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.
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
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, 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}}.
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
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 historyortalk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution CounterorWikipedia 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.
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.
Delete because no one's going to search Ninten, click on the redirect and then go to the talkpage, the talkpage post imho isn't valid or even useful. –Davey2010Talk21:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly valid for anyone to post on a redirect all page their perceived meaning of them term.
It could be useful, the IP suggests a better target. Even if not useful, “not useful” is not a reason to delete talk page posts, this one doesn’t even come close to a case for blanking.
It certainly isn't valid, no one gives a monkeys what an IP's perceived meaning of the word is, If we allowed such posts Talk pages would be full of everyones percieved meanings of words,
"Ninten was a misspelling of Nintendo" isn't a suggestion though, they're simply telling us what they think,
"We certainly don’t want mfd to become a forum for examining the usefulness of talk page posts" Well MFD exists for a plethora of reasons one of them being general usefulness. –Davey2010Talk17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are welcome to post what they think about a mainspace title on its talk page.
As long as Joe is putting up WikiProjects for deletion, I thought I'd put up my very stale task force I created when I was in my West Wing fanaticism phase. I may come back to that phase, but neither I nor the project needs this task force :) Since there are a few other people who signed their name, I thought I should bring it here rather than nuking by G7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, talk page never used, so it doesn't seem in need of archiving/redirecting. Appreciate the self-nom. CMD (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as what looks like basically a G7 to me since it's only been edited by one person. Parenthetically I am a little confused as to how five names got onto the list of participants without them being in the edit history -- presumably this page was copied over from a subsection of some other page that had them all, or else some kind of formatting error(?) jp×g🗯️07:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The talk page of a WikiProject or task force is a better measure of activity than the project page. The absence of a talk page, after two years, is reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these has either been languishing since before 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g🗯️06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG:historical pages are meant to serve as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of the history of the project governance? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)
LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.
Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.
If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g🗯️08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?
LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.
Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Unnecessary nomination. The process for creating new WikiProjects is recommended, not required, and the older WikiProjects have talk page discussions and archives that should be kept. If you don't want to join WikiProject Kamala Harris, then don't, but I don't understand the crusade to delete multiple WikiProjects outright. Inactive projects can be merged and/or archived. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process is optional but the underlying logic—that you should find out whether anyone wants to work with you on new wikiproject before you spin up a whole set of project pages and categories that will need to be maintained indefinitely—has proven to be sound advice time and time again. I would have proposed merging them into WP US Presidents if they had ever been active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Can you point to any significant talk page discussions that are worth archiving? – Joe (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not involved in any of the Wikiprojects, I just saw them in the Women In Red talk page, and I do not plan to get involved as these topics stress me out; but I do not think that they are necessarily redundant to WikiProject United States Presidents as that page covers all USA presidents over nearly 240 years, whilst these 4 are extremely recent and hence will probably have more coverage and articles. Additionally, many of these will have others article unrelated to presidency (e.g. Donald Trump's various crimes). I also believe that discussing these on the relevant WikiProjects for all 5 of them would be a better idea than nominating for deletion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of comparison the only other wikiprojects that cover the leaders of a specific country are WikiProject Sinhalese Monarchy (defunct for a decade) and WikiProject British Royalty (active). There are no wikiprojects devoted to one specific politician apart from these four and WikiProject Barack Obama (also inactive). Of course where you draw the line in determining wikiproject scopes is arbitrary, but the evidence that individual US presidents/presidential candidates are not viable topics of independent wikiprojects is that the oldest was created in 2009 and none have ever been active. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't think we need individual projects with 100 or so articles to them. I said so last night when I saw AB make the KHive project. Delete Kamala as its brand new. But I'm inclined to keep the others because Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects says These projects are retained for reference as they may be viable because they provide topic-specific considerations of the many site-wide policies and guidelines that still apply to a subset of articles. And I advise using the recommended protocol for project formation in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WikiProject United States Presidents per Shushugah. There isn't enough activity around all US Presidents to prevent articles about these four from getting the attention they need from the wider WikiProject. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoWikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. In addition to the activity considerations mentioned above, it seems beneficial to group conversations in an area not framed around a single individual. A visual indicator of writing in the broader encyclopaeidic context, and possibly also avoiding recentism. CMD (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a hard view at this point on whether to keep these or not, but I do think that if the result is "Delete" or "Redirect", it should be a soft redirect from their respective front pages, with each project marked "inactive" and perhaps all their project pages tagged with {{historical}}. I can't fathom why we would want to destroy this work or make it too hard to find, particularly in cases where the WikiProjects have been around for years. Also, perhaps their members/participants should be informed. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no actual participants and no work to archive. They aren't former groups of editors that went active; just pages that AB creates every four years then abandons. That's why they are at MfD rather than the usual discussion about merging inactive projects. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of listed participants in the Joe Biden WP, for example, and even though I'm not listed, I did cleanups of their listed articles recently. I don't see a hard reason to make them disappear. Mothballing is within reason, though. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:AGF and common sense, these WikiProjects seem to have a serious purpose. Just because the creator maybe didn't stick around doesn't mean others didn't take them seriously. I'd go by the rule of thumb of whether the projects received significant action or not. If they did, mothball them with a soft redirect. If very little or nothing, then delete/redirect. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, I'd just put these in the "little or nothing" category. Putting your name on a list takes five seconds. I don't consider that a sign of life. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something: it seems unnecessary to have these as separate WikiProjects in their own right (since nobody really participates in them as such) but it does seem useful to have these categories for the sort of bizarre twilight-zone thing we actually use WikiProjects for, which is tracking edits to groups of related pages, making lists with User:HotArticlesBot, sorting stuff like {{expert}} templates, et cetera. At the very least, for actively campaigning candidates or sitting presidents I think it does; I don't know how much it makes sense to have a super-narrow categorization like this for Hillary or Obama or W. But if you look at, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#Article_alerts you can actually see a pretty decent slice of articles broadly related to Trump and his administration (I'm not sure why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Joe_Biden doesn't have the same thing, but you get the idea). jp×g🗯️11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What about making "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton" into task forces or something like that? Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is that since these are dead wikiprojects they'll just end up being dead taskforces. I understand that residual tools like Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump#Article alerts can be useful but the point of wikiprojects and task forces is to assemble a group of editors, not categories. And of course without the editors to maintain the categories, those will also slowly decay. What I think we should be exploring instead is whether tools like article alerts can be adapted to work with mainspace category trees, which are maintained. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more or less. The whole WikiProject framework seems kind of bizarre and arseways for about 99% of them -- we have a few (milhist, vidya, storms) that actually involve active coordination between editors, and then about nine million like Theme songs, Animals in media, Limnology and Oceanography, Islands, etc where it's not really clear what it means to be a member or participate in them, and they just kind of exist for the sake of being an ad-hoc categorization system. For a while I have dreamed of doing something about this but I don't really know what it would be. jp×g🗯️09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would prefer keeping as is but would support redirecting as a second option, imho the page is harmless and pretty much tucked away, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk15:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This user was recently CBANned for abuse of editing privileges, in particular promotional editing. Three of the user subpages created by this user have been removed via MfD already, and the content one of those pages (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search) still exists on the userpage as the main content and this userpage has served as a locus of the WP:PROMO content, namely directing offsite users routinely to the userpage which contains a lot of promotional material (see the ANI). Note that a lot of the promotional material is collapsed but when expanded is about half the page.
Like many users involved in that ANI, I hope that the user can return productively, but in the meantime this page is still way too cut-and-dry WP:PROMO and recreates material already removed for violating policies. If left up it still serves a promotional purpose. I don’t intend this to be WP:GRAVEDANCING, I just really don’t believe that leaving up the page that people are being directed to which represents some of the major WP:PROMO that resulted in a CBAN up is serving Wikipedia in any way, and if the user in question is to return they’d likely need to rewrite a majority of this in any case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on what should be done. But one option to consider would be replacing the user page with {{Banned}} rather than deleting it. That would keep the history accessible and is a somewhat common thing to do in the case of WP:CBANs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae I actually was unaware that's an option, and that feels like a better option here, actually, considering the possibility the user comes back (and certainly they'd want to recreate some of the less promotional material). Can I rescind an MfD? It's never actually come up before... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1) Editors should not use Wikipedia for content that they insist other editors are not allowed to read or discuss.
2) The title is deliberately misleading; the page is not a talk-page archive, but an extremely long and rambling article about the "Donald Trump pee tape" and other rumors involving Russia.
3) Some of the accusations and insinuations against Mr. Trump are BLP violations; the clear intention of the article is to engage in personal attacks against Mr. Trump. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are allowed to use their private userspace for article development. The URL is deliberately neutral to avoid it being noticed and publicized by bad actors. I am not interested in promoting this content. Your opinions of the insinuations and accusations made by RS, Congressional investigations, and the intelligence community should not be used as the reason for deleting content that is being developed for an article. It is not ready for publication yet, so don't judge it as if it had already been publicized. That's an attitude that works against article development and our RS and Verifiability PAG. I am working on, revising, rearranging, and continually paring down, this article-to-be. This may not be its final format.
Keep your political views out of this. This is harassment. You should read it and the sources before acting, and then wait until publication. You will learn a lot.
Whether the rumor is true or not, RS and official investigations have written a lot about the rumor, and the topic is obviously quite notable, so an MfD or AfD would be improper. Harassment of editors while they are developing articles based on RS is a serious breach of conduct norms here and can have wide and damaging ramifications that prevent the development of potentially controversial articles. That is the effect here, and it's a really nasty move. The chilling effect is enormous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocrisy of a person who puts "This is my sandbox. No cats allowed. Just stay away. If you want to discuss this, DON'T use any talk pages. Email me." at the top of a page accusing others of a "chilling effect" and "harassment" for looking at it is immense. I will not reply to any of the other accusations against me. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did that because I don't want my work to be misused to push a POV or draw attention to it. That would be a forbidden misuse of userspace. You are the one drawing attention to it. Articles, not drafts, are what should get attention.
Stop and think about the chilling effect this has. No editor will ever be safe when creating legitimate content, no matter how notable and well-sourced. This kind of harassment should not be allowed, and we need a guideline to prevent it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the user wants to develop article material without interference by other editors, they can do so on their own computer.
If the user wants to display content to the general public but does not want them to edit it and does not want them to discuss it on a talk page, then the user is seeking to use Wikipedia as a web host.
Since we already have an article on Donald J. Trump, the user appears to be developing a subordinate article. Discussion of whether to spin outorsplit an article should be on the talk page of the parent article, Talk:Donald J. Trump, not by creating a draft child article subject to article ownership.
The originator says that we need a guideline to prevent: This kind of harassment. I would be interested in seeing and reviewing the draft guideline.
DeleteNeutral. Apart from the problems of the content itself (BLP violations etc.), the user needs to be reminded of WP:OWN. Placing limits on how a user page (or any page) can be discussed is not any one user's prerogative. I also ask my fellow MfD participants to review User:Valjean/Archive 31 and User:Valjean/Archive 30 which have very similar histories to the nominated page except they are blanked. They may also be eligible for deletion. Nickps (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take back the part about BLP violations per the latitude users should be afforded in their own userspace. However, I still stand by my comment that placing limits on a talk page like it was done here should not be tolerated. Nickps (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickps: thanks for your change of heart. I can understand your reaction to my rather terse and short note on the page. It was written at a time when I was under ferocious attack and harassment for working on some draft articles in my userspace, and I was very touchy. It forced me to delete years of work and research.
I have now revised that note and explain my reasons more fully. Please read it. It's also the first time I have publicly mentioned my autism, AFAIK. I'm not always good at communication, am not always diplomatic, and often make mistakes. I'm sorry about that. I appreciate helpful advice. I am not an anti-social person, just a bit awkward at times. Life is one continuous series of hourly misunderstandings, and that makes it a pain in the ass, yet I keep trying. I just wish there were some protections afforded to editors when working in their private userspace. In a publishing house, what has happened here would not be allowed. See my note for more on that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it "isn't exactly a sandbox". Please point me to the PAG that requires a page that is clearly labeled as "removed from search engines' indexes" and a "This is my sandbox." (plus "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.") to have a URL or title that also says "sandbox". What have I done wrong?
You say it "isn't exactly a draft". It is clearly labeled a "draft": "For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia: So you made a userspace draft." Please point me to the PAG that requires it to be labeled a "draft" in some other manner. The URL and title can be WXYZ or !@#$%^, AFAIK. I don't know of any rule about this.
Please point me to the PAG that forbids the creation of an article when it, right from the beginning, is obviously too large to be included in a main article. There are such things as articles that mention Trump where he is not the main topic of the article, even though it touches on him. The title describes the topic accurately and has high common name recognition value. What PAG have I violated?
You write "If the user wants to display content to the general public" I do not want to do that, hence the odd URL. I deliberately try NOT to draw attention to it. It is not an essay, and I do not mention it anywhere else, link to it, or share it anywhere else. I am not interested in misusing my userspace. I am doing what editors are allowed to do here, which is to use their userspace to host drafts they are developing as articles or other products useful to the project. What have I done wrong? What PAG have I violated?
BLP applies to "unsourced" negative content, not to properly sourced negative content that is part of documenting a topic like this one. You don't seem to have read the page or know what it's about. You probably think that what is written about it at Steele dossier covers the topic, but that barely scratches the surface, as this rumor started in 2013, and Trump has known about it since then, long before the dossier was imagined.
Please answer my questions. The content is based on myriad RS, many of the highest quality and reliability, as this has national security implications and is the subject of FBI and Congressional investigations, testimony, and several lawsuits by Trump, which he has lost.
You should read these DYK? items. Myriad RS are behind each one:
Did you know?
... that Trump has known about the rumor since he left Moscow in 2013?
... that the rumor did not start with the Steele dossier? The dossier only repeats the original rumor.
... that Trump has repeatedly lied about this? He even dared do it to the Director of the FBI.
... that Trump's lies were so blatant and egregious that they got the Director of the FBI to change from a pee tape skeptic to a maybe peeliever?
... that many other notable people have strong suspicions that the rumor is true?
... that Trump's own actions cause them to think this way?
... that before anyone pinpointed the possible time of the alleged incident, Trump lied very specifically about exactly that time?
... that Trump and others have acted as if the tapes were real and actually exist?
... that Michael Cohen has testified about this to Congress in 2019 and revealed many of these facts?
... that Cohen and a group of allies have worked for many years to track down the tapes and stop this rumor? He was willing to pay a lot of money for the tapes. He testified about this.
... that myriad RS, Congressional investigations, and other very reliable sources have written about this and analyzed it?
... that the fact that the actual tape has not been published means the rumor, true or not, remains unproven?
... that the real issues here are kompromat and national security issues, not Trump's alleged sexual proclivities?
And one more:
... that editors should be allowed, without harassment, to do what is allowed here, which is to use their userspace to create articles, including potentially controversial ones?
I do not use words lightly in my draft article, and, whenever necessary, I have used words like "alleged", which is what we do with unproven claims and allegations. The rumor has not been misrepresented as proven fact. It's an extremely notable and serious rumor that did not start with the Steele dossier, and Trump has repeatedly lied about it. That increases the notability, as RS have documented these lies. The topic easily passes the GNG notability guideline. If someone has a problem with some of the content, I have written, right at the top of the page, for them to "email me". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no different than a draft version of an article, that is being worked on in user space. We delete pages in draft space if they are abandoned for more than a particular amount of time, but this is in user space, not draft space. As such, it doesn't matter much what the user decided to call the page (as in "archive") – but if this hasn't been done already, I would strongly urge putting the "NOINDEX" notation on the page. Maybe there are issues with WP:NPOV (there probably are), but those can be dealt with if it ever gets moved to mainspace. I get it, that some editors just don't like the negative tone, but the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak. If anyone wants to make Wikipedia great again, this is the wrong place to pursue it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOINDEX has been there from the beginning, and it's VISIBLE! I do not want to promote or advertise this page. I just want to create an article, quietly, in my userspace. I have always created articles this way. Newbies are not allowed to do this, but experienced editors are.
Anyone can email me if they have issues they want to discuss. It's that simple. The reason I don't want to use the talk page is that it draws more attention to the page. I don't want it to become the focus of controversy. That will no doubt happen after it goes public, as that happens to most articles about controversial topics. That's okay.
It's interesting that the standard template for a draft assumes it is "incomplete and/or unreliable": "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft." Read that template at the top of the draft page. I am not doing anything unusual here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on discussions at my talk page, I am confident that Valjean intends to fix the NPOV problems with the draft page before attempting to move it into mainspace. That being the case, there is no policy-based reason that I can see, to delete it from userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. “BLP violations” are not substantiated. Although there’s a lot there, it’s within reasonable leeway for 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years. The content is reliably sourced. It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! @SmokeyJoe: you're right: "It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace."...yet! It needs work, and that's what I'm doing. I am getting close to starting to seek input from others. Your advice will be appreciated. Feel free to email me. This is my standard method of writing articles, just like many other experienced editors do. There is nothing unusual happening here, except for this MfD. I don't recall this happening before in this type of situation, where all the rules for article creation are being followed. A draft article should not be judged harshly. It is not perfect, and, as the draft template actually says, a draft is assumed to be "incomplete and/or unreliable". If this were released now, criticism would be warranted, but it's still in my user draft space where it belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommenttoUser:Valjean - It wasn't necessary both to ping me here at this MFD and to post to my talk page. I had already seen your ping here before you posted to my talk page. It is true that I didn't answer, because sometimes I think and/or write before answering. I probably will answer, but will not necessarily answer within 24 hours. I am not required to answer, although I probably will. Bludgeoning an AFD, MFD, or DRV is usually not the most effective approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination another’s usersubpages can be harassment. As a rule, I always consider whether there is a harassment motivation. Does the nominator have a POV disagreement with the user that related to the user’s usersubpage? It happens. It could be the case here. The nominator, User:Walsh90210, makes broad allegations without easy presentation of the evidence, and I am still wondering how they came to visit this page, and what is their history in relation to both the topic and the user Valjean. I have suspicions about Walsh90210, they are a new account, they don’t act new, they seem combative, they don’t have a userpage but they bluelinked it with a week of their first edit, they claim to know the clear intention of another user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page:User talk:Doug Weller#MfD etc. where User:Star Mississippi raised the question. Walsh90210 replied saying "This is not my first account (note Special:Diff/1225534254). I abandoned my previous account (which was never sanctioned) because I did not want to associate with older comments I had made about Israel-Palestine after the events of late 2023. I don't intend to say any more other than in private communications with ARBCOM. Walsh90210 (talk) 7:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" I agree with the rest of the points made by SmokeyJoe, I think there's likely to be a history behind this nomination. Doug Wellertalk09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THanks @Doug Weller. I'm not going to weigh in on the content of this draft, but I do have concerns about the nomination and a procedural close could be in order. As I said on Doug's Talk, it should probably go to ArbComm if there's a privacy matter. Not policy and speaking as editor not admin, but I really think CT/fairly new Clean Start editors don't go well together. StarMississippi13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different "namespaces" here at Wikipedia are governed by different rules, and that includes the rules for MfDs. Valjean's work here is governed by personal "userspace drafts", not Wikipedia:Drafts (which governs drafts in "draftspace"). Unlike a "personal userspace draft",
"Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia."(Source: Help:Userspace draft)
This implies that a user has nearly full control of a draft in their "private userspace", both creation and publication, but not their work in draftspace. (That "nearly" implies that control is not absolute, as with all things at Wikipedia. There are exceptions to every rule.) If I'm wrong, please enlighten us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the reasoning for Valjean's entreaty that people email him rather than ask him about the article onwiki is that some months ago a very large number of his drafts were nominated for deletion at the same time and he was given a good deal of hell over it. Not that a user is allowed to demand nobody go to their talk page and ask them about stuff. For that matter, I don't think this is actually binding on anybody -- you're not REQUIRED to email him (indeed you're permitted to discuss or MfD them, as we are doing here). I would lean towards wanting to delete this, because it seems like a long and avowedly negative go-off about a BLP subject, although on the other hand it does at least seem like an earnest attempt to write an article. On the third hand, it is currently an article I would be strongly inclined to vote to delete on BLP grounds if it were at AfD. I think there are probably other options as well (a local own-computer copy, a copy in revision history/HTML note/etc). jp×g🗯️23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about my reasoning for preferring email, but I have now changed the communication instructions to:
"If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer that you email me, but if that won't work for you, then please use my user talk page and not the talk page here. (I don't get pinged here, and the talk page here is for archiving my user talk page.)"
I hope that's better. When I move this to a different userspace page, I'll update that message. I'd really like to understand your BLP concerns ("inclined to vote to delete on BLP grounds if it were at AfD"), but let's not do that here. Your advice would be appreciated. Per WP:PRESERVE, the goal should be to make this something that would pass an AfD, as it's a very notable topic. How to do that? My email and talk page are open for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a work in progress and it will need a lot of additional work in order to be ready for main space, if it ever is. I see no convincing policy based reason to delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to just be a web host that has no chance of being an article. It also looks like a continuation of when a bunch of your bad drafts were nominated for deletion and you tried to hide them in archive histories of other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is one massive BLPVIO—and BLP is one of, if not the, most important policy we have—and preferably a block from this page for Valjean for the WP:BLUDGEONing. ——Serial Number 5412909:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider WP:WEAKSILENCE. Just because no one is responding that doesn't mean you're right. In fact, WP:BLP says Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly [...] to Wikipedia's three core content policies: [NPOV, V, NOR]
yet you admit it has NPOV issues. NPOV issues = BLP violation, it's that simple. As I've said above I'm willing to let it slide in userspace because of no visibility but pretending there's no BLP violation makes no sense. Nickps (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, Nickps, I do appreciate that you changed your earlier comment to neutral. And yes, there is a reasonable argument to be made that NPOV problems, in themselves, are a potential BLP violation. That's a better response than just saying how important the BLP policy is, which isipse dixit. Now, to both of you, let's please note what I actually said: "the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak." I said that the BLP arguments are weak, not that there is zero BLP issue, and I was wrong to lose that nuance in my later comment, so that's on me. But I didn't say that I think it's OK to cite sources that would fail WP:RS, so please do not insult me by making it sound like I did. What I said, and I still say, is that if there is verifiable source material about a very public figure, basing content on that is not inherently a BLP violation. We go where the source material tells us to go, rather than ignoring sources out of a mistaken sense of false balance. We have lots of mainspace pages about living persons who have done bad things, but if it's well-sourced that what we say is true, that's not a BLP violation. This is a draft, in progress in userspace, and Valjean is making a sincere effort to fix the things that are wrong with it. Nobody is arguing that it's ready for mainspace. I'm acknowledging that there may be content that will have to be removed because of unreliable sources, and I've made it very clear that I think that there have to be a lot of revisions to balance the NPOV. But I continue to believe that arguments that this must be deleted now, out of BLP concerns, are weak arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have to say your argument makes no sense. BLP is a subset of NPOV, if there are NPOV issues on a BLP article then there is a BLP issue. BLP extends to every page on Wikipedia, talk pages, and user pages. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's self evident per WP:BLPTALK. BLP applies to user pages too not because an editor here says so, but because the policy itself says so and if someone thinks the BLP violations are bad enough, they have every right to !vote delete because of that. Nickps (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general ipse dixit is not the own you seem to think it is. If the plain text of a policy says something, like The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. (from WP:BLPTALK) then asserting it is a valid argument. Nickps (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here isn't whether BLP applies in a given namespace. If one editor baldly asserts a BLP problem, and another asserts that there isn't one, it's not as though asserting a BLP problem is an "own". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be open to draftification, but this subject appears to be A7 worthy if it were in article space so it has effectively no chance of promotion to article. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True they're not but given the article will never see the light of day in articlespace I simply don't see a benefit to keeping, The article only says "it's a primary school in scotland, that it caters for 4 and 13 years of age and that the school operates under the Stranraer local authority." - None of that is worth merging anywhere imho,
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single musical artist) whose creator has since been indefinitely blocked and only has three other participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a SZA task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the previous nomination until now, but it closed as no consensus and I think the reasoning above still holds. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that my previous !vote for Weak Keep was mistaken because I did not take its out-of-process creation into account. Also, since the first MFD, the originator has been indefinitely blocked by the community. Remaining good-standing editors should consider a task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikiproject pages should be those of real and functioning projects, and article talk pages should not have project tags for wikiprojects that were only nominally there but never really got off the ground. Abortive wikiprojects created outside of the recommended process should be deleted.—Alalch E.21:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who said in the previous MfD that this should've been created as a task force under a more general WikiProject. Still, there are very few (read: one) people who actually consistently edit SZA-related pages anyway---the rest joined after that MfD---so I don't think even a task force would be useful. This discussion raises a compelling argument about whether we should convert most musician WPs into task forces, and I look forward to seeing where that goes. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise]03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Great idea. This has come a few times as I've been reviewing inactive wikiprojects recently. Even after the projects die, people find the assessment tables and article alerts useful, though they also become less useful over time because nobody is keeping the banners of dead wikiprojects updated. I wonder if they could be made to work with mainspace categories instead? – Joe (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories is a great idea. Category:SZA has the relevant articles to here. Banners not being updated is hopefully less of an issue with WP:PIQA formally unifying assessments, but still worse than categories. Food for longer-term thought. CMD (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single city) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Jerusalem task force of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process. Activity is negligible. A task force might be better, since there is an existing project with a larger subject area. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These misguided WikiProjects do not seem to have the defenders that misguided portals have. Maybe that means that no one thinks WikiProjects are mystical. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only two participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a task force of WikiProject Cricket might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appear that misconceived WikiProjects do not have the enthusiasts that misconceived portals do. Maybe that is because no one thinks that WikiProjects have mystical qualities. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikiprojects don't have that mystical appeal because they are not "nice" like portals. Portals are "kinda nice". Wikiproject pages are generally ugly.—Alalch E.21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another attempt to spin off a WikiProject for a random franchise cricket tournament. In my view, we should be merging all the existing cricket spinoff WikiProjects (IPL, WPL, PSL, LPL etc) into WP:CRIC task forces, not creating more. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Dardistan task force of WikiProject South Asia might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process. The process needs to be better publicized. Page views show that it has no views more days than it has views, which implies that it does not have utility. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, suggest the nominator seek other editors in existing Wikiprojects and create something in userspace if they wish to refer to it. CMD (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete - As the nominator says, not a WikiProject If an abandoned draft article, a duplicate. Any unique information in it can be merged into the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that too but the creator made almost all their edits in one spree in April and hasn't been back since. Not opposed, though. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single artist) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Ledisi task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was a process but that's fine if you want to delete it. I just noticed that there was a Wikiproject for other singers and I thought this would be a helpful tool for anyone who wants to help contribute. Sackkid (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Contention 2: The discussion was closed by LightandDark2000 back in 2020, which reads:
Although there is some dispute as to how this should be done, it appears that the consensus is to use the figures from a trusted source. However, our ACE calculations can also be used as placeholders in lieu of more reliable figures.
As far as I can tell, we.. never figured out how exactly we're supposed to go about this. (Not that I knew that this was a discussion that was had until today, but that's my own fault.) We as a WikiProject (myself included from time to time) continue to update the operational portion of 2024/ACE. I do not know entirely why. I do not know entirely how. At this point, not entirely sure what deleting 2024 would be worth unless we nuked... everything. ~ AC5230 talk06:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Keep for now. The user has the wrong ratio of mainspace to userspace edits. The user has blanked the NOTWEBHOST content, which is a good sign. Ideally, someone would have approached the user before MfD-ing their pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Page has been blanked. I tried to use Wikia/Fandom originally for this content but a lot of the code/templates that Wikipedia uses was not working properly so I was temporarily using Wikipedia. Because of the MfD I'm going to expedite that move to Wikia/Fandom and try to figure out the formatting changes. Thank you for letting me know that I was out of code for what's acceptable use on Wikipedia. TheRealJackMarshall (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete this portal, without prejudice, but with a large fish to the nominator:
The nominator's statement that there is No useful content is true but misleading, either deliberately misleading or bizarre. The nominator blanked the portal, removing a link to the lead article, Billy Murray (singer), immediately before nominating the portal for deletion. They were therefore technically in compliance with the {{MFD}} tag, which says do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice. So the nominator first blanked the portal, which removed useful content, and then nominated the portal for deletion.
My first thought, on seeing that the portal had originally had a lead article and nothing else, had been to !vote Neutral and give the originator six days to complete an unfinished portal. I was assuming that the originator was a good-faith editor, and might be planning to create a portal. I now see that the originator is not a good-faith editor, but has been blocked for vandalism, and so will not be finishing the portal, but probably either was never planning to finish it, or was planning to display hoax content.
I am very skeptical of portals, but as long as Wikipedia supports them, we should consider them on a case-by-case basis at MFD.
If another good-faith editor wants to create a portal, they should be allowed to do so, subject to another MFD, but not to speey deletion.
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.
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.
Keep. It does not matter that the ISO 639 code for Moldovan was deprecated. The code can be deprecated and the userboxes can stay as they are.—Alalch E.10:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If people want to identify as speakers of the Moldovan language, I don't see any policy basis for keeping them from doing so. Redirecting to the Romanian userboxes would give many current transcluders two identical userboxes. I wouldn't complain if someone wanted to move these to new titles that don't use the ISO codes, although the link above does note: "The identifiers mo and mol will not be assigned to different items, and recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The content of this page was merged here in 2007 after an AfD was closed with disposition to merge the content into Khaled Mashal (mentioned on the talk page here). Unless it was later removed (I haven't checked super thoroughly), that doesn't seem to have ever actually happened. But especially looking at this 17 years later, I'm not sure there's anything worth merging in here. The arguments for this were basically already made in the AfD. And if no one's actually ever going to merge this content, this page has no reason to exist. Kinsio(talk ★ contribs ★ rights)19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't exactly G4, but it is essentially a draft for consideration after the merge. As a draft, it is an expired draft. To the extent that it is something else, it is not something else that needs to be kept. (Events have changed so much for the worse in the region.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom misstates the facts. A move to a talk subpage is not a merge. The AfD was closed as “merge” which is not a “delete” and cannot be used here to delete. If consensus has changed from “merge”, then archive, eg by redirection to the article. Also note that there are no time limits, if anything the AfD close was wrong. I note the closer is eight years inactive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete. Per WP:COPIES, it appears a user sandbox like this one might be eligible for immediate {{db-u1}}, to prevent possible attribution issues. I do appreciate the nomination here. BusterD (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete - The same reasoning that called for deletion of the complete dissertation also calls for deletion of this partial version of the dissertation. Also, now that the originator has been indefinitely blocked, any general leeway arguments no longer apply (regardless of whether one originally agreed with them). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC) ended today on 26 July 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.
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.
This was nominated at the wrong venue (TFD). This is a procedural nomination on my part and I express no opinion on the merits. The original nominating statement is:
Oops. I accidentally removed my own signature when I deleted excess copied material when I made the MFD nomoination -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of its name but admittedly I was searching for something more humorous because, as my page says: "Some of the contents of this user page are not meant to be taken seriously, but I'm sure you already knew that." I do think renaming it would work because I am only using it as a humorous userbox and not out of actual ill intent against Juventus or Juventus fans. SignedInteger (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I noticed my page has this notice on it now: "This user page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the
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.
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.
Thanks. By default, I think it’s better to preserve history of anything ever used, unless it should never have been created. However, if someone, especially someone from the WikiProject, has a rationale for deleting over archiving (history behind redirects), then I have no objection to deletion. I think wikiarchiology is a good thing to be allowed to happen, and that deletion requests should give at least lip service to why archiving is not a good idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historical purposes. This userbox is displayed on the user pages of a few users who are no longer active and therefore unlikely to replace it now that the wikiproject no longer exists. Keeping it serves to preserve their user page as it was and to help anyone who happens to come across them find out where the former WikiProject Colonialism now resides (via the redirect to WikiProject History). – Joe (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
