Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Nominated by blocked user on contravention of block. Whpq (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:AMRITESH MOHAN KARAN/sandbox/AMRITESH MOHAN KARAN (LOVE MY COUNTRY & MY FAMILY)

User:AMRITESH MOHAN KARAN/sandbox/AMRITESH MOHAN KARAN (LOVE MY COUNTRY & MY FAMILY) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 15:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy KeepasSK4 - Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Per Robert McClenon. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: tag historical. Salvio ^giuliano 22:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing

Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I wrote this essay 12 years ago. It refers to a time in history when most blocked accounts were commonly tagged with indef templates. Most of these templates themselves no longer exist and so the situation this essay describes doesn't really exist anymore either. As such, the essay is functionally obsolete. I'd rather it simply be speedied, but since others have edited it I think it's past that point. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 01:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed - delete it. --Bduke (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Go ahead and delete. Bishonen | tålk 01:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per @Bishonen  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Blank and tag {{Historical}}. I recognise the old behaviour and how the community has changed. The essay reflects the past. I prefer to see such things archived, clearly marked as not correct, but freely available for anyone to browse the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer blanking per SmokeyJoe. —Alalch E. 15:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank and tag historical: per SmokeyJoe. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 19:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag historical per above but I don't think there's any point in blanking it. It's a highly unconventional action for an essay. Graham87 08:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag historical, blanking seems unnecessary. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just tag historical. Blanking or deleting both far exceed normal practice. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag historical per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:29, 17 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: speedy delete under WP:G11. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Karl Lillrud (Innovator)

Draft:Karl Lillrud (Innovator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Previously MfD deleted two years ago, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Klillrud/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Karl Lillrud. This draft shows the same lack of notability, and has attracted some juvenile IP users who thumb their nose(s) at Wikipedia by messing with the AfC templates. For the sake of thoroughness I’ve done a BEFORE search for sources in Swedish and English, but there is nothing, so this is a draft that’s going nowhere. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isabella Mayor/Archive, where about a dozen UPE socks whose only aim in life was creating an article about Lillrud are listed. It is no coincidence that Karl Lillrud and Draft:Karl Lillrud are salted. bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a draft that will never be accepted because the title is salted in article space, and as an effort to game article titles by disambiguation, or Speedy DeleteasG4, because a draft has already been deleted. (The previous deletion of the article is not a basis for deletion of a draft, but the deletion of a draft is a reason to delete another version of the draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: speedy keep. can be translated into English sometime in the future (non-admin closure) Wesoree (Talk) 14:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lasha-george/sandbox

User:Lasha-george/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The page is written entirely in another language other than English Wesoree (Talk) 13:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a sandbox. See Wikipedia:About the sandbox. Stop ragpicking. There is a lot of material here that might be lost by deletion. The originator may be planning to translate this information from Georgian into English and move it into article space or draft space. Where do you expect the originator to put the Georgian text that they may be planning to translate into English in the future, if not in a sandbox? As Wikipedia:Misuse of the sandbox explains, misuse of the sandbox includes copyright violation, legal threats, and personal attacks. A large amount of material in Georgian is not a misuse of the sandbox because it is a proper use of the sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for a long time (From March 23, 2021), and it's unfortunate that it has now become a candidate for deletion. There is really a lot of information here, and it is recommended to even create an article (Rullers of Georgian) and move it there, or at least delete it, which I consider unfair...--Lasha-george (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if it is possible to leave the article somewhere without it being deleted? I have never heard of an article being dropped from an sandbox before.--Lasha-george (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance if we think of something else instead of deleting it...--Lasha-george (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can't read Georgian, but the material here does no apparent harm and can probably be used at enwiki in the future if translated. Leave user sandboxes alone. Glades12 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--Lasha-george (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Artemis program

Wikipedia:Artemis program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a "fake" Wikipedia Project that was created by the editor without bothering to first obtain approval from the WP:COUNCIL. See the discussion at User_talk:Starship_24#Artemis_program_pages The table of "Successes" is almost entirely made up out of whole cloth, with links to this fake project added after changes in rating were made, or where the changes in rating were made by the editor themselves to boost the "success" rate. The "project" has only a single participant beyond the editor who created it, each with interestingly similar usernames. Banks Irk (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as the creator. I'll respond to each sentence one at a time. First, it is not fake. It is real and has multiple partipicants. It also has around 20 successes and only 1 failure. As to not having approval from the WikiProject Council, I do realize that was wrong. I had figured it was fine after seeing the Constellation program. In fact, the Artemis program was a revival of that with lowered abmitions and had slightly different goals. Being that it has been doing quite well, it seems like it would be Beurocratic nonsense to delete it just because it should have been approved by the WikiProject Council. Second, the table of success is not a fake or nonsense as you appear to be suggesting. As to the complaint that I have added the template to article that were already improved, what happened there was that I realized a few days ago that pages that the Artemis program had improved never got the Artemis program template added to them, so I went ahead and added them at that point. They were already improved by the Artemis program but never tagged. Yes, sometimes members of the project did make the rating changes themselves. An article that one had to scroll to read and has 5 long paragraphs is not a stub, I don't need someone else to tell me that. Asking for another opinion is wasting more peoples time. Also, assesing the chosen article is part of the goal and the first thing that we do (even before we make changes). If it already at that quality then we have completed our job on that article (which in that case was just reassesment). We are not trying to artifically boost the success rate. Third, the project does not have many participants. I'll agree with you on that one. But no project starts out with 100 participants, does it? They all start somewhere. More is definetly better, but it is useful even at it's current level. As to the second part of your sentence, are you suggesting that we (Me and StarshipSLS) are Sockpuppets? Beyond a similar username and interest in spaceflight topics, what evidence do you have? If you a serious, you may ask for an investigation. In reality, I think that the reason that @StarshipSLS (the other participant) joined the Artemis program was because it is a revival attempt of the Constellation program, which he was a part of. @Banks Irk Starship 24 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Convert to Taskforce/Working Group Niche subjects are usually best handled by taskforces rather than standalone projects. In practice that means moving to a subpage of WP:SPF and either redirecting or merging any assessment templates. In sum, I don't see a PAG based reason to delete the page, nor is it so disconnected from the usual purpose of WikiProjects as to warrant userfication, but it's too narrowly focused for a standalone. The decision on whether the template should be merged to retain independant importance assessments or just redirected can be handled at WT:SPACEFLIGHT with a follow-up TPER if needed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that isnt something like SpaceX which focuses on a specific topic. This focuses on getting high importance spaceflight articles to a higher quality. Not sure if that is great for a taskforce @74.73.224.126 Starship 24 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the end primary WikiProject vs Taskforce doesn't matter all that much for the purposes of fostering collaboration and article improvement, that is one of the reasons my !vote is weak, as a dedicated discussion page is available either way.

  If you want links from related article talk pages to the taskforce an additional working group can be added to Template:WikiProject Spaceflight and the templates merged, which will keep the internal discussion page easy to find for casual editors. However, I feel that decision on whether to do that is best conducted at WT:SPACEFLIGHT.

  Also please review WP:PINGIP 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I accept that. I personally feel that is better as isnt a wikiproject for a sub-subject of spaceflight (ex.SpaceX) it is more a "lets find some important articles and improve and asses them" Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I write this the page states The goal of the Artemis Program is to asses and improve important spaceflight related articles (emphasis added) which indicates the scope is a subset of WP:SPF.

  Granted, many strict subsets are nonetheless independent projects and not just those with large article bases, though in many cases this is only for legacy reasons. Ultimately it's a judgement call on which reasonable minds may differ, and I respect that you've come to a different conclusion than I have. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy subject to going through a WP:COUNCIL process. WikiProjects are for collaboration and require collaboration, and the Council step shouldn’t be skipped. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Seems a bit like beuracratic nonsense in this case however. The program:

  1.Already exists

  2.Has multiple participants

  3.Has many success

  @SmokeyJoe Starship 24 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Complete nonsense. (1)It exists only because you created it out of order;(2) It has ONE participant beyond you, not multiple participants; (3) Its "successes" are 100% manufactured by self-promotion by your own admission, not any collaborative effort. This a completely sham, fake "project" that would never be approved through required WP: Council process. Banks Irk (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And, you've now been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user Special:BlockList/User:Starship_24, which in and of itself is grounds for deletion. Banks Irk (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, subject to the user being unblocked, at which point they can request userfication subject to it being put through WP:COUNCIL. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete quasi-wikiproject started out of process with dubious aims while evading a block. —Alalch E. 09:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense project by block evading user. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not proposed (let alone approved) at WP:COUNCIL; only two participants, of which Starship 24 is now indef-blocked (and globally locked) as a sock, and StarshipSLS hasn't contributed to anything in almost four months. The project seems limited in scope; most of the articles listed at History and plans are not specific to the actual Artemis program but are of a more general nature, well within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight. Some - such as List of Vega launches - seem to be only tangentially related to Artemis. Some of the claimed "successes" are clearly false - for example, Able (rocket stage) is shown as a "success" for being raised from stub-class to start-class - but all that has happened to the article since July 2019 is a small amount of routine maintenance by bots; this regrading, whilst justifiable in general terms, is not sufficient for a WikiProject to claim a success in improving the article.
  This could have been suggested as a taskforce of WikiProject Spaceflight (and again, I cannot find any evidence that it was) where I am sure that advice and assistance could have been obtained, although I am not sure that an actual taskforce would have been sanctioned - there are no taskforces (let alone full WikiProjects) for significant space programs of the past, such as Apollo, Gemini, Mercury or Space Shuttle. Finally - if kept, this should be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis program. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Salvio ^giuliano 18:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a promotional page for some reason. CastJared (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for tendentious resubmission and throwing into mainspace without any improvements for notability. Already has been salted in mainspace and other draft spots. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:GNG. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to be promotional. NotTriangle (t, u) 17:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This draft has been resubmitted and shoved into mainspace far too many times, possibly enough to qualify as spam since no real improvements are being made between said submissions. Note also how editors have repeatedly removed AFC comments, a sign that they're not taking any reviewer's concerns seriously. Glades12 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A draft of a title that has been salted in article space has little or no valid purpose. This draft will never be an article with its current title, which is salted, but its existence may be an invitation to move it to article space by changing the spelling or other subterfuge. Consider requesting that the first name and the last name be listed on the title blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per AngusWOOF Starship 24 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:GNG, has been salted multiple times already, and per AngusWOOF Wesoree (Talk) 15:35, 11 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 01:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:SecondFatBudgie/Wikilawyer Law Firm

User:SecondFatBudgie/Wikilawyer Law Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Bad humor, advising editors how to violate long-existing Wikipedia policy. -Lemonaka‎ 01:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks to me like an unfinished humor essay. Doesn't seem problematic, nor necessary to delete. Also clearly marked as humor, so isn't actually encouraging disruptive behavior, and in userspace where leeway to host such content is given. I also don't see not personally finding the joke funny as a valid reason to take things like this to MfD. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – fully agree with BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 on all fronts. This is well within the discretion we give productive users in userspace (especially after some content was removed), and the fact that you don't find something funny is not a reason for deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Humor is permitted in user space, and is a matter of taste. That is,not everyone agrees on what is humor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• invalid - author blanked this page. -Lemonaka‎ 04:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Mu - With the page now blanked despite a consensus to keep, any further discussion is now academic. This MfD can be closed as speedy keep. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close as it is blanked Starship 24 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: this one is blocked for sockpuppetry. -Lemonaka‎ 11:42, 12 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Salvio ^giuliano 08:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Wind in the Willows (2024 film)

Draft:The Wind in the Willows (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The IP who began this page may have meant well, but one look at the "Based on" section in the infobox for starters (The Great Mouse Detective???) tells me WP:HOAX is essentially in effect. Furthermore, it's unsourced, and not on the list of upcoming films by purported studio Warner Animation Group. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: This was spotted at Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Draft AfC submissions mere minutes before press time. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I agree, Warner Bros. Pictures never officially made an announcement on this film. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The real reason to delete is that it is unsourced and consists largely of mentions of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is completely unsourced and Warner Bros. Pictures never officially announced such a film like this draft. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 99.209.40.250 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Delete - This is not in Warner Bros. Pictures website, nor on it's social media posts. CastJared (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above - There is no such thing as an animated film titled The Wind in the Willows. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:F164:AECA:D38A:3059 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax, albeit perhaps an unintentional one Starship 24 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per G3. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3, it's obviously a WP:HOAX Wesoree (Talk) 15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pile-on delete as a clear hoax. Also get rid of the (oddly not linked) Wikidata item created by another IP that's suspiciously located in the same country. Glades12 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dareyoutoclicksend/Mammals

User:Dareyoutoclicksend/Mammals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Random subpage created by newish and rather problematic editor, for an editor who edited a few times but has disappeared since 2018. Fram (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The editor seems to be trying to use WP as a personal webspace. Joyous! Noise! 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Inactive user A's user subpage created by user B, containing a gallery of the three images that user A had uploaded. Difficult to comprehend. —Alalch E. 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An intriguing and artsy form of disruption. Users normally have control over the contents of their own userpage. Creating userpages for abandoned accounts seems disruptive behavior and might be sanctionable. BusterD (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As User:BusterD says, intriguing and artsy, but deceptive. The user may need to be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have given the user a Level 2 template warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I have now warned the user for creating (now-deleted) articles on speculative evolution. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CastJared (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:05, 8 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dotname2469

User:Dotname2469 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Userpage for editor who last edited in 2011, created by unrelated newish (and rather problematic) editor, with images uploaded by yet other people. Fram (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not encyclopedic, and possibly attempting to hijack another's userspace for non-encyclopedic goofing around. Joyous! Noise! 16:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An intriguing and artsy form of disruption. Users normally have control over the contents of their own userpage. Creating userpages for abandoned accounts seems disruptive behavior and might be sanctionable. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A strange form of disruption. The problem is not the content, but where the content is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bizarre and not helpful. Additionally, the user who created the page seems to have WP:IDHT-type issues. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. CastJared (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: keep. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2024 AFL season

Draft:2024 AFL season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Even if it didn't contain a couple of "likely"s, a "possible" and an "unknown", as well as sources which are all unsuitable for Wikipedia, the article already exists as a redirect and will be created properly once the fixture is released at the end of this year as per usual; I know it's a draft, but just feels way WP:TOOSOON. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As you yourself said, it's a draft, and WP:TOOSOON does not apply to draftspace per WP:NDRAFT, and per the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter. Starting the shell of an article now with the expectation of further development later is not in and of itself prohibited. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not fully versed in draft deletion policies so this will be a bit more about 'the vibe', but AFL season articles essentially start from this same blank template with no need for a gradual draft to be developed over time; there will be nothing new which can be added between now and October when history shows it is likely to be made live - which I think is a clear distinction between this case and the Jimmy Carter one, which reasonably had multi editor collaboration ahead of its becoming an article. This seems to have been created only to avoid an infobox redlink or no-link diff, which is certainly not what we want to be doing, and it's to avoid this issue that reason I'd suggest deletion. Aspirex (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a draft. Maybe we should instruct overly eager patrollers of the New Page feed that it is very seldom useful to review new drafts for anything except BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's in the draft now is not very useful, but deleting it won't help editors write the future article; there's no real problem that needs to be addressed through deletion. —Alalch E. 16:04, 12 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dmitry Torner

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

Draft of an article that has been repeatedly deleted, however the previous MFD on the draft specifically found no consensus to delete from the draft namespace. That no-consensus result disqualifies the article from speedy deletion. However, each recreation has been a bit-by-bit duplicate, and this draft is no different except for the position of some templates.

At the core, this is a draft about a living person who is provably non-notable. The author has made no effort to address the notability concern since the original article was deleted in October 2022, they just keep pushing it back to mainspace where it gets deleted again. While notability is normally considered to be a workable concern for drafts, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the draft namespace is not meant to be an indefinite repository for content which would be deleted if placed in article space. Since that seems to be the only purpose for this draft, it should be deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping Sdrqaz and Biruitorul, since we were discussing my declined speedy deletion on my talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous discussions (I thought the template did this):
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Torner
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Torner
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dmitry Torner

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — enough already. No notability, no possibility of recreation as an article, no purpose to this draft. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In my opinion, the tendentious resubmission of a draft is more likely an WP:IDHT issue which might merit blocking the user who is doing so. In the meantime, I agree with deletion here. Although I adhere to WP:NDRAFT on principle, it's apparent that draftspace is being abused to prop up a deleted article. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Here we go again
  • • Articles were deleted twice for lack of biographical notability. Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons.
    • Drafts of titles that were previously deleted should be rejected at AFC rather than merely declined. They do not need deleting.
    • Now that partial blocking is implemented, partial blocking is often an even better way to deal with tendentious resubmission of drafts than deleting the drafts.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Moving beyond the bureaucratic jargon, how is the project improved by keeping this draft for another 5 months and 24 days, rather than deleting it now? — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Created in mainspace, soft deleted on 14 October 2022.
  Recreated (permissible), hard deleted on 21 October 2022.
  Recreated in draftspace (permissible), brought to MfD (for no good reason); no consensus on 15 November 2022.
  On or around 22 March 2023, recreated in mainspace again via move from draft, making it G4 eligible; the article and the draftspace redirect were deleted. The draft was not deleted because there was a problem with the draft as a draft, it was deleted under G8 after having been turned into a redirect, to a subsequently deleted page. This is only when thigs start being potentially tendentious on the part of the creator. It's plausible that the creator believed that they have improved the page to the point where editors would no longer want to delete it. It isn't reasonable to be intolerant of this error.
  The creator probably understood their miscalculation, which led to there being neither article nor draft, and did not recreate in mainspace for the third time. It's plausible that they figured that the article is a no no, but that they can still work on the draft, because it's not the draft that is the problem (which would be true, as long as they don't keep tendentiously resubmitting it as it is being declined). So they recreated the draft on 31 March 2022, (permissible) and IMMEDIATELY submitted it (stupid; second sign of tendentiousness).
  So this is a draft that had once been deleted on a technicality (G8), and was once declined. From all of this I conclude that there is not enough evidence of tendentious resubmission. The creator is free to keep working on the draft. If it starts to be actually tendentiously resubmitted, that's when blocking the creator would start being helpful. It's too early to tell. Did I get any facts wrong? —Alalch E. 13:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Two corrections:

  1. The second discussion (21 Oct 2022) resulted in consensus to delete. There was no advice or suggestion that the article could be incubated in draftspace, thus the subsequent recreation in draftspace was counter to the discussion's consensus, and was G4 eligible. Of course speedy deletion is not compulsory (maybe excepting G10 and G12), but drafts are eligible for G4 speedy deletion if they're recreations of articles deleted in a deletion discussion, which this was and still is.
  2. The draft was not G8-deleted: when the draft was moved to article space (by the creator, who does not have pagemover rights) a redirect was left behind, and when the article was subsequently G4-deleted the left-over redirect was G8-deleted by a script that takes care of orphaned redirects when we delete things. The deletion log is confusing for that situation.

  The other missing point is that WP:NDRAFT calls for deletion of drafts which are (1) tendentiously resubmitted without approval, especially after deletion of a corresponding article; and (2) which are only edited superficially to reset the clock on G13 deletion (see WP:NDRAFT#So when is MfD appropriate?). This draft meets both of those points. The text in each draft is identical: the only differences have been that a "political career" section has appeared in different positions within the article/draft but always with the same text within the section (in the current recreation it has been omitted instead), and in one of the deleted versions they added one new reference to a section which didn't support any new information in the section, which was otherwise unchanged. The current draft also omits the "personal life" section which I removed because it's unsourced info about non-notable living persons, but it had appeared in the same spot and with the same text in each of the recreations. Other than these superficial changes, the creator has not changed the article text at all. In the history of the second deleted article you can see that after the no-consensus MfD they left the draft for about five months (they were consistently active on the site in that time), then added that one reference and moved the draft to article space without submitting to AfC. As for tendentiousness vs. misunderstanding: there is another article in the creator's history, Max Balter, which they created in mainspace on 22 Jan and was moved to Draft:Max Balter. They never touched that draft again but instead created Maxim Balter on 24 Jan, again with the same content other than a couple of trimmed sections, and with a COI/UPE notice removed. That was also moved to Draft:Maxim Balter not long after, and the only edit the creator has made to it since then has been to submit it entirely unchanged to AfC, where it's now pending review.

  -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that's helpful, and I am switching to delete. G4 would not have applied if the draft created after the AfD was not a sufficiently identical copy /also, deletion from an AfD shouldn't really lead to G4 of a draft in absence of evidence that the draft was created in an attempt to circumvent policy, and back then there was not such evidence/. But, yeah, I understand now that during this whole time, no meaningful intent has been demonstrated on the part of the creator to actually improve the content or demonstrate notability in a constructive way. Tndentious overall activity relating to this topic; the parallel example provides context for this conclusion. —Alalch E. 15:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. IMHO, the nominator stated enough valid arguments for this to be deleted. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:02, 8 April 2023 (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 result of the discussion was: keep in some form. Which form that should be can be a matter for discussion elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material

Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This seems like misapplication of WP:ATTREQ and unnecessary ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume whatever BLP issues lead to the 2007 mess here are now obsolete given that Crystal Mangum has had a standalone article since 2011, so the correct action would be to restore the deleted history at this title and merge it with the article, leaving the placeholder now here deleted. If I'm mistaken, then I don't see the problem with this method, so keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The revision history of a deleted page is always restorable by an admin, there is never a reason to copy and paste the text of a revision history in order to "save" it. If there's an attribution problem, this isn't the solution to it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scottywong. This is a copy of the portion of the text that makes up the history page. It does not itself contain relevant history. Uncertain. The IP editor commenting below may be right. The history was deleted for BLP reasons and the present Crystal Mangum article really does not include this history; some of the former article's content "may have been incorporated" into another article. Scottywong, do you have any further thoughts on this? Most likely, there actually aren't any extant BLP concerns with respect to the deleted history, now that the subject has ben deemed suitable for inclusion (since 2011 at least).—Alalch E. 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically do what Pppery suggested above. —Alalch E. 16:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain attribution in some form the license requires attribution be preserved; there's more than one way to do that. This is following the practice listed at Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history. For legal reasons at a minimum the authorship must be preserved somewhere. We could do this by substing onto a collapsed section of the primary talkpage, pushing it straight to an archive or just undeleting the original history as suggested by Pppery, but we must adhere to the terms of the license. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2023 (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.