Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
Information on the process[edit]
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion[edit]
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions[edit]
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 6 | 17 | 2 | 25 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 25 | 35 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions[edit]
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions[edit]
- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
June 15, 2024[edit]
Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant[edit]
Subject is already covered under Peter and Rosemary Grant. As they worked together, it seems unlikely that there would be much to add to a separate article that couldn't be added to their joint article. Snowman304|talk 18:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
June 14, 2024[edit]
User:Dull bull/sandbox[edit]
This is a non-obvious hoax. A naïve Google search finds no evidence that Gatorade was invented by Sean Simms. Our article shows that it was invented by Robert Cade and others. There is a Sean Simms who played American football and became an actor, and does not appear to have been associated with Gatorade. There is no evidence that any Sean Simms played for the New York Yankees. If this were not invented, it would be an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is not permitted but could be ignored in a sandbox. As it is, this is a non-obvious hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Piccadilly[edit]
WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. WikiProjects are "advertised" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, and there's already places for discussing the topics listed, such as WP:TH, WP:HD, and WP:VP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, WPPicadilly is NOT a help desk. As i stated, its a place to advertise pages and wikiprojects. and you said advertised in quotation, thus it is not really that elligble to be deleted. WPPicadilly is only in its early stages too. Snipertron12 Talk 11:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would advertising pages be needed? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some pages dont get enough attention and sometimes are even overlooked by wikiprojects. Snipertron12 Talk 12:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- You know what. Im changing the premise of WPPicadilly. Snipertron12 Talk 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that what Wikipedia:Articles for improvement is for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I will look at the article when im at home because im on a school computer that gets filtered alot. Snipertron12 Talk 12:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. The diffrence from Articles for improvement and Picadilly is that AFI is focusing on ranked articles which are lengthy. Piccadilly aims on new pages/stubs/drafts. Snipertron12 Talk 16:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I will look at the article when im at home because im on a school computer that gets filtered alot. Snipertron12 Talk 12:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some pages dont get enough attention and sometimes are even overlooked by wikiprojects. Snipertron12 Talk 12:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would advertising pages be needed? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I added a notice to prevent confusion. Snipertron12 Talk 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think User:Snipertron12 is trying to make Wikipedia:Piccadilly a Wikiproject. Ned1a Wanna talk? 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There are many ways to bring attention to articles needing different kinds of improvement. This seems entirely redundant. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Serves no valid purpose. Maproom (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Currently, it serves no "valid purpose" as it was created JUST today. Snipertron12 Talk 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. You know theres a Wikipedia:Articles for improvement right? Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, the diffrence from AFI is that it focuses on newer pages and not older ones. Snipertron12 Talk 16:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Creating Piccadilly to bring attention to the only article you contributed to (Kasane Teto) is self-serving. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Im not aiming for self-serving, Im opening up other oppourtunities, however, i am yet to nominate them as there are no communnity members. Snipertron12 Talk 19:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- As i said multiple times, Piccadilly wasnt made to promote the Teto article, it was made as a faster way to bring attention to new stub articles. Snipertron12 Talk 19:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - underbaked project with no clear purpose as evidenced by the creator stating above
You know what. Im changing the premise of WPPicadilly.
-- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
x[edit]
Please read Wikipedia:Piccadilly#EXPLANATION. - Snipertron12 Talk 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
June 13, 2024[edit]
User:Wesalius/model[edit]
The predicted date for reaching 7 million articles will likely be inaccurate. Also, it will just keep changing every day, so we will never know exactly when Wikipedia will reach 7 million articles. So, such predictions are pointless and this user subpage (transcluded at User:Wbm1058) should be deleted. GTrang (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - a user subpage speculating on when 7m articles is reached is related to Wikipedia and a valid use of user space. So what if the prediction is inaccurate. And what of its transclusion? If the user who transcluded it wants it there, what of it? -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Nothing wrong with having a little counter gadget in one's own userspace. I'd equate it to creating a little clock display for current time in two time zones which I see fairly regularly. It's in the user's userspace, not harming anything, has no code syntax errors, and to the best of my knowledge, is not causing hardly any server load, so no justifiable reason to remove it. Accuracy/sources are not required in userspace, so why care if it's inaccurate? Zinnober9 (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - There were similar projections when we were approaching 6 million. No policy-based reason to delete, and maintaining interest in the seven million goal is a common sense reason to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: In userspace, relevant-ish to the project. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Within the bounds of what we allow in userspace. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
June 12, 2024[edit]
Draft:2020 Carolina Panthers Schedule With Time And Date[edit]
- Draft:2020 Carolina Panthers Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 4 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft:2020 Appalachian State Mountaineers Schedule With Time And Date[edit]
- Draft:2020 Appalachian State Mountaineers Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 3 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft:2020 All Teams Schedule With Time And Date[edit]
- Draft:2020 All Teams Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 2 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft:2020 Charlotte 49ers Schedule With Time And Date[edit]
- Draft:2020 Charlotte 49ers Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 1 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
June 9, 2024[edit]
Draft:Colourblocks[edit]
Fails WP:GNG, has been draftified for like a couple years and there is no sign in improving the article to be put back in mainspace. 48JCL TALK 00:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. None of that is a reason for deletion. Standard AfC processes suffice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per SmokeyJoe. There's a lot of edits made to it over the years but that's pretty common in this subject area. Don't see any reason to delete the draft. Skynxnex (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The draft is being worked on continually. The only time limit for drafts is that drafts that are abandoned for six months are deleted. If the community had intended there to be other time limits for drafts, they would have specified. This draft is being edited, sometimes by unregistered editors, and sometimes by registered editors. There is no deadline for the improvement of drafts, as long as they are being edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mainspaced via AfC. This decision can be contested in an AfD. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies.—Alalch E. 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
June 8, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:Don't dive thinking that the referee won't notice[edit]
- Wikipedia:Don't dive thinking that the referee won't notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I'm not sure this is something we need; I'm not even sure this is something I understand, and I don't see how this is really relevant to Wikipedia editing. The basic setup is already difficult: what does diving have to do with whether you tackled someone earlier on or not? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy - This essay appears to use faking a foul in association football as some sort of metaphor for civil behaviour, but the essay is incomprehensible. The author an have it as a user subpage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy pending an explanation from the originator. As User:Whpq says, this is about association football, but, as Whpq says, is incomprehensible. It is about a player who fouled an opponent and got it away with it, and then fakes having been fouled by the same opponent to try to get them given a yellow card, when the offenses were not their fault. So the topic is a player who is repeatedly playing unfairly. It isn't clear what this has to do with Wikipedia, or with disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Old business[edit]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 15 June 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
June 6, 2024[edit]
User:Freavene[edit]
I think this is quite possibly attack-esque, although I don't feel it's bad enough for csd. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- ok the attack text was removed, so honestly withdrawn Gaismagorm (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Revdel. seems like a personal attack. Per my understanding of WP:RD5, MfD has the authority to Revdel, so let's do it. I'm not opposed to oversight if a functionary thinks it's necessary but, to me, it seems a bit excessive. Nickps (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:9t5 User Page Contest[edit]
Because of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and because the page does not meet any of the criteria listed as appropriate under Wikipedia:Project namespace#Pages within project namespace. Possibly also because of WP:NOTHERE, as it seems to provide monetary incentives for users to do something else using Wikipedia's platform other than improve the encyclopedia. Maybe a request at some central forum to create something like this and demonstrate community support for it might overcome some of these objections, but I don't know that this is supportable coming from an individual initiative. If this were commonly replicated by other users, or even if this one initiative attracted wide participation it seems like it could hurt the goal of the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for random user-page-design contests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia already has a history of holding contests. My point was to encourage friendly competition, and give back to Wikipedia in the process. Just because web design isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia doesn’t mean that Wikipedians are barred from enjoying competitions that celebrate their skills. And again, like I said, it’s been something that has been done plenty in the past. 9t5 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point to some examples of successful contests that weren't directly related to editing (and hopefully improving) article content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would also note that "done plenty in the past" (i.e., WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a defense against deletion. This is a volunteer project, and there are plenty of things out there that are contrary to guidelines for any number of reasons. For example, if you create an article with no citations, the presence of these 136,000 unreferenced articles is not an argument that will protect your unreferenced article from deletion, if it should be nominated. So, rather than rely on previous contests, please find a policy or guideline that supports your position and negates the ones listed above that argue in favor of deletion. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mathglot So case law and precedent is good enough to run the United States legal system on but .. not Wikipedia. Okay. Noted. Seems a bit like you’re implying that at the end of the day it comes down to the preference of higher ranking editors and not principle at all.
- @AndyTheGrump A fair request. I will post my response to that later tonight!
- Best, 9t5 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side voting their preference, versus only two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mathglot I personally hold the belief that what I was trying to do was address the growing problem of the decline in new editors WP:LOSE2WIN.. by engaging the community in a way that would allow for perhaps some genuine relationships to grow/allow new editors to interact with their peers in a lighthearted way that isn’t so serious such as an AfD.. the issue is the inability to have any room for change on the platform by those up on the top. The rigid inability to grow with the times, has led to a rapid decline. Paired with the fact that deletionists overtook a platform that used to be MUCH more inclusive. Listen, you can wikilink almost anything anybody says to WP:.. whatever the hell you choose to shape your narrative.
- I was offering to donate $5 per contestant who participates simply to make it something that was something people could enjoy AND it would be doing some good for the Wikimedia Foundation. I must’ve been misguided though.. it’s not like they’re begging for donations or something crazy like that. Maybe I should redirect my energy towards finding things to delete simply because “well pointing to cases in the past where pages weren’t deleted under the same exact circumstance isn’t technically an argument against deletion because section 405 of the gotta kill all the fun section of the destroy Wikipedia from the inside out section states: if an editor smiles, it’s gotta be deleted” 9t5 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side voting their preference, versus only two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @9t5, see WP:WAX. 48JCL TALK 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete in the absence of a detailed explanation as to what this contest is about and what its purpose is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon The format is for editors to sign up, and then on August 2nd a theme gets announced (examples: Gothic Architecture, Greek Mythology, Marine Life). Then August 2nd-August 9th, editors who signed up are able to edit their user pages to have it creatively incorporate the theme. They can revert their user pages right back to what they were prior — submissions are of the specific revision of their final user page design. Those who submit a revision before the week closes will be considered valid entries. Then August 12th-August 19th (allowing a weekend for me to go through and make sure no guidelines were violated etc.) voting would be open to extended confirmed users (to prevent meatpuppetry). August 20th I was going to announce three winners with the most votes.
- I thought it would be fun to bring the community together. I am not very shocked, I guess that the attempt was met with a deletion nomination. 9t5 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia:Danny's contest was held as a means to increase the amount of featured articles on the website because the issue on Wikipedia back then in 2006 was getting quality of the writing to improve. Today, the issue on Wikipedia is retaining new editors. Danny’s contest sought to implement donation as a means of a larger contribution to a cause while encouraging positive change on Wikipedia.. I simply am confused why this contest is seen as aiming to do anything different. The changes are to user pages and would not affect the mainspace at all, but if the issue is that people want only writing contests to exist… I will happily change the contest to a creative writing one. However, this website consists of more than just article writers. There are template editors who have entirely different skill sets that I am sure would be really into a coding contest like this. I rest my case. 9t5 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation may have little or no value to the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is the labor of love of its volunteers. The WMF owns the servers, but that is about the extent of the support that the English Wikipedia receives. Some of our volunteers are deeply skeptical of the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Interesting. I didn’t know this. 9t5 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy Does not work as a projectspace page, but I don't see why it could not be a page in 9t5's userspace. The requirements there are much less strict. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Mathglot and AndyTheGrump.—Alalch E. 17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: For my argument on the topic, see WP:CREATECOMMUNITY.
- 9t5 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Move to User:9t5/Userpage Contest per arguments above. I see absolutely no reason to just straight up delete it. 48JCL TALK 02:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
June 3, 2024[edit]
User:Rawen Ab/Userboxes/Google Maps Local Guide[edit]
- User:Rawen Ab/Userboxes/Google Maps Local Guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is not a userbox, and it is not serving any purpose in userspace. I will remove it from its listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet/Websites. Are there grounds for uncontroversial deletion? TNstingray (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately CSD G1 doesn't apply here. It could be tagged as U5, but there is clearly disagreement upon admins. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. What's the purpose of deleting it? The editor has been active this year and could decide to format it as a userbox as it seems to meet
Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages)
and/orExperimentation (usually on subpages)
from WP:UPYES, for example. Skynxnex (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) - Keep: I assume this is meant to be something along the lines of "This user is a Google Maps Local Guide" but was not completed for whatever reason. Concur with removing it off the listing as it is incomplete, but is otherwise a non-obtrusive work-in-progress. Curbon7 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a problem.—Alalch E. 09:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Useless cruft. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
May 6, 2024[edit]
Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh[edit]
The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Matrinp. There are WP:Parallel histories here so this can't be histmerged. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Martinp and Pppery /... and Extraordinary Writ; switching back to my original recommendation: after a more careful look it is now clear to me that the histories are unrelated and I agree the question of who gets the credit is not important/ (parallel histories).
Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.—Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) - Selectively History Merge: As per others in this discussion. There's no overlap with the first 5 revisions. TarnishedPathtalk 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with a redirect as the page history will be preserved. TarnishedPathtalk 00:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. History merges at best make the history harder to decipher and at worst give a misleading impression of what happened. In this case there's no legal attribution issue, and giving someone "credit" is not a good enough reason to resort to a histmerge, in my opinion. (Requests like this are regularly declined at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)