rabid". Sure... I might be dedicated to improving savable articles (680 so far), but I have not been contracted rabies nor am I foaming at the mouth. Within this community, improving articles should never be thought of in the negative, as making Wikipedia a better place for its readers is supposedly the reason we are all here... as Wikipedia is about the readers and not about the editors... and immediatism is not a policy. That said, I take no offense from "rabid deletionists" wishing to make Wikipedia a whole lot smaller. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Update pings to Hasteur, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, Mendaliv: Here is what I incubated in 2013 as TOO SOON Here is what was sent to Draft Space when the Incubator was shut down in 2014 Here is what was brought to AFD in March 2016 6 as a "stale draft". And Here is what a little editorial attention can do. SmokeyJoe changed his opinion. Anyone else? Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Drop the attitude you twerp. So we only have one "reception" from times of India. Let's put on our thinking caps and think about how many films are reviewed by Times of India yearly. Now lets look at the Times of India content. Really nothing more than a directory listing with no critical reception. As I said, probably not appropriate for english wikipedia, but probably reasonable for Hindi language wikipedia (where this belongs). Hasteur (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Under policy and guideline, many foreign films whaich have never seen the inside of a US theater are accepted for en.Wikipedia, as the English Wikipedia does not limit itself to English-only topics. And notability is not based upon a film ever being reviewed (though it does help), but rather upon the wider coverage of aspects of a film's production. I am surprised at the WP:ADHOM, as I have no "attitude" and am not being a "twerp", but am simply and carefully explaining my understanding of guideline and policy in relationship to this topic. Thank you though for sharing your opinions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Anyone can buy an article in pretty much any Indian paper so I give less weight to Indian news. We need solid coverage, not brief mentions. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your thoughts, and I while agree that Indian media cover topics differently than does western media, those differences are why I made sure the article here was very well sourced. And what I will explain in and what will likely be accepted at a DRV (if this goes that far), is that while "substantial" coverage is preferred, WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline nor policy mandate. Guideline tells us that a subject being sourced does not have to be the sole topic of a citation source, and more-than-trivial lengthy "mentions" addressing the topic directly and in detail found in multiple reliable sources meet the definitions set for acceptability by WP:SIGCOV. Thank you for returning to look in. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:59, 23 March 2016 (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 7, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox

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 Move to User:SmokeyJoe/Wikipedia governance reform has he has offered to rework it for future addition to a project page. — xaosflux Talk 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC) User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp to re-sort for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Old userspace essay from an editor who requested to vanish. Note that the editor's name is inadvertently left here so to respect the vanish, we should delete it. The editor has either vanished and won't return so this isn't needed also or the editor could undo the vanish at which point they can request reinstatement if they want. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Keep Valid user essay, indeed important and pertinent. The philosophy of the essay also would oppose busybodies cleaning retired user's userspace. Highlighting a vanished user's name, inadvertently left, on a high profile process page, was irresponsible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) As contrasted to the busybodies that oppose active user's efforts to cleanup the irrelevant, problematic, promotional, and other useless or damaging garbage~left behind by those that are gone? Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC) No issue with cleaning up the promotional or damaging, but it is not all so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC) The essay is in the userspace of the equivalent of say a blocked user, namely someone who isn't going to return under that name. If there's no indication that someone else supports the essay (or enough support to move it to Wikipedia space), how is keeping it anything but a WP:WEBHOST issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC) The subsequent standing of the author is irrelevant. The essay has project-related merit. NOTWEBHOST doesn't apply to project-related material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Still Keep. Valid essay, clearly relevant to Wikipedia. No has four explicit supporters, although I don't support every choice of word. Move to ProjectSpace, as a valid, well-intentioned, multi-user supported project essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Move to Project space clearly this is an essay that resonates with some people. Brustopher (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Move to Project space but remove the vanished user's signature to respect their privacy. ~ RobTalk 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Actually, on looking at this again, this really should be gotten rid of. It explicitly encourages members to communicate and coordinate to "defend" certain tenants. That reeks of WP:CABAL behavior. At the very least, it violates WP:CANVASS. ~ RobTalk 17:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: @Brustopher: @BU Rob13: - for a move closure, what new title do you suggest? — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) See my new !vote above. I didn't consider this fully enough before. ~ RobTalk 17:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC) WP:Wikipedia governance reform (mainstream rejection that there is any "governance" notwithstanding). Rob's concerns are fixable. If disagreed for ProjectSpace, please userfy for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: If you boldly fix the issues, I'll reconsider my vote above. Just ping me. ~ RobTalk 21:21, 28 April 2016 (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/User:Vanished user 342562/Sandbox/WikiProject United States Government invitations

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 Move. This whole discussion is a mess, and has become meta - I think it is clear that this page is useless where it is, and the only place it may be useful would be to the project, so moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government/Invitations as it could possibly be of use to that project in the future. — xaosflux Talk 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Vanished user 342562/Sandbox/WikiProject United States Government invitations User:Vanished user 342562/Sandbox/WikiProject United States Government invitations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Old invitation page for WP:WikiProject United States Government that was supposed to be run by an unapproved bot that stopped in 2008 and under the page of a vanished user who stopped editing in December 2008. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Keep due to no reason offered delete. Or is there a WP:BOTS consensus to reverse all the unapproved bot edits? If so, please link. MfD does not engage in bot business. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Userspace is also not supposed to a storage place for pages that look like project pages. If this page had been widely used by the WikiProject, then "moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there" would be appropriate. I will ask at the project talk page if people find this useful. The fact that this was run through an unauthorized bot which I presume subst it that hasn't been active since 2008 is evidence that it is not in wide use (or any use) by the project itself today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC) It looks like a talk page template, not a project page. I would expect that every use was substed. No issue with merging/redirect/moving into the WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC) It's a page that would belong to the project, namely invitations to the project itself. There's no reason why a user would have a version of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) I can think of two reasons immediately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Question Has it been used? Does the project want it? If the answer is "No" to both, then delete by analogy to WP:TFD#REASONS. This is essentially just a template that's been kept in userspace. If it's not been used, has no hope of being used, and would never survive in templatespace, there's no logical reason to keep it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC) This is the equivalent of {{MedInvitation}} and other WikiProject-specific welcoming templates. The WikiProject appears to be largely inactive (and might be a good candidate for merging into Wikipedia:WikiProject United States as a task force). However, given that our normal approach is to assume that all WikiProjects might someday be WP:REVIVEd, and since this is the sort of thing some eventual revival-minded editor would need, it might be best to move it to Template: space and add the template to the project's main page (so that it can be found). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Support doing this, and leaving a redirect behind so that the user may find it easily. (NB redirects are cheap). Wouldn't the easiest thing to do be to transclude and link this template onto the WikiProject page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Why? It would just be an orphaned unused template in templatespace then for possible invitations to a project that seemingly is either inactive or has no interest in it. There's no evidence the project wants the page. I already asked about it. If the project is revived and there's interest for doing invitations again, someone could ask for restoration and then move it and use it. I don't recall many projects doing this kind of inviting in the last few years so I don't see where there would ever be an interest in this template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC) It's really no different to why we don't delete all inactive WikiProjects. It won't be in template space, and in userspace or a WikiProject subpage being an orphan is not important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC) It's not an inactive WikiProject though. It's a template. The standards for templates are different. Now, at MfD things are a lot more wishy-washy, but the fact that this is a vanished editor ticks the "no credible hope of ever being used again by this editor" box that gets us past the preliminary "let's not screw up someone's userspace if we can avoid it" hurdle. In the vast majority of userspace cases, MfD is applying rules that only make sense with article-like content; things like STALEDRAFTs and FAKEARTICLEs. This is neither. The right move is, presuming we've demonstrated nobody wants or is working on this, apply the same standards that TfD would: If it's not been used, and nobody wants it, delete it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC) No, templates, particularly templates not used in mainspace but usertalk pages, in userspace are not ruled by the same standards as templates in template space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Editor could return, unvanish, restart the project and use this page. Better to be safe than drive them away if they see that their work has been deleted without any reason. 166.176.57.236 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)  Administrator note User:103.6.159.83 asserts that User:166.176.57.236 is under a ban. — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Delete its not being used. Its not going to be used. Its not been used. If not deleted it should be moved to Template space. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC) It is only useful to the WikiProject, and so is better as a WikiProject subpage. If it is felt that it doesn't belong in this userspace, move to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government/Invitations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) At which point we can subject that to deletion at MFD since the project doesn't seem to have any interest in it? If they had started the page there and the project didn't want it, would that have made any difference? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC) It is obviously part of the WikiProject. The editor who created the page obviously did it for the WikiProject, that makes it part of the WikiProject. I see no reason to delete it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2016 (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 5, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret

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. Note that per WP:FAKEARTICLE, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." (bold emphasis mine). North America1000 07:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC) User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This article subject has been floating around here since September 2004. It was deleted from mainspace by AFDs in 2007, in January 2011 and again per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (5th nomination) in December 2013. A restoration request was made in February 2014 so this was moved here but no editing was done to this draft and the editor seemed to have stopped editing here in November 2015. I think we can delete this again and if someone wants to ask for recreation, they can if they provide some actual significant coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC) I'm still here, and she is still an important activist. It would be better if the article was restored and then built up again. She is widely published Bachcell (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC) No one else seems to think so. Are you planning on working on this or just keep on asking for recreation to keep a version of this around? It's been deleted three times at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Well within reasonable leeway for a productive Wikipedian. No evidence that the user is irresponsible in userspace. There are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Would you have considered voting keep for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Conrad Hughes Hilton III? That wasn't editing since April 2015 and was only deleted because of one AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Hi Ricky81682. Firstly, it is not a very similar case, because it is not in userspace. However... I always start by considering "Keep" until I am satisfied of the rationale for deletion. The nomination there was immediately convincing, except for the word "restored" which left the begging question "why was it restored"? The AfD was convincing, four participants all in complete agreement; the number of AfD discussions is an unexpected point. One clear AfD is far more convincing that several messy AfD discussions. I might have looked at the content to check that the contents matched the AfD comments. I am very comfortable for that draftified deleted article to have been deleted while allowing User:Bachcell as much time as he likes. I would, as I have said maybe hundreds of times over almost ten years, advise the User is blank the contents of userfied deleted pages during periods of activity, especially where there is a possible issue of WP:Advocacy. As an aside, I think the Leuren Moret story is very interesting, and that the nuclear material / radiation / depleted uranium in munitions story is interested, and probably already well covered. I believe that there is an error in the deleted article, as depleted uranium poses a zero radiation issue. Zero, because there is no evidence that tiny radiation doses do damage, see radiation hormesis. Instead, depleted uranium in munitions leads to its dispersal as a fine powder that that it is hazardous as a toxic heavy metal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC) So do you want it put in mainspace? Should we have to go through a sixth AFD before actual deletion can be considered? Does that fact that it hasn't been edited since 2014 matter? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC) No, I do not want to put it in mainspace, it needs caring work. The AfDs are significant, but don't neglect to mention that some concluded as "keep", and all, individually and collectively, are very weak. No, time since last edit is irrelevant if it contains material helpful for building an article. Time measures of inactivity were brought in to facilitate easy reject of old worthless stuff. Having established that this is not worthless, it is inappropriate to try to apply time limits. The page should be classified as a B-grade draft if processing must be done, it should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC) At a minimum, the page should be blanked during periods of inactivity. It was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (5th nomination), and it is not OK to leave it lying around live. I do think there is potential to overcome the reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Delete. Stale draft, zombie since 2007 when it was deleted from mainspace. No indication that it will ever be improved enough to merit reconsideration for mainspace. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Delete it is actually the oldest stale draft in the system [13] at the moment. If it is not going to be an article it needs to go already. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC) @Bachcell: can you point to any additional substantial coverage that have been published since 2013 that might result in this subject becoming notable? The spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST implies that we should respect the consensus at the previous AfD by not keeping an exact copy of the article in user space indefinitely. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Delete as per users Legacypac and Hobbes. If the people who want to keep this don't improve the article despite repeated deletion nominations, then it doesn't deserve to be kept any longer. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host... old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2016 (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 2, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Characters (Freak Neil Inc album)

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Characters (Freak Neil Inc album) Draft:Characters (Freak Neil Inc album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) There doesn't seem to be much written about this album in independent reliable sources. There is no band article to use as a redirect target. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Anne, you worked seriously on this, and in the end you have concluded that it can never be shown to meet WP:NALBUMS? Even so, why not let it go through the normal G13 process? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC) SmokeyJoe, that was my intention, but I guess I improved it enough that JMHamo postponed its deletion. Someone else could do the same thing in six months. No one but me has worked on it for nearly three years. As to why I kept working on it: every six months when it became eligible for db-g13 there seemed to be just enough new information to tempt me on...but not enough to pass an AfC submission IMO. This time I found nothing new. I'd be happy if someone else was more successful. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for trying. I find cases like this so deflating. A good effort, so close, but in the end, no. Referring the original author to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets seems to offer a little kindness. I wish these near misses, but certain misses, could be merely softdeleted so that the original author can benefit from the records, should they choose to continue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Delete - Per Nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. WP:SOFIXIT. Try doing some actual work, visit a library, don't destroy the work of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.181 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Editor is banned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC) IP 166, your snide remark is aimed at the wrong person. I have spent thousands of hours rescuing drafts like this... and I was in a library yesterday. Most of the work on this draft was done by me; I had to rewrite the original text which was cobbled together from commercial product descriptions. I have given up on it, but you are welcome to improve the draft yourself if you can and thereby convince other editors that it should be kept.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC) The editor is a troll. No one has an obligation to order anyone else to volunteer. If deleted, someone else can always offer to work on it and have it restored. That least this discussion will show up if someone searches for this album name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2016 (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.

February 28, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abdorito/Silas Niyibizi

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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC) User:Abdorito/Silas Niyibizi User:Abdorito/Silas Niyibizi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Stale draft not in English. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC) That is not a good reason to delete. Have you tried translating it? It looks like a possibly notable person, and we have no article on her. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Well this is English Wikipedia... and we don't permit non-English pages here. It appears to be in French, fill your boots if you understand French and are up for providing an accurate translation. Just remember to avoid copyvio and find some sources. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC) There is no rule requiring English in userspace. Indeed, one of the biggest tasks remaining for the project is the translation of pages from one language Wikipedia to another. This will involve lots of translations in userspace. Google translate seems to do an adequate job. Google searching pieces brings up no online hits. It has sources. It is unlikely to be a copyright violation. There is no valid reason for deletion of this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) So are you going to translate and move to mainspace within a reasonable time, cause if so I'll withdraw to give you time. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) No, I do not accept the challenge to do anything with a time limit. Alteratnively, I argue "reasonable" = unlimited. The subject appears to be a Rwandan University Professor, with reasonable assertions of notability, both per WP:PROF and by association with the Rwandan war/genocide. Beyond the biography, the subject wrote materials worth consideration for material for other articles. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers14-07/23269.pdf for example. Wikipedia continues to suffer from heavy systematic bias. Every american sportsperson is considered notable, but academic topics in Africa are neglected. Seeking to apply time limits to userspace material for pages on African subject is to perpetuate the systematic bias. There is also no good reason to do it. This recently deceased person deserves an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not American so I have no such bias. So no plan to turn it into an article. Someone else should discover the stale draft and do it. Gotcha. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia suffers the systematic bias. Not you. Also, I disagree that the word "stale" applies. This is an historic (deceased) individual. The material recorded in the draft is not going off, not becoming outdated in any way. It is no more stale than old articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC) The draft is WP:STALE, but you choose to say otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, the idea is that someone else with the motivation and expertise will find it and pick it up. !Voting Keep isn't a commitment to do that yourself, it's just saying the option should be left open. Someone else finding it and picking it up will be facilitated by adding the draft to a maintenance category (e.g. the proposed Category:Stale drafts with high potential), and will be very much precluded by deletion. A2soup (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Delete - Yes, a stale draft not in English is a good reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Delete. Draft hasn't been edited since March 2014. If SmokeyJoe and any other editor wants it userified to look into translating it, that's fine but after a certain point, we know definitely that the draft in this state isn't going to be a part of this project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I have translated it with google translate. It is French and fully coherent. It is sourced. There is a clear case made for notability. The person is deceased and few of the facts are subject to change. There is nothing "stale" about the content. The mass deletion of draft pages was intended to remove the massive preponderance of worthless cruft, which is certainly not this. The draft requires the attention of a caring editor with an interest in the subject, and until then it is fine to leave it in the author's userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Is it usable in its current state? Would it require a total rewrite? Else, I'd say offer to adopt it and post it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and see if someone else will adopt it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC) The google auto translation is fine and usable. It is not so much a rewrite needed (google translate is becoming quite good at writing passable English), as written it might even pass AfD, but I would recommend just another source or two, and something to build connection with at least one other article. It being an old Rwandan topic, finding sources is not trivial, but worth doing to counteract Wikipedia's systematic bias for the north America and Europe. Not all old things should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2016 (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/Draft:Cache memory

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 Anyone that sees fit may move this to main.. — xaosflux Talk 03:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Cache memory Draft:Cache memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Draft from September 2014 that is already covered in mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Nomination suggests redirection, with no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom and no value to a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Keep Don't redirect or blank. Cache memory is a redirect to CPU cache, which has different content. We may need to contemplate a WP:MERGE, but I'm thinking that this may end up with multiple sub-articles. For example, the very detailed section on cache coherence probably needs to be WP:SPLIT to Cache coherence#Coherency protocols. This needs to be handled by editors that know something about the subject, which appears to be none of the participants in this MFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Is it a useful draft? This was originally a stub, then a one-person page dump of over 120k text with very erratic sourcing and numerous images uploaded by that same (somewhat suspect) was done back in late 2014, moved to draftspace and other than some minimal clean-up, it seems like no one has found it particularly useful. It may be junk from a crank from all I can tell but the issues here are expressed on the talk page as well. It may be a WP:TNT but if you think it is could be useful, I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, I think it could be useful, but it is not my expertise. It could be a fork of existing article content, maybe I should look harder. I note that it is not obviously the same as the article under the same title. If potentially useful, until someone knowledgeable says it is not, I don't think being old is a good reason to delete it, or even to blank it. It, its content, should remain findable by an internal Wikipedia search. Note that the routine deletion of AfC materials was motivated by massive numbers of trivially worthless pages. This draft is not typical of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Ricky81682, it has serious copyediting needs, but I think that at least parts of it could be useful to expand existing articles. User:Dsimic, can you take a look, or suggest someone else who might be able to make sense of this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC) If you think it could be useful, I'll withdraw it but the first step would probably be to cut everything unsourced and work off the actual sourced material and images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Move to mainspace immediately over redirect (for future cleanup or merge with CPU cache). If there is a good reason to merge it into CPU cache directly instead, then keep. This one needs cleanup, but is a valid topic and the draft contains enough content to survive in mainspace. Its deletion would be a net loss to the project. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2016 (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/User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd

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 No consensus to delete, editorially redirected to California's_36th_congressional_district_special_election,_2011#Democratic_Party. — xaosflux Talk 12:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Stale draft evidently created to support a high school teacher's failed efforts to get elected. Being a perennial failed political candidate not get a person past GNG. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Delete as I believe I also encountered this and may've planned to nominate, there are no convincing signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Close to "promotion", but not offensively so. Good attempt as sourcing and appropriate writing. The GNG is not relevant to userpages. No reason for deletion has been given. If an editor thinks these userpage is unlikely to be ever useful to anyone, then that editor could blank the page with an explanation in the edit summary. Keep. This nomination is a misuse of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC) SmokeyJoe gives no rational as to why this should be placed in mainspace or how it benefits the project therefore his keep vote is a misuse of MfD. Blanking is a unilateral decision, and if a lot of blanking happens other editors will be up in arms about other editors acting without community input. Mocking the nomination by saying 'no reason for deletion has been given' is offensive and disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC) No rationale for placing the page in mainspace is given because SmokeyJoe is not suggesting that the page should be put in mainspace. Where do you see that suggestion in his comment? A2soup (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) He wants to keep it so must feel this will benefit the project as keeping a stale draft is not going to improve the project. At least there will be no objection to questioning how it stands up to GNG when in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "Benefit the project" ≠ "Move to mainspace in its current form". Also, "unilateral action" is what editors are supposed to do (within reason). We do make a big deal out of telling people to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Delete: This item shouldn't be deleted because the subject might not meet the GNG. It should be deleted because the creator of the draft hasn't been seen in four years. If SmokeyJoe wants to move this to his OWN userpage, and commit to turning this into a mainspace article within a short period of time, I'm all for that. Ravenswing 06:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC) So, you want to write off the possibility of the user returning, create barriers if they do return, set up a self-fulfilling prophesy that ex-editors don't return? And what is the benefit of hiding of the material from non-admins? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC) If the editor returns, they have been notified about this discussion with the names of people involved here. They can ask and have it restored with much objection. Advocate for a soft delete or something if that's your concern. You don't have any justification for keeping it where it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Justification includes that it is a good draft in the correct place authored by a productive Wikipedian. I think you don't appreciate how affronting it is to return to find your work deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC) * Delete. The editor has been gone for four years and absent any indication that someone else is interested in this abandoned drafts, there is no need to keep there around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Striking that. I like SmokeyJoe's move and redirect option below. In the minute chance someone searches for this person, this will find the relevant information here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Keep and blank the page. There is nothing in that page that requires blocking access for editors to read it, so there is no need for administrative action. If the author returns, or any one decides to retake the article for any reason, they could recover it from the page history without requiring a second unneeded administrative action to revert the first unneeded one. Of course, the GNG is absolutely irrelevant to pages that are not located at Article space. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. We don't need to keep WP:STALEDRAFTs indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC) @P199: what exactly in the link you provided leads you to the conclusion that drafts should be deleted after a definite amount of time? VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Move to Marcy Winograd and redirect to California's_36th_congressional_district_special_election,_2011#Democratic_Party. Almost notable, possibly notable, but not yet demonstrated. Content plausibly suitable and WP:V satisfying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2016 (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.

Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015

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 REDIRECT to State of the Nation Address (South Africa) (non-admin closure) Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) One line non-G13 draft from February 2015 already covered by 2015 State of the Union Address. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Delete as not useful. Even the title is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Just blank. AfC / DraftSpace needs some process to deal with trivial things, a process that doesn't involve MfD. These worthless harmless pages do not need to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC) How about Move to mainspace, because this actually is the correct and verifiable name and date for the 2015 State of the Nation Address in South Africa? To help other people avoid making the same US-centric mistake, I'll go add the name of the relevant country to the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I'll agree with that. Sorry, it didn't even click to me that we're talking about another nation's SOTU address. I'll withdraw the nomination since the draft needs work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC) It's easy to make an honest mistake like that. If I were in charge of the world, every country would be required to have radically different names for everything, just to make our work easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC) In case this isn't clear, I've withdrawn my nomination. There is however a delete vote here. Consensus should be obvious though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Currently there are no other articles about specific annual State of the Nation Address (South Africa) and that article is quite short so this is unlikely be built out into an article. At best, it could be merged with the existing article. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) "Currently there are no other articles about specific annual State of the Nation Address (South Africa)", therefore is it a highly desirable topic and should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Relisting is a waste of time if the relister doesn't say anything. Relisting as a means of advertising a discussion is a flawed idea. Relisting has extended the bureaucratic restraint on fixing the title, and delays the G13 process. There never was any good reason to list this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Or you could just given an opinion here and someone could close this thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Let me correct this. This is a draft where the nominator has withdrawn his nomination and suggested a merger into a mainspace article on the topic. Nevertheless, because in part of your strange blank vote, Legacypac's delete vote and the two merge votes, it's not clear what to do. Even when you have it in the bag, MFD is a nightmare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC) That is a good point, a good correction. However, to nitpick, it does, to me, implicitly assume that something MUST be done, which is not true. There is no harm in leaving it where it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) It is a good topic, worthy of drafting. But currently it is far too drafty for mainspace. I think it should be kept, renamed per above, moved to draftspace, and allowed to be treated as any drafty draft. If the user returned, he may obtain a WP:REFUND at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Delete as there's hardly a large amount to suggest actually keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC) If someone wants to merge this ok, but it adds nothing to the other article except perhaps the ref. We have expended far more effort on this stub then the creater that spent about 60 seconds on it. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2016 (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.

February 27, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Liashahrebani/AZAD RIGHT (Recording Artist)

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 Move, adopted by active editor User:MichaelQSchmidt. — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC) User:Liashahrebani/AZAD RIGHT (Recording Artist) User:Liashahrebani/AZAD RIGHT (Recording Artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Article about a guy that plans to release a mixtape. Fails GNG and is just promotional or vanity spam. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Keep - failing GNG is not a reason to delete in userspace. Contrary to nomination statement, this is not an article but a draft. The page is more insipid than promotional. If others express concerns about promotion, blanking and templating with {{Userpage blanked}} would be fine. A2soup (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC) If you can't articulate a reason why this page benefits the project and leads to a mainspace contribition you need to vote delete not keep. Suggesting blanking is just another way to delete but leaving it open for the editor to easy bring back the page someone else has to delete it again. We already have established that there is no policy that says GNG does not apply to drafts. If keep at MfD this page will be moved to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Other editors seem to believe that if you can't articulate a reason why this page harms the project, then you need to vote keep. Speaking of which: Keep, because I'm getting 119 ghits in Google News for this artist, including LA Weekly, Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, MTV and more. "In a hundred news articles" is not generally what editors mean by "fails GNG". Perhaps the nominator would like to consider a five-second trip to his favorite search engine WP:BEFORE assuming that a stale user draft contains every possible source for a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Looks like he might have made it after this draft was created. Maybe someone should write up a proper article then. There is no credible claim to notability in the draft though. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Delete: This item shouldn't be deleted because the subject might not meet the GNG. It should be deleted because -- have the Keep proponents noticed? -- the creator of the draft put this up nearly five years ago and hasn't been seen since. If either of the Keep proponents want to move this to their OWN userpages, and commit to turning this into a mainspace article within a short period of time, I'm all for that. Ravenswing 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Ravenswing you're new to MFD, aren't you? This debate occurs on practically every listing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Delete. Create Draft:Azad Right separately if someone wants but the current article is three paragraphs of unsourced text. The sources could be used to create a new draft but the current one would basically be WP:TNTing it anyways. WhatamIdoing, do you really think it should be kept there? Else, I could live with a draftify move but I'd probably guess that this is a copyright violation from somewhere that will result in it being deleted later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Probably notable subject. Should be adopted and improved by someone, but leave it in userspace until that someone volunteers. The page is not promotion, it is doing no harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Give it to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Azad Right. Sure the thing is unsourced, but it does seem that this person has enough media coverage to meet WP:BLP under WP:BASIC. I'd adopt it and be glad to bring it into line. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:14, 24 March 2016 (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.

January 26, 2016

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft

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 Merge User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft into Khaled Abol Naga (already done) and move User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft to mainspace. The merge outcome for the first article was reached organically and implemented while this MfD was still open. The "move to mainspace" outcome was initiated boldly by Ivanvector today. Looking at the discussion as a whole, I would have closed this as "move to draftspace" in the absence of Ivan's bold move. In draftspace, an editor would be allowed to come along, improve the article, and move it to the mainspace. That's exactly what Ivan has done here. I've looked at the article, and this move is clearly good-faith. To be extra cautious given recent craziness about moving drafts to mainspace, I've added a note on the talk page mentioning the page's history and requesting it be moved back to userspace or draftspace if ever taken to AfD and found to be not sufficient. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC) User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Editor has not edited on Wikipedia since 2011. Does not want this moved to mainspace. See talk for reasons, However, since this is not going to mainspace it should be removed, Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Redirect the Khaled Abol Naga page as Khaled Abol Naga already exists. The draft is a clear violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:OWN, I suggest we move the Tarek Naga page to draftspace. It seems notable but requires a lot of cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Remove delete as it seems like they were related, I didn't look in the right history. A history merge seems messy so a redirect seems sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Comment - regrettable that this editor never returned, and maybe a sad commentary on our support for editors with disabilities. I think it may be worthwhile to hear from Petrb here. He adopted this user back in the day. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Expanding: Khaled Abol Naga seems to be a cut-and-paste copy of the mainspace article from an older revision, which Aakheperure was intending to work on, and since it got bumped to main space at some point there are contribs from other editors. This might require a messy history merge. On the other hand, Tarek Naga seems to have been a frequent target of a sockpuppeting editor who liked to cut-and-paste userspace drafts to main space to steal credit for them; it's already been histmerged at least twice. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC) History merge the Khaled Abol Naga draft with Khaled Abol Naga per my comment above; move the Tarek Naga page to Draft:Tarek Naga per Ricky81682. I'm sympathetic to the desire of an impaired editor to create and work on articles in the way that works best for them, so long as that is in the best interests of Wikipedia (and it often is), but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and nobody owns pages, not even in their user space. They've evidently retired, and someone else should have a chance to work on these pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC) I should have made more clear - I'm very sympathetic to the editor's desire to edit in draft space given his visual impairment. I just bring the stale pages for appropriate action. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC) And honestly I hope we can work on the draft and take it to mainspace. If the editor returns, I hope they appreciate that someone did look after the work, not just let it sit there ignored. :/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) So ok to ignore the author's request not to move the draft? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Not ignored, but considered, and in this case denied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC) WP:OWN. They agreed to give up their total rights when they edited here under the GFDL. We've had editors come here, and someone changes their page or renames it and they start demanding retraction of their edits and deletions of everything and they're told, either you follow these rules or you're treated for the disruption you're causing. If not, we could delete it but I don't think that's ultimately productive and frankly I don't like the precedent of "this is content, Wikipedia can only have it if I get to decide what happens to it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) On the other hand, if the editor does return and wishes to edit using their process of downloading the article, editing offline, and then uploading their revised version, I think we can be sympathetic to that. As long as they're actively editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) History merge the pre-23:40, 22 January 2011‎ versions of the draft to the mainspace article. Delete the subsequent draft versions. Content forks, even in different namespaces, are a very bad idea and not allowed. RE reasons for wanting to edit elsewhere for visual impairment reasons. Editing a copy elsewhere is always welcome, short term. Usually about a week max, and it gets really complicated if you take longer than others' edits to the mainspace article. Do not keep copies any longer than required, they are an attribution compliance hazard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Still argue for the history merge of the older versions, but later versions do have worthwhile improvements. A careful repair of the forking is required, I am not sure how this is best done. User:Aakheperure wrote in big on the top of the draft: "Please do not move this draft without asking the author! If you see this draft elsewhere in Wikipedia, please do not histmerge. Chances are it was taken from Aakheperure without his consent. Thank you." That explicit assertion of WP:OWNership should be repudiated. "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with ..." is not easily missed. User:Obsidian Soul was wrong to defer to User:Aakheperure's assertion of ownership when he moved this page from mainsapce back to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC) For those who don't know the history of this article. This was originally a planned draft by a new editor who was being pestered by another user who keeps moving his drafts from his userspace before they were finished. He asked for help from #wikipedia-en-help connect in IRC for this. But he was already pretty angry and desperate by that time, so it was probably too late to stop him from completely giving up on Wikipedia. Just because we don't own anything, doesn't mean it's totally alright to disrupt someone else's work process (especially given that User:Aakheperure was visually impaired and could not work directly on mainspace). People work in userspace so they can have more room for half-finished stuff without having to worry about edit conflicts. Asserting that that's WP:OWN is ridiculous. This was not a long-term "content fork" either. It was only one day-old before the disruptions started happening. He was planning to merge it properly when it was done. And as as far as I recall, this also happened to the rest of his drafts. User:Aakheperure was a good editor and would have likely contributed more if this had not happened. It has nothing to do with WP:OWN, more with basic editing etiquette. That said, given that he seems to be gone for good, a Merge seems to be the only option, as the draft is still in better shape than the mainspace article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Merge The mainspace page is currently suffering from a lack of references, which the draft page seems to have more that can help it. Deletion is not the only tool in the chest. If the editor has departed the WikiVerse in protesst, then they've effectively given up their exclusive editing right to a page. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Keep. Ideally, I think this should be merged into the mainspace page. If other editors decide that this should not be merged into the main page because of the original editor's objections, then this should still be kept. At the very most, it could be blanked. Please reread WP:STALE: it says that stale drafts should only be deleted as a last resort if "problematic even if blanked," which is not remotely true here.Fagles (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Merge Khaled Abol Naga to existing mainspace article. Anyone having a vague idea of a history merge will know that a history merge is not possible here, because of parallel histories. Merge is appropriate as the draft has plenty of refs compared to just one in the mainspace article. And Keep Tarek Naga draft. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC) @Ivanvector and SmokeyJoe: 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Don't keep these drafts as that helps no one. I'm happy with a merge. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Merge Khaled Abol Naga along the lines indicated in WP:PV, though I'm not convinced a histmerge is impossible (just that the result would be confusing and as such, probably inadvisable). The mainspace article wasn't edited at all during the active period this draft was edited; the result would be that all the added text would then appear to be removed by the first edit in May 2011. If we just go with the {{copied}}-type fix, I'm not such a big fan of leaving the history in userspace. The instructions at PV provide an alternate option that might be considered (keeping the history in a subpage that redirects to the article itself), but I think we should leave that for the admins who monitor WP:REPAIR. Draftify Tarek Naga draft, for now anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Move Tarek Naga draft to main space and leave a redirect in case Aakheperure does return, however unlikely that is. I've done some cleanup and I think the article is sufficiently referenced for mainspace. It does need some more work, but we have far worse biographies in article space. I'll also point out that the "please don't move this page" notice was actually added by Obsidian Soul ([14]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC) As for the Khaled Abol Naga draft, I agree with Mendaliv that a history merge wouldn't be terribly messy, since all of Aakheperure's edits to the draft fall into a period where there were no significant edits to the mainspace article. There would just be one edit on 12 May 2011 that looks like a mass-reversion, but that's not terrible. That makes attribution simple if anyone decides to use Aakheperure's content from the draft. The two more recent edits could be left attached to the draft page, which would become a redirect to the article, in case the editor ever returns to look for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Agree. A history merge is desirable, significant edits in two histories is worse that what sounds likes only a mildly messy history merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC) I don't understand how a histmerge is appropriate as I have never seen it done wherever parallel revisions arise. I have already done the text-merge and added the {{copied}} template on the article talk page Anyway, let us ping Graham87 and Jenks24 for expert advise. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I have now performed the merge of User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft to Khaled Abol Naga. The userpage was converted to a redirect and {{copied}} was added to article talk page. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I think the merge and the use of the copied template are completely adequate in this case. I only merge parallel histories in cases of extreme desperation; this one doesn't fall in that category. Graham87 13:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Concur. The parallel histories would unfortunately make a mess of a histmerge in this case. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Alright, I still don't see how a histmerge would be messy at all in this case, but this solution seems to work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Screw it. This has been open for two months, and idle for most of that time. We already worked out a solution to the Khaled Abol Naga page, so now I've WP:BOLDly moved the Tarek Naga draft to main space. Someone please close this, and if anyone has an issue with this being in article space, they can take it to AfD. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2016 (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.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.