Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

edit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: 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

edit

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} 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

edit

How to list pages for deletion

edit
Shortcut

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.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • 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

edit
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 12 24 36
TfD 0 0 0 3 3
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 9 21 30
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

Archived discussions

edit

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

Current discussions

edit
Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

June 24, 2024

edit

Draft:Neklyudov, Sergei Yuryevich

edit
Draft:Neklyudov, Sergei Yuryevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Abandoned draft of a banned user - Altenmann >talk 09:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People/Candidates

edit
Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People/Candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not sure why this page is here, but it doesn't have a lot of value to it. It doesn't have a long history to it. Interstellarity (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2024

edit
edit
User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The user has created a page in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST to host a data base of their own comments quoted in the New York times. this is clearly using Wikipedia for web hosting purposes. For info, there's a related MfD for another user page of this user where they are using WP to host their full dissertation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't see any evidence of malfeasance. This is more of an OCD thing than it is self-promotion or web hosting. Drbogdan should lower his footprint here and just link once to an external webhost instead of using Wikipedia to host it. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an ANI thread about this user where this and the related user page hosting their dissertation came up. They've refused to move these pages to a more appropriate venue outside Wikipedia. See, for example this response at the ANI thread. I've made the assumption that it is for self-promotion. But even if it's not, or if there is no "malfeasance', that is irrelevant. It shouldn't be hosted at Wikipedia and they are refusing to move it. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is relevant that there is no malfeasance. I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations. So for me, it is important to state that he has zero bad intentions. He can be stubborn (like anyone else here) so he sometimes needs a push in the right direction. I think moving his dissertation to Wikisource and moving his NYT comments offline are fine. But there's no reason to speculate about his motives beyond that. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I have no knowledge of him and have never encountered before. If you say this isn't about self-promotion then I withdraw it. However, whatever the motivation, hosting someone's whole 166kb of dissertation is clearly a breach of NOTWEBHOST and we shouldn't be doing it. I have no opinion on moving it to another Wiki. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly wish we did host more dissertations, as many of them are now falling behind paywalls, and if you aren't part of the university system, you can easily lose access to this kind of research. So I support hosting any and all dissertations on Wikisource. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that, too; ProQuest is a racket. XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotional or not, this is over the WP:NOTWEBHOST line. XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my published news comments, unique in nearly always noting a link (or more) to a relevant Wikipedia article (ie, NYT archive examples: Comments-1 and Comments-2) was made, in part, in a kind of Wikipedia outreach effort to help readers who may be entirely unaware of related (and relevant) Wikipedia articles - the published comments material is also presented to provide an additional basis of evaluating my professional background as a Wikipedia editor - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - as before, if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The reasons why Drbogdan is hosting this material are irrelevant, because it is web hosting. We should make the good-faith assumption that he thinks that this is in the best interests of Wikipedia. It should be the opinion of the community that he is honorably mistaken, and that this material is of no (positive or negative) value to the encyclopedia, and it should be deleted as web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The opinion of a good-faith editor that their off-topic postings are of value to the encyclopedia is not dispositive. The community decides. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. These aren't a listing of him being quoted as an expert in articles (which might be acceptable), they are a directory of his comments in the public comments section on their websit. Many of the comments link back to his Wikipedia profile. Too promotional / WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link back to the WikiProfile is primarily intended to help readers evaluate the background of the comment author - and not otherwise - wish other comment authors did likewise - might help a lot imo - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as web hosting. wound theology◈ 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia to host this, and goes beyond the basic discretion we allow. Definitely a NOTWEBHOST issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT

edit
User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The page is in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. The user is clearly using Wikipedia to host their dissertation for self-promotion purposes. When challenged on this at ANI their response here is that it is what to share their professional background with other editors. Having 166kb of the entirety of their dissertation goes well beyond that. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See related MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have AGF'd on "self promotion". I don't know whether that's the case or not. But motivation is irrelavant: it's still a blatant case of using WP as a web hosting. DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can the material be moved to Wikisource? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep without opposition to transferring to Wikisource. A big "meh" from me. We generally afford wide latitude to users, once they've demonstrated they're WP:HERE, to include a variety of information about themselves in userspace. All the more if it's relevant to their editing areas of interest -- which seems to be the case here. "Here's my dissertation" seems a lot more relevant to Wikipedia than a pile of "this user is really into anime" userboxes, which are typically uncontroversial even for extreme collections. What self-promotion is this accomplishing? User pages aren't even indexed. And what would be the difference if it were hosted on Wikisource in terms of promotionalism? 168kb will not be freed up on the Wikipedia servers if this is deleted -- a new revision will simply be added to the space it occupies. It's a lot more autobiography than I'd choose to include on Wikipedia, certainly, and I find it in slightly poor taste, but thankfully I don't have to read it if I don't want to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What "autobiography"? There's no aurobiography. It's purely using Wikipedia as a hosting platform for a work. Nothing more, nothing less. It couldn't get more on point for WP:NOTWEBHOST if it tried. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also "User pages aren't even indexed". He's added the Index markup at the top of the page so he's gone out of his way to make sure it is indexed. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. That policy says that posting a résumé is not acceptable in userspace, and this is way beyond that. Hosting a raw text dump of a PhD thesis isn't providing a foundation for effective collaboration. It doesn't provide anything, really. Discussions on Wikipedia aren't arguments from authority; if I posted my PhD thesis here and tried to win an argument by pointing to it and saying that I'm a physicist so I must be right, that would be silly. A PhD thesis isn't even a type of source that is of use to us. All of the legitimate reasons to know the educational background and credentials of an editor are satisfied by a statement like "I graduated from X University with a doctorate in Y". I don't really care whether the page was intended to be self-promotional or not (though it does contain the __INDEX__ override and does appear in Google results for, e.g., "drbogdan" site:en.luquay.com). I'm willing to believe that it was posted without intent to self-glorify, but it's not a valid use case for userspace. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. We cite PhD theses all the time, but they have to be used carefully, and there's no proscription against using them here. Also, in recent years, many dissertations are falling behind paywalls, so Wikisource should be used to host them as much as possible. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not Wikisource. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two questions:
    1. Seems the "_index_" code was entirely unintentional - and originally part of a template I may have used (via copy-paste) at the time - should this be removed? - are there other similar codes to be removed or adjusted on the page? - or other such pages?
    2. Should the page be moved to WP:Wikisource (or some other subpage - or elsewhere on Wikipedia)? - if so, how can this be done - this is all new to me at the moment.
    - Drbogdan (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Within standard leeway for a 17 years editor with over 60,000 mainspace contributions. This recent issue is under discussion at https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Drbogdan,_persistent_low-quality_editing,_and_WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK_issues, let it play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "standard leeway" for policy violations. Nor is this a "recent issue", as the examples I provided in the linked discussion already indicate. Nor does that discussion need to conclude before we can come to a judgment about this particular item. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s *possible* that he believes that dumping his scholarly thesis on his Userpage is for the benefit of the project, and in time he’ll clean it up to make its purpose clearer. I don’t accept that it is a slam dunk NOTWEBHOST violation, as opposed to an odd thing to do. The behavioural and persistence aspects are appropriately being discussed at ANI, and I think this MfD should wait for the ANI thread to conclude. 17 years and 60000 mainspace contributions gets him some leeway, and he should not be persecuted on two fronts simultaneously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the relevance of what he believes. Either NOTWEBHOST applies or it doesn't. Also, although this user page was highlighted at ANI, the place to determine whether it should be deleted can only b here not ANI. The ANI thread is dealing with other issues and MfD is outside its remit.DeCausa (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevance of his beliefs lies in NOTWEBHOSTING being a behavioural violation, “hosting” being a verb that requires intent for it to be used for non-project purposes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange interpretation. It doesn't say that at all. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WEBHOSTING, note “ING”, implies evidence should include unusual pageviews or external links to it. I don’t think this is WEBHOSTING, it’s just a bad use of a userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are not a web host, a journal, or Linkedin. Just not what an encyclopedia is for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my professional dissertation was presented to provide a basis to evaluate my professional background - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice post. I'm ambivalent. Yeah at times it might be nice to know someone's subject area expertise. OTOH, we are so laser focused on reliable sources there might be times it's distracting. Rather judge someone based on the framing of their arguments along with their knowledge and use of reliable sources, which will become apparent if they are an expert and reasonably unbiased, rather than their CV. I tend to avoid articles in my own subject areas. Best, O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, put it on a subpage, and give an explanation for its purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: (and others) - Thanks for your suggestion re putting this on a subpage - but isn't it already on a subpage at User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT ( see => https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ADrbogdan%2F&namespace=0 ) ? - seems it's already in user space - as a subpage? - sorry but I'm somewhat new to some of this - iac - Thanks for any help with this - Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re somewhat new to this?? You’ve been here for 17 years. You should have some idea of what is the purpose of a userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - seems I've been mostly busy in other Wikipedia areas (articles,templates,Wiktionary,WikiSpecies,WikiQuote,Simple,etc) over the years - seems the notion of a "subpage" may have been overlooked somehow - my first thought very recently is that a "subpage" and a "sandbox page" may be the same thing but guess I may be wrong about this - Thanks in any case for your comment - Drbogdan (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as web hosting:
      • There are conduct issues about the originator, pending at WP:ANI, and content issues, about this page and another page in user space. Only the keeping or deleting of the user pages is within scope at MFD, and only this page is within the scope of this discussion.
      • I am willing to assume good faith and assume that the originator thinks that posting or hosting this is in the interest of the encyclopedia. However, an editor's opinion that web hosting is in the interests of the encyclopedia is not dispositive. The community should decide what is in the interests of the encyclopedia, and should decide that the user is mistaken in good faith.
      • I respectfully disagree with the idea that "standard leeway" is given to established users for policy violations, even if unintentional.
      • No objection to cross-wikifying.
      • The editor should be allowed to provide an external link from his user page to his dissertation on an external host, or a cross-wiki link from his user page to Wikisource.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Rhododendrites and SmokeyJoe. There is a plausible-enough argument that having this content in his userspace will benefit other editors. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as web hosting. --wound theology◈ 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we're don't host blog entries or news stories, I don't see this any different than other WEBHOST issues. Beyond that, using it as a claim of professional expertise (when there's an open AN thread demonstrating that their expertise is not stopping them from being a disruptive influence) feels like an attempt to appeal to authority rather than the strength of arguments. There's nothing stopping someone from linking to their dissertation or relevant materials; we don't need to have it on-wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cross-wiki: Any research that is released into CC/PD should be moved over to Wikisource. I concur that this is likely inappropriate for WP, but straight deletion is far too hasty. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I clarify what you mean by that? As far as I know, moving to Wikisource is not an outcome that can be determined at Wikipedia. It's a separate wiki and we have no jurisdiction over what happens there. Someone needs to take the initiative to post it at Wikisource - and that's not something that can be determined here. It's an independent and parallel outcome to what happens here at MfD/Wikipedia. All that can be decided here is that it should be removed from WP. Does anyone think that's not the case? DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - I agree - moving to WikiSource is *entirely* ok with me - is this something I (or some other) could/should do? If so, is there some process/procedure to do this? - WikiSource is very new to me at the moment - thanks for any help with this - Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preferably the creator gets it hosted over there prior to close and then we can either delete or soft redirect this sandbox. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, if it can be done, otherwise delete. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SurrealDB

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

Promotional article edited primarily by an account which has just been indeffed for writing promotional articles and tendentious editing. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly promotional and despite the flurry of sources, few of them are reliable, and even fewer demonstrate anything beyond the fact that the software exists. The article itself doesn't even know if it's trying to source the notability of the company or its software.
CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A thorough AfD found this was not notable for the article and despite the creator of the article rewriting the source analysis in his favour on the talk page, it remains the case that no sources have been presented that support notability. This, aside from all the other good reasons that this is not suitable for article space, is grounds for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments. The attempted restoration of promotional content under "please stop vandalising" or other such similar statements means they just want to promote the software without actually writing it properly. Procyon117 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was deleted recently through AFD process then recreated and deleted again, now restored to the draft space at author's request, despite going through this convoluted mess of a process, this article has barely improved and is still highly promotional. I'm open to this article being salted to prevent future recreations of the same.Ratnahastin (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is necessary per WP:NDRAFT. The salting in mainspace prevents any premature moves, so unless this is resubmitted without substantial improvement, disruption is minimal. On the other hand, if the primary contributor of this draft is unblocked, I would strongly advise against any behaviour that could be seen as asserting ownership over content. A userspace draft might be a a better option for some control, though ultimately collaboration is a must unless drafting the article off-wiki Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore per WP:NDRAFT and leave for WP:G13. Not of the above is a reason for deletion, and some, especially notability, and criticism of quality of sourcing, are reasons for something to be in draftspace, not deleted from it. MfD is not for curating bad drafts, or disappearing the work of recently blocked users. And, the user might be unblocked with a good appeal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NDRAFT is an essay, not policy. It makes a good point: a non notable draft harms no one. Except this draft had been sent to AfC before the creator was blocked. On that basis it was deemed, by the creator, to be ready for mainspace. It is not and it cannot be if it remains (as recently found at AfD) to be non notable. There is no harm in the draft laying around, but it would be a waste of time to get someone review it for AfC and a much bigger waste if it inadvertently got accepted and we had to go through the deletion process again. Better to just be rid of it in ths case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is a reason for deletion from draftspace. The nomination is busywork. User:TarnishedPath reverted the AfC submission, so the risk of waste of time reviewing is already dealt with. If a bad draft gets inadvertently accepted, that’s a reason to review reviewer competence, not a reason to send all bad drafts to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion. But we are here now. There is no good reason to keep this twice deleted article, even in draft, now that the drafter is indefed. Your argument may be a good one not to bother nominating it in the first place, but as an MfD has to be closed, closing this as delete is no more work than closing it as a keep and allowing it to expire. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is no issue which needs to be rectified through MfD deletion. It's not that overly promotional for draftspace purposes (though certainly inappropriate for mainspace, it is not in range of a G11), and does not seem to have been tendentiously resubmitted. Curbon7 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the delete !votes are the MfD equivalent as someone going to AfD and saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because the draft is frankly shit is not a justifiable reason for early deletion. I would also note that multiple different editors have significantly contributed to this article in the past few days beyond just the blocked creator,so that argument does not land either. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument was that it is not notable, which is the AfD equivalent of it is not notable. My only contribution to the article was to ask about notability and evaluate the new sources added since it was last (recently) deleted at AfD. My evaluation is what leads me to the conclusion that it remains not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing this is MfD, where a draft's notability notably does not matter. Curbon7 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed above, NDRAFT is an essay, not policy. The policy is at WP:MFD and that page directs us to be familiar with the deletion policy. Draft space is for incubating articles, certainly, and it would be inappropriate to try to enforce the same standards on drafts as we do on mainspace, but notability is still relevant. Here is an article that has already been found to be not notable, and it continues to be not notable despite a disingenuous rewriting of a source analysis table by the blocked creator. The fact that it is not notable for an article is very relevant. Against that, we can say that it might have been better to let the article be auto-deleted as it should never get through AfC, but I have four things to say about that:
    1. The article was sent to AfC, so cancelling the AfC and nominating the article was a good faith effort to avoid some mix up where this accidentally gets created and has to go through AfD all over again. Yes, that shouldn't happen. But it could happen.
    2. Now that the article is at MfD, and we are all spending effort on discussing it again, the line of least resistance is to just let it go again and not keep it just so that it can be auto deleted again.
    3. There was a level of tendentiousness to this. The indeffed editor had the draft restored, rewrote the source analysis in his favour, and tendentiously submitted to AfC without improvement despite a very recent and very clear consensus to delete
    4. Any argument that we should keep it so as to let it be auto deleted through lack of care, now that the editor has been blocked, is an implicit recognition that we don't keep drafts that are doing no harm. Draft space is not a permanent hosting solution for non notable stuff. That is why drafts get automatically deleted. So unless your argument is that this is, or could be, notable, you are just deferring the deletion. Again, notability is the issue. And that is part of the MfD policy.
    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I strongly disagree with that analysis. I generally do not think MFD should be policing draftspace except exceptional circumstances, which I do not think this is one now that the creator (who is not the sole primary contributor) has been blocked. Also, while I certainly understand the argument of "it's here, let's just deal with it now", I feel that thinking tends to lead towards slippery slopes. Curbon7 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7, it was submitted to AfC despite the obvious issues with notability. That the creator has tried to get it into mainspace multiple times after the original AfD would suggest to me that it was tendentiously submitted. I undid the AfC submission in order to not waste any reviewers time. TarnishedPathtalk 09:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Curbon7 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Obvious promotion. WP:NDRAFT has a point but I see no reason to keep this sitting in draftspace. Saving drafts like this would probably need a WP:TNT anyways. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AfC has standard processes. They serve for pages like these. MfD has a role, but this is not it. G13 was implemented for pages like these. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The reasons given to delete this draft seem to have more to do with the conduct of the originator than with the draft or its history, but the originator has already been indefinitely blocked. No specific risk has been identified that is associated with this draft. It will not be resubmitted by the blocked originator. It will not be moved out of draft space or into article space by someone else, because, if I read the logs correctly, the draft is locked in place in draft space and the title is salted in article space. So the only thing that can be done is that a bona fide editor can clean it up to try to make it into an acceptable draft. For these reasons, the requests to delete it are an over-reaction, as if the existence of this draft is scary. Maybe the locking and salting was itself an over-reaction, and the titles should have been left alone and this draft deleted instead, but we are here. At this point this draft can be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep mainly on procedural grounds. G13 is the correct way to deal with these, not MfD. In fact, I can't see any reason to delete it. Yes it might not meet notability guidelines, yes it might need work, but it's not overly promotional, it's notability isn't clearly unfounded (it has had some discussion in reliable sources, just not enough to get it over the bar), and it'll get cleaned up soon enough. And who knows, it might gain notability in the next 6 months and be created. However, a draft being "not notable" should not be grounds for deletion from draft space, as that was the entire point of setting up draftspace in the first place. Mdann52 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2024

edit

Draft:Jack Paul TV Plus

edit
Draft:Jack Paul TV Plus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Speedy delete: It's a fake Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, creator is blocked and the only contents are a single sentence and external links to the channel. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 21, 2024

edit

Draft:Acharya Institutes

edit
Draft:Acharya Institutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Acharya Institute of Technology already exists. This draft was written by an editor now blocked for UPE and relies entirely on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, I think it's G5-able. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acharya7317. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acharya Institute of Technology just underwent a massive rewrite by User:Nandalal_acharya -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The block for the originator does not say that it is a sock block, but that it is a UPE block, which would mean that the block was after the page was created. If the originator and the blocked account are not tied together, then the page can be kept, and allowed to die after six months. But a CheckUser says that is is probably G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, no CU tools were used. Please do not assume that everything a checkuser does involves use of the tools or is done in the user's capacity as a checkuser. All the evidence is laid out at the SPI case. Cabayi (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: “Already exists” goes to WP:SRE, and a need to check the histories due to the ambiguity of “already” and the possibility that someone is trying to improperly hide an older draft for articlecountis reasons. The use of primary sources is never a reason to delete a draft. The author being blocked is not a reason to delete unless the request comes from a checkuser or an SPI clerk; MfD must not be used for shadow clerking of SPI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

edit


June 19, 2024

edit

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions

edit
Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

We now have a landing page that answers the FAQ pretty well. Interstellarity (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have moved the useful 'Crewbot part' of this page to the new landing page in the maintenance section, so there is little else needed. I think better to rationalize these redundant pages on this project to avoid editors landing on wrong/dead pages. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and blank per Graham87 below. That will solve the problem and avoid any confusion that it is now a redundant page. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, 79 pages link to this. That's too much to just delete. Air on White (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

edit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1231255888"