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.
A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
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
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 134 | 60 | 194 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 46 | 54 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
- Pages currently being considered 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.
April 20, 2022
Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination
- Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Wikipedia:NOTAGUIDE PAVLOV (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as spam, five of the eight references given are to the same cleanairdeliveryrate.com site, a low quality affiliate-link blog. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: The Family of Mr. Triangle (2020 Movie)
- User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: The Family of Mr. Triangle (2020 Movie) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake redirect to fake article Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Space Void Corner
- User:Mariofan3/Space Void Corner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
MarioFan vanity page Dronebogus (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Condescendture Adventure
- User:Mariofan3/Condescendture Adventure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Yet another of MarioFan’s vanity pages Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/List of The Smart Guys episodes
- User:Mariofan3/List of The Smart Guys episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
MarioFan cruft. Fake article/vanity page Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: The Movie
- User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
MarioFan cruft. Redirect to fake article. Dronebogus (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GoemiBwoy |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 16:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:GoemiBwoy
TNT, is terribly written. PAVLOV (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
|
User:Mariofan3/sandbox
- User:Mariofan3/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
More shameless WP:NOTWEBHOST abuse from Mariofan3 Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3
- User:Mariofan3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Misuse of userspace as a webhost Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- bro, leave me alone, I got the memo days ago, that's enough, i'll stop using wikipedia that way, you have no reason to pursue me further Ryan Jay (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- keep, Is this a webhost? just a welcome. PAVLOV (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:UBX/Idiocracy
- User:UBX/Idiocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Calls subject an idiot, blatant attack page even if probably accurate. Dronebogus (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Complicated. I think it is ok for use criticising a serving politician, but not past politicians. Is Trump a current politician? Will he run 2024? I’d like to see an RfC on political advocacy in Userboxes and userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- He’s current as far as I care, and even if you disagree only a few years out of office. At minimum we should have a 10-year moratorium on boxes for politicians after leaving office. Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Complicated. I think it is ok for use criticising a serving politician, but not past politicians. Is Trump a current politician? Will he run 2024? I’d like to see an RfC on political advocacy in Userboxes and userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:UBX/Trump misguided
- User:UBX/Trump misguided (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Compares subject to mass-murdering dictators. Even though I hate trump, and the box says “misguided”, this seems like it crosses a line into intentionally inflammatory attack content. Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think this userbox is a disservice to Wikipedia, and a more acceptable variation can easily be found for a Wikipedia to declare their personal political biases. I thing an RfC on politics in Userboxes and userpages is desirable. I think the dividing line should be between one describing oneself (acceptable) and asserting abhorrent qualities to a living person (unacceptable). I expect that many would support allowing strong opinions on campaigning politicians, but my personal opinion is that Wikipedia advocacy on issues not well tied to the purpose of Wikipedia is advocacy that damages the reputation of Wikipedia. There are reasonable arguments that Wikipedia should have a voice on matters that impact the free access to information, eg Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), but advocacy against a politician on the basis that they are stupid, this is too broad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April 19, 2022
Draft:Snazzy the Optimist
- Draft:Snazzy the Optimist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Surely six declines is enough? Self publicist using Wikipedia as a web host 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Challenge the author to ignore AfC and unilaterally mainspace it themself, Userfy, remove all AfC taggery reworded bold !vote SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC),
Mainspace the draft. Plausibly notable. Six declines shows AfC is not getting to a good solution. Allow nomination at AfD, but encourage the AfC reviewers to watch, not drive, the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- It shows that six different people all think this draft shouldn't be mainspaced. Mainspacing this and AfDing (or letting someone else do so) it is a foregone conclusion, and thus a waste of time, as is this draft's continued existence. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it’s not. It is plausibly notable. Nigerian topics suffer systematic bias against inclusion on Wikipedia. AfC suffers bias to only accepting obvious “keep”s if AfD-ed. Six declines with not Rejects and no useful help from reviewers means that AfC has exhausted is usefulness to the draft’s proponent. The real decision can only be made at AfD. I disagree that it would be SNOW deleted at AfD, but am interested to see how it would play out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD is not a waste of time, and is a better course of action than leaving the draft in the AfC system.
- Maybe the immediate action should be to Userfy, tell them they may mainspace it themself, but it does not have the support of AfC reviewers.
- I strongly Oppose deletion of this draft as it is plausibly notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Perhaps you would be kind enough to show how he passes WP:NMUSICIAN (or WP:BIO)? If you can do so I feel your argument would be totally acceptable. If not then I believe it fails. Please take your argument about systemic bias to a forum where it can be discussed. This not the correct venue. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Timtrent, if I thought this passed an SNG I would promptly mainspace it, as I have done before from MfD. I don’t know for certain either way. The problem then is that MfD is the wrong forum for deciding notability.
- XfDs are the right forums for discussing systematic bias, you are certainly wrong about that.
- I think you completely misread my subtext. If the notability is ambiguous and AfC can’t decide, repeatedly declining never accepting or rejecting, and can’t give the author actionable advice that they can understand, then the draft needs to be kicked out of AfC. This is a conundrum. I’m suggesting that the author should be challenged with: We can’t help you, but it’s within your right to mainspace it yourself and see if it gets deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Perhaps you would be kind enough to show how he passes WP:NMUSICIAN (or WP:BIO)? If you can do so I feel your argument would be totally acceptable. If not then I believe it fails. Please take your argument about systemic bias to a forum where it can be discussed. This not the correct venue. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It shows that six different people all think this draft shouldn't be mainspaced. Mainspacing this and AfDing (or letting someone else do so) it is a foregone conclusion, and thus a waste of time, as is this draft's continued existence. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- If reviewers thought the topic could not meet the SNGs then they should have Rejected, not Declined. It’s not clear whether KylieTastic (20:09, 15 March 2022) & Liance (20:29, 14 March 2022) were referring to the draft and listed references, or the topic and sources that exist. The first is encouragement to beef up the draft, and the second is a reject/delete rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe mostly comments/reviews should be taken as based on the content submitted unless the comment says a deeper look has been done. However I do think I did a brief extra check due to the claim of a charted single. However with only one song released in Oct 2021 it could be just WP:TOOSOON. Also the source for reaching 35 in the iTunes chart i find dubious as the drill down graph only shows one logged position at 90, so maybe just a temporary/daily/hourly high?. However only having 21 subscribers on YouTube, 110 monthly listeners on Spotify and 1 follower on soundcloud they do not appear to be notable for there music. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Kyle. I agree with you. I think this is arguably GNG-meeting, but it is the only GNG source, which goes straight to TOOSOON. I think the author is pushing too hard, he needs a clear message, but deletion of the draft is too much. AfD deletion, citing TOOSOON, would be a suitable outcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe mostly comments/reviews should be taken as based on the content submitted unless the comment says a deeper look has been done. However I do think I did a brief extra check due to the claim of a charted single. However with only one song released in Oct 2021 it could be just WP:TOOSOON. Also the source for reaching 35 in the iTunes chart i find dubious as the drill down graph only shows one logged position at 90, so maybe just a temporary/daily/hourly high?. However only having 21 subscribers on YouTube, 110 monthly listeners on Spotify and 1 follower on soundcloud they do not appear to be notable for there music. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith
- User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Beside being rather obscure and not widely used, this userbox can be considered very inflammatory and divisive. Stating that you support Ian Smith, the head of the racist regime in former Rhodesia, is not much different from stating that you support apartheid in South Africa (the closest ally of the Smith's regime, by the way), or the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Confederate "enthusiasts" in the US, for instance. —Sundostund (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Historical. Not offensive except to someone digging looking for offence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the argument that its historical can hardly be acceptable for this userbox. By using that logic, it would be possible to allow almost all kinds of userboxes supporting historical racist regimes. And where the end would be, with the userbox stating support for Adolf Hitler? Would that be acceptable? I don't think so. —Sundostund (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you can compare the two as Hitler started World War II in Europe, and oversaw The Holocaust. As noted in the previous MfD we have had polarizing politicians here in the US such as Donald Trump and Barack Obama. What makes Ian Smith any different other than being a controversial figure? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- “Rather obscure” is a really bad reason for deletion. It does NOT say “… support Ian Smith”, but is couched past tense and implies lack of current support.
- If a Wikipedian reported their membership in the NAZI Youth, that would be acceptable as a statement of their personal history without violating NONAZIS. Many people supported the late Ian Smith, and an admission of that is not automatically forbidden. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the argument that its historical can hardly be acceptable for this userbox. By using that logic, it would be possible to allow almost all kinds of userboxes supporting historical racist regimes. And where the end would be, with the userbox stating support for Adolf Hitler? Would that be acceptable? I don't think so. —Sundostund (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NORACISTS, or at best “substantially divisive” per WP:UBX. Seems like an unnecessary “both sides” userbox nobody is going to use and not an actual attempt at disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Sufficiently divisive. As the first, last, and only Prime Minister of Rhodesia, he's synonymous with the former white ethnostate. From his article:
Smith, who has been described as personifying white Rhodesia, remains a highly controversial figure.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC) - Keep as the userbox isn't specific or clear which things about him were supported. Are we talking about events before or after Rhosedia's Declaration of Independence? Ian Smith's time in office is recent enough for those around to remember good or bad things about him. I also want to note that the nominator's rationale is similar to the last "Keep" Mfd regarding this userbox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm very surprised it closed as keep the first time, the userbox originally read "Ian Smith did nothing wrong" which is much worse than what it says today. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh gaw. Dronebogus (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The older version was much more offensive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm very surprised it closed as keep the first time, the userbox originally read "Ian Smith did nothing wrong" which is much worse than what it says today. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Genealogical tree |
---|
The result of the discussion was: revert move back to userspace FASTILY 01:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Genealogical tree
No reason for this to be here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
|
User:TheStrayDog/Userbox Let's Go Brandon
- User:TheStrayDog/Userbox Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Let’s Go Brandon is a troll/insult phrase meant to be understood as a euphemism for “fuck Joe Biden”. I cannot see this being used in a constructive manner, seems purely disruptive and possibly even constitutes an attack page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Has infiltrated popular culture. Unless Wikipedia writes down objective rules for politics in Userboxes on userpages, these things are best tolerated. Censorship battles are much worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. It does appear to be quite unconstructive, and may constitute an attack page. —Sundostund (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Wikipedia is not censored. And there are a bunch of userboxes against another politician, and per Wikipedia:ATTACK, attack pages are "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject", which this does not. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)- Uh, how is this not an attack page if LGB literally just means “fuck Joe Biden”? And WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant to userbox content. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also a terrible argument— just nominate the Trump boxes if you think they’re disruptive, which most of them aren’t. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can you cite an example of disruption of Wikipedia due to this userbox?
- I don’t read this message, either version, as an attack, but instead as an expression of disapproval. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isn’t an argument. We don’t nominate boxes because of specific incidents of “disruption”, which is impossible to prove, but because of the broken window theory— if we don’t have some kind of basic standards eventually there’s going to be loads of far worse userboxes citing WP:OTHERSTUFF as precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. “It could disrupt” is very different to “it disrupts”. This userbox will never disrupt anything, because it is already big outside Wikipedia. It may be insulting, but it is not trolling, and it is not disruptive to Wikipedia. Userboxes are not required to be constructive. I think the broken window theory is disputed, a correlation, not a cause. Deleting this userbox will confuse userbox standards, not set them. The current stand exists, just lower than you seem to think is right.
- There IS no standard. Every single userbox debate is case-by-case with a limited, non-binding reliance on precedent and the most likely deliberately vague limits set by WP:UBX and WP:UP Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. “It could disrupt” is very different to “it disrupts”. This userbox will never disrupt anything, because it is already big outside Wikipedia. It may be insulting, but it is not trolling, and it is not disruptive to Wikipedia. Userboxes are not required to be constructive. I think the broken window theory is disputed, a correlation, not a cause. Deleting this userbox will confuse userbox standards, not set them. The current stand exists, just lower than you seem to think is right.
- That isn’t an argument. We don’t nominate boxes because of specific incidents of “disruption”, which is impossible to prove, but because of the broken window theory— if we don’t have some kind of basic standards eventually there’s going to be loads of far worse userboxes citing WP:OTHERSTUFF as precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, how is this not an attack page if LGB literally just means “fuck Joe Biden”? And WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant to userbox content. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also a terrible argument— just nominate the Trump boxes if you think they’re disruptive, which most of them aren’t. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Ibrahim Coker/sandbox
- User:Ibrahim Coker/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is fictional history set in the near future written in the past tense. I am not tagging it as a hoax for speedy deletion as G3 because it is in a sandbox, and a considerable amount of leeway is allowed with regard to the use of sandboxes. However, user page guidelines apply to sandboxes, and they include a rule against user pages that look like articles, and this looks like an article that contains untrue history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep typical sandbox content, doesn’t seem intended as deceptive nor appear to be an article. Dronebogus (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Misinformation, malicious, insulting to China, can only bring Wikipedia into disrepute, and is a driveby dump by a non-contributor. Delete as disruption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am new to wikipedia, so I admit that I am still getting a feel of things and violated WP:FAKEARTICLE, but could you please elaborate on how my snadbox article is malicious or misinformation? Unless you're referring to bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, there was no harmful intention brought along by my sandbox. The sandbox is misinformation in the idea of the information itself being false, but misinformation also carries malice. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- The presentation of fantasy as fact.
- The part about lynching is egregious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lynching is the extrajudicial murder of someone without a fair trial, and in the scenario, that's what happened to Xi. There's a lot of egregious and horrible things that happen in real life and fiction, I don't see how that makes me malicious, especially since I didn't present it as a good thing. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be WP:NOTHERE. What is your editing experience at Wikipedia? Is this your first account? Presenting a fictitious scenario involving the lynching of a named living person is egregious and is WP:G10 worthy and is a blockable offence on your part. China should not get soft treatment for being paranoid, but allowing stuff like this, completely inappropriate to the project, and hostile to China, will only worsen the situation where they block Wikipedia. Go elsewhere with your speculative future histories, it is not encyclopedic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- China already blocks Wikipedia. There’s nothing we can do to make them block us more so it just sounds like you’re getting offended for the Chinese government (not Chinese people, the PRC government) for some reason. I don’t think this constitutes G10 since it’s not calling for Xi Jinping to be lynched. It’s just someone’s speculative history pet project, and while not appropriate for Wikipedia you seem to be WP:BITING for the sake of biting. Dronebogus (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not offended for China, but this fiction would be offensive to China (PRC government, sure).
- I’m offended that fiction is presented in-universe. See WP:WAF. It’s bad practice everywhere on Wikipedia.
- Mostly, discussing the future lynching of any living person is WP:G10 worthy. Creating an enticing story about your demise is more insidiously offensive than simply calling for your demise.
- WP:BITING. You think this is a newcomer? I deny that, I think he is a probably troll and SOCK violation. In any case, this page is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia, and as it is his only contribution, he is a net negative to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet? Of who? You can’t just throw around accusations baselessly. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you going to MfD WP:DUCK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you going to MfD WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- His sole “contribution” is to write a fictional future history scenario involving the lynching of the Chinese leader. What good intention do you think he brings? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- None, but my problem is you’re lashing out at an easy target over a WP:RAGPICKING issue, with a bizarre focus on protecting a ruthlessly authoritarian government from being offended. Dronebogus (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fictional histories are always deleted, and so they should be. They are a hazard to any editor who stumbles across them and doesn’t suspect the material is false. This is not ragpicking, fiction presented as fact is a hazard to the project.
- The focus on the egregious element is the proposed lynching of a living person.
- China being able to correctly point to content that is offensive, false and misleading is I think a fair point to note in addition. It is not the focus of my rationale to delete.
- I think it is extraordinary that there is a “keep” !vote. It is deceptive. It may not be intentional deception, but if not it is foolish. It is a hazard to the project, and if it weren’t for the “keep” vote I’d have tagged it {{db-g10}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I never ever made a "proposal" to lynch Xi Jinping, nonetheless anyone at all. Believe it or not, I do not support extrajudicial murder. Yes, it is part of the scenario, but I never put it forward as if it was a consideration (what a "proposal" is), I feel like you're trying your best to frame me in a harshly negative light. I've already clearly done something wrong, you have no reason to stack ontop all of the other things you're flinging my way. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- None, but my problem is you’re lashing out at an easy target over a WP:RAGPICKING issue, with a bizarre focus on protecting a ruthlessly authoritarian government from being offended. Dronebogus (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- His sole “contribution” is to write a fictional future history scenario involving the lynching of the Chinese leader. What good intention do you think he brings? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you going to MfD WP:AGF. Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you going to MfD WP:DUCK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet? Of who? You can’t just throw around accusations baselessly. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- A few years back (5-6)? I had a wikipedia account where I fixed some spelling/grammatical errors on pages whenever I found one, but I abandoned it since I had a lot of other priorities. For now, I noticed a spelling mistake on an article and decided to start a new account to clean up/janitor small errors like that and start my sandbox, which has gotten me here. I honestly don't know what makes you think that I'm a sock puppet or a troll. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- China already blocks Wikipedia. There’s nothing we can do to make them block us more so it just sounds like you’re getting offended for the Chinese government (not Chinese people, the PRC government) for some reason. I don’t think this constitutes G10 since it’s not calling for Xi Jinping to be lynched. It’s just someone’s speculative history pet project, and while not appropriate for Wikipedia you seem to be WP:BITING for the sake of biting. Dronebogus (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be WP:NOTHERE. What is your editing experience at Wikipedia? Is this your first account? Presenting a fictitious scenario involving the lynching of a named living person is egregious and is WP:G10 worthy and is a blockable offence on your part. China should not get soft treatment for being paranoid, but allowing stuff like this, completely inappropriate to the project, and hostile to China, will only worsen the situation where they block Wikipedia. Go elsewhere with your speculative future histories, it is not encyclopedic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lynching is the extrajudicial murder of someone without a fair trial, and in the scenario, that's what happened to Xi. There's a lot of egregious and horrible things that happen in real life and fiction, I don't see how that makes me malicious, especially since I didn't present it as a good thing. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am new to wikipedia, so I admit that I am still getting a feel of things and violated WP:FAKEARTICLE, but could you please elaborate on how my snadbox article is malicious or misinformation? Unless you're referring to bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, there was no harmful intention brought along by my sandbox. The sandbox is misinformation in the idea of the information itself being false, but misinformation also carries malice. Ibrahim Coker (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Meh, probably blank? - For anyone who remotely seems WP:HERE, I think we should have very few requirements for sandbox content, but for whatever reason some people create user accounts just to write fictional silliness in userspace. This looks like one of those cases, so I wouldn't object to it being deleted (or, really, is there any need to do more than blank it?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for your made up ficitonal history. There are plenty of free hosting options on the web that one can use. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April 18, 2022
User:Alexbarbershop
- User:Alexbarbershop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Seems to violate WP:webhost RockstoneSend me a message! 22:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Already raised concerns at talk page. If the contributor doesn't respond, then I suggest the page should be at least blanked. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as per nominator. Not a U5 because the editor is a real editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- weak keep not sufficiently disruptive, even if it’s an inappropriate vanity page. Dronebogus (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - User page content is is given some latitude. It looks like a verbose way of indicating their interests. Whpq (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep not seeing any intended or actual disruption. Just another user page which tells me about the user. Llwyld (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Bullitt County, Kentucky/production
- Talk:Bullitt County, Kentucky/production (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Abandoned subpage from 2011 with no present-day purpose. Last MFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation. I see no historical content worth keeping Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mark historical - Nothing significant has changed since earlier this month. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Soborno Isaac Bari |
---|
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. It's snowing and we don't need to entertain this circus any longer. Star Mississippi 17:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Soborno Isaac Bari
this borderline hoax has been repeatedly deleted from mainspace and draft - it's all sourced to press releases and other unsavory outlets (even IOL and other recognizable names) and it's time to put an end to this sock playground. CUPIDICAE💕 16:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:WikiProject Long Island
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Long Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Going through the list of members, most of them have not edited since 2015 at the latest. One of the co-founders is retired and the other is banned.
The project was first tagged inactive in 2010 and has been re-tagged since 2020. The only non-trivial edits on the project page were made by a banned user, and the talk page was never used once. In short, there is nothing to archive here. With virtually no activity from the start, and most of the existing activity being the creation of a banned user (WP:DENY), I suggest deletion and redirection to WP:NY, which covers the content better. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge into Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state). The template for articles tagged under "WikiProject Long Island" already reads "WikiProject New York (state) / Long Island" - might as well make it into a task force. Going through the project's talk archives suggests that this was, at one point, a somewhat active project, but this was a very long time ago. Quite a few discussions from '08 to '12, a couple in '14, and not much after that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state). Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April 16, 2022
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Kuril Islands
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Kuril Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
So obscure that hardly anyone will use it, this userbox was created by a user known for supporting Soviet/Russian propaganda and Russian irredentism, on top of that. —Sundostund (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as propaganda. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete typical nationalist irredentist posturing from unproductive user. Not particularly offensive but I’ll support any uncontroversial deletion of WP:SOAPBOXing. Dronebogus (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - don't see how the propaganda/soapbox reasoning applies when it's a userpage and nonpromotional in nature. Do we delete all similarly nationalist userboxes on that basis? Kind regards, ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- It should be a case by case basis as there is nothing wrong with having nationalist views on Wikipedia within reason. The wording on the template is provocative and looks like it is meant to trigger an argument rather than just having an innocent position on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Something being provocative is subjective. If we went and deleted all userboxes which could at all in any manner provoke someone then I'm not sure we'd have many userboxes at all (if any). It's a flawed way to go out about removing something. ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I just hate nationalism on Wikipedia because it’s frequently connected to disruptive behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Personally" being the operative word... userboxes don't revolve around your own feelings/views, I'm afraid. It's a way for other editors to express themselves. There are userboxes I do not agree with but I don't advocate their deletion just because I dislike their subject matter. This seems to be the recurring theme with these recent deletion nominations - I do not like it, so it must go. Kind regards, ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point. WP:UBX explicitly bans “divisive or inflammatory” userboxes. Dronebogus (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not missing anything. UBX doesn't "explicitly" ban anything, it's a set of guidelines. Given the userbox isn't breaching the civility policy there's nothing wrong with it. If UBX was a set of hard and fast rules then userboxes would be getting deleted left, right and centre for "divisive" or "negative" verbs, let alone their actual content. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sure the closing administrators have heard time and time again the "if you delete this userbox then you have to delete them all" argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. I’m going to make a list of “arguments to avoid in userbox discussions”, including that one and “disruptive userboxes are a warning that the user is crazy, so we should keep them” Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure they have but that's not the argument I'm making. I was explaining how the userbox guidelines don't "explicitly ban" anything that doesn't violate actual Wiki policy. I would agree the wording of "... Islands are ..." could be substituted with something that better implies personal opinion but it's hardly a gross infraction. Furthermore, I don't really see the point in actually debating these guidelines in relation to these specific nominations because as far as I can ascertain they're being applied as something as an afterthought with the primary reason for deletion boiling down to "I personally don't like it" given words like "tankie" (not in this instance) and "propaganda" being flung around. Worth mentioning that the former ("tankie") is a pejorative term so it'd probably be best to retract as that would go against WP:CIVILITY even if the user is no longer active. ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sure the closing administrators have heard time and time again the "if you delete this userbox then you have to delete them all" argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not missing anything. UBX doesn't "explicitly" ban anything, it's a set of guidelines. Given the userbox isn't breaching the civility policy there's nothing wrong with it. If UBX was a set of hard and fast rules then userboxes would be getting deleted left, right and centre for "divisive" or "negative" verbs, let alone their actual content. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point. WP:UBX explicitly bans “divisive or inflammatory” userboxes. Dronebogus (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Personally" being the operative word... userboxes don't revolve around your own feelings/views, I'm afraid. It's a way for other editors to express themselves. There are userboxes I do not agree with but I don't advocate their deletion just because I dislike their subject matter. This seems to be the recurring theme with these recent deletion nominations - I do not like it, so it must go. Kind regards, ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I just hate nationalism on Wikipedia because it’s frequently connected to disruptive behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Something being provocative is subjective. If we went and deleted all userboxes which could at all in any manner provoke someone then I'm not sure we'd have many userboxes at all (if any). It's a flawed way to go out about removing something. ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- It should be a case by case basis as there is nothing wrong with having nationalist views on Wikipedia within reason. The wording on the template is provocative and looks like it is meant to trigger an argument rather than just having an innocent position on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete This one isn't the worst userbox this user's produced, but still overly propagandistic. I've no problem with the wording of "This user supports Russia in the Kuril Islands dispute.", that's fine. However, the large + bolded + italicized "The Kuril Islands are Russian, not Japanese" is too WP:SOAPy. Cleaning it up would involve replacing the userbox-2 template with the userbox template, and if one is to remake it from scratch, they may as well make a newer, better userbox. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- That would be my main issue as well. The template can be fixed, but unfortunately falls under the revdel problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Monster Assignment
- Draft:Monster Assignment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. This is a homework assignment someone has decided to host on Wikipedia McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, obvious WP:NOT. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic. Llwyld (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT what we're are here for. SN54129 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral - Once a draft has been rejected, and isn't vandalism or an attack page, there is no harm in letting it rot for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Why bother wasting server space? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- No @CollectiveSolidarity: More server space was created with this MfD page, plus there will always be a copy of the draft for admins to see. SK2242 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was joking, apologies. But still, I agree with the reasoning of the other editors. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- No @CollectiveSolidarity: More server space was created with this MfD page, plus there will always be a copy of the draft for admins to see. SK2242 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for essays. This is not the draft for an article. Whpq (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not a draft. It's disruptive that they submitted it to AfC and contributed to its backlog. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April 15, 2022
User:XKV8R
- User:XKV8R (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST but unqualified for U5 so here we are. This page, and User:XKV8R/CV, are blatant self promotion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This would have been a valid draft that would probably have been declined. If it had been a draft, it would have expired as WP:G13G13 by now. As a user page, it is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - If it were in draftspace it would have expired, but it's in userspace and therefore does not expire. Lots of people write biographies of themselves on their user page. If there's confusion about whether this is an article, there are templates to make it clear. I don't think we should be saying people can't put biographical information on their own user page so long as they're WP:HERE. With a few thousand edits, that seems the case here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of links on the userpage is against WP:NOTCV which states that
Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
. The user's live edits within userspace is standing at ~25% (~500/~2000) and I believe that out of the 1300+ deleted edits, a large majority of them were edits at User:XKV8R/CV. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)- In practice, we give a huge amount of leeway to all but new users to write about themselves and add random information about their interests that have little to do with Wikipedia (cf. most userboxes). But even if it were the case that this is too much, that doesn't mean we need to delete the history. There are options like trimming/blanking that come before that (although blanking here wouldn't be appropriate because there are multiple sections explicitly connected to their wiki activities). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of links on the userpage is against WP:NOTCV which states that
- Keep: Not unreasonable and could be notable. Move to User:XKV8R/Robert Raymond Cargill and leave it alone. Encourage the main Userpage to be used for introducing the editor, not a formal biography. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Are we really doing this again? After all of the law suits and court cases? This entire page was subject to trolling and cleanup and censoring and adjudication during the 2007-2010 legal disputes involving People_v._Golb, and publicized on the front page of the Chronicle of Higher Ed (https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-fall-of-an-academic-cyberbully/). Let's not rekindle the fire.
- A User can have a user page. User:Minorax has one, and puts on there what Minorax pleases. User:Robert McClenon has one. So why can't I? Perhaps mine looks like a CV because I'm a professional scholar (Go Hawks!), and that's how we do things. I'll tell you what I told the WP censors a decade ago: if you try flexing your muscles and driving the scholars off of wikipedia—especially those of us who defend and promote (and contribute) to the project—then it diminishes the integrity of the entire service. How about you let people portray themselves as they wish? Would you like it better if I put a sleeping cat animation and an article of the day on my user page? One of the beauties of WP is that we're not all the same, and we have different areas of expertise. I've been on this platform for 15 years, and NOW you want to delete it?. How about we find better things to do than patrol scholars' User pages. Thanks. -bc XKV8R (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- While I support keeping here, regarding
Perhaps mine looks like a CV because I'm a professional scholar (Go Hawks!), and that's how we do things.
-- What you're seeing in this nomination is a reaction to breaking cultural norms about user pages. The norm is for a userpage to be primarily about Wikipedia-related activities, sometimes with some biographical details thrown in. That's true for a regular Randy in Boise as well as all but maybe one or two of the hundreds of academics I've known who edit Wikipedia. Now, I don't think we should have strict rules against it, and don't support this deletion nomination, but that's why you're going to get some very mildly resentful sideways glances. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- While I support keeping here, regarding
- A User can have a user page. User:Minorax has one, and puts on there what Minorax pleases. User:Robert McClenon has one. So why can't I? Perhaps mine looks like a CV because I'm a professional scholar (Go Hawks!), and that's how we do things. I'll tell you what I told the WP censors a decade ago: if you try flexing your muscles and driving the scholars off of wikipedia—especially those of us who defend and promote (and contribute) to the project—then it diminishes the integrity of the entire service. How about you let people portray themselves as they wish? Would you like it better if I put a sleeping cat animation and an article of the day on my user page? One of the beauties of WP is that we're not all the same, and we have different areas of expertise. I've been on this platform for 15 years, and NOW you want to delete it?. How about we find better things to do than patrol scholars' User pages. Thanks. -bc XKV8R (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
April 14, 2022
Draft:Damed Imanov
- Draft:Damed Imanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All of the sources are unreliable. I can easily see that, this sources were created for PR purposes. In government sources, his name is listed. This is not adequate for WP:GNG. Also, this article was created by a globally locked user. In my opinion, this article needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 18:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - On the one hand, the sourcing issues, which have to do with notability, are not a reason to delete a draft. On the other hand, its creation by a user who has subsequently been banned is a reason to delete (although not a reason for G5 because user was not blocked at time of creation). Also, previous deletion of article means that draft will not satisfy notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damed Imanov. Previously deleted, and work of banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a sea-faring person with an award from the President. Draft is written like a Press Release (plagiarism from the sources, after using translate.google.com) I'd question if these sources are independent. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Talk:2022 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs
- Talk:2022 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
There is a standing WP:WPTC consensus that JTWC data should not be used for calculating ACE as it's not RSMC data. There is also consensus that we need to stop calculating ACE on our own. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I am in agreement with Jasper that we shouldn't calculate the Accumulated Cyclonic Energy that a season has as it smacks of original research in my opinion. For the Western Pacific in particular we can not derive just one number based on one warning centre as unlike other basins there is no single voice with each NMHSS deciding how intense a system is based on a variety of factors. As a result, I am forced to vote delete to this research page.Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - This is original research, but should have been discussed with the WikiProject (even if the WikiProject is on trial). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I would !vote to delete if I could verify the consensuses at WP:WPTC that the nom mentioned, but all I found was a consensus that self-calculated ACE data may be used absent any official data. WikiProject Tropical Cyclones doesn't seem to all agree on whether or not the ACE calcs they produce violate WP:NOR, but if they ever do agree that they are an unacceptable violation of the policy against original research, then all of the countless "/ACE calcs" subpages out there will have to be nominated for deletion en masse. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Vanilla Wizard: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_43#RFC:_ACE_Calcs indeed is that RfC; CSU provides WPAC (typhoon) statistics so this is not a case covered by that exemption.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for clarifying this. In that case, I support deleting this subpage. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is also worth noting that Talk:2020 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs was deleted a few years ago via the MFD process.Jason Rees (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for clarifying this. In that case, I support deleting this subpage. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Vanilla Wizard: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_43#RFC:_ACE_Calcs indeed is that RfC; CSU provides WPAC (typhoon) statistics so this is not a case covered by that exemption.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April 13, 2022
User:Bmhatten/sandbox
- User:Bmhatten/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Autobiography of not notable author. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's in a sandbox. Would need rejecting if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - sandboxes don't have to be notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete per WP:USERBIO, not for any notability reason. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:User Ez
- Template:User Ez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
There is no such language that exist or EZ code does not exist. Airtransat236 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Kurmanji#Dialect continuum. Dortana (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The code needs to be changed to KMR per Template:Lang-kmr. This is a dialect of Category:User templates ku. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to KMR-EZ Airtransat236 (let's talk) 16:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
April 12, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Johns Hopkins |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 02:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Johns Hopkins
Stillborn WikiProject. A lot of infrastructure has been set up, but there is no actual
|
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Moscow in 1993
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Moscow in 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
An obscure userbox, unlikely to be used by anyone, created by a user known for pushing Soviet/Russian propaganda. —Sundostund (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- weak delete per nom, more useless than offensive. Dronebogus (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Meh. It's in userspace, so doesn't have to be useful to anyone else. If the primary objection is that it's in the userbox category, I don't object to removing it. On the fence about deletion. Looking at some of these noms, I think a group nom might've been appropriate given these userboxes are basically all this user has done on enwp. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Andropov
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Andropov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by a user known for pushing Soviet/Russian propaganda, the sole purpose of this minimally used, rather bizarre userbox is to glorify Yuri Andropov as the only "normal" (hardcore Stalinist) Soviet leader since the death of Stalin in 1953. —Sundostund (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete pro-authoritarian tankiebox, but more importantly who actually cares enough about this guy to use this thing? No-one, as it turns out. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Don't be so rough; obviously, the tankie who created this userbox cares very much about Andropov ;) —Sundostund (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone here can define the word "normal" which has no agreed upon definition. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87: IMHO, in this context the word "normal" is an anti-revisionist POV. Its intention is to present Soviet leaders from Stalin to Andropov as being "not normal", for not adhering to the principles of hardcore Stalinism, and being revisionists instead. —Sundostund (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Bizarre, useless, unused, and likely intended to be an endorsement of Andropov's Stalin-esque policies. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - some users here seem to be unaware that Wikipedia has these things called "policies". Most of the reasons outlined above fit neatly within an arbitrary "do-not-like-it"ness and not within any serious reasons as to why this userbox should be deleted. If you are apparently so upset by a userbox promoting a national leader of a country that no longer exists, I implore you to get to work on some articles - Supreme Soviet of the National Economy is in quite a sorry state for a such key agency in the USSR. But until then, "pro-authoritarian", "not-defined", "bizzare" - these are not reasons to delete anything and there are indeed quite a few userboxes that tick any of these categories, yet curiously receive no attention from the anti-"tankiebox" crusaders. Perhaps channel your apparent recentism into something productive, rather than destructive? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, that’s condescending. Have you heard of WP:UBX and WP:IAR? Dronebogus (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Glad you noticed. Now if you only employed IAR in a proper manner instead of weaponizing it to remove content you personally seem to disagree with (and seem to be, by all indication, especially concerning the language used, on a crusade against), and also noticed that WP:UBX is not policy, we could maybe get somewhere. All the best. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Guideline, whatever. Stop Wikilawyering. And how exactly am I supposed to use IAR “in a proper manner”? Your comments here seem to be intended to WP:ABF, make WP:personal attacks, and make a WP:POINT against users you think aren’t engaging in the “right” areas of the wiki. Why don’t you “get to work on some articles” and “channel your apparent recentism into something productive” instead of making passive aggressive comments on subjects you supposedly don’t care about? Especially considering you’ve made a grand total of 285 edits since 2020. Dronebogus (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can see you might consider basic competence in Wikipedia regulations to be "wikilawyering". Good faith has its limits, just like any policy, and when your primary stated reason for a deletion is "pro-authoritarian tankiebox", well, that's well beyond said good faith. I'd like to see where exactly I have made personal attacks against you - pointing out your misconduct and suggesting better avenues for your collective interests are not by any measure personal attacks. I can see you have not actually thoroughly read WP:POINT, so I invite you to do so, as to not misuse it again. If you're quite done with your gish gallop of pointlessly bringing up policy in invalid contexts (I believe there's a term for that - "wikilaw... something", anyway...), then we can either move onto discussing why this completely harmless infobox deserves to be purged, other than that you do not personally agree with its sentiment and you don't think it's quite that useful. If we can't do that, I suggest you take a breather, relax a bit, put things in perspective. It'll do you some good. PS. Bringing up someone's edit count to prove a point is frankly pathetic and I would rethink that tactic if I were you. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is it “pathetic” when you’re admonishing everyone else to do more mainspace editing when you have barely done any yourself?! 44% of your 280something edits are classified as “small” which doesn’t exactly scream “great article writer”. Dronebogus (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not "admonishing" you for not doing enough mainspace editing, I'm simply suggesting productive rather than destructive avenues for your interest in Soviet history - I'm sure there is no other reason for why you would be deleting this userbox, no? PS. Doubling down on it doesn't help, friend. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not particularly interested in this, I’m just going through boxes created by a disruptive user. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- We delete content based on the content, not on the user who created said content. I thought this went without saying? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Their content is disruptive. And it’s their only real editing, so WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the content is disruptive, why don't you go ahead and tell us how? All you've offered is an ideological argument and that "nobody cares" - that is what I would classify as being disruptive, not making an infobox praising a long-gone leader of a now-nonexistent state. WP:NOTHERE is not a content guideline - it is a user conduct guideline and does not permit you to unilaterally declare all of that user's content disruptive by-association. I thought we were done with misusing policy? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Previous deletion discussions have established that supporting Stalinism is unacceptable content for a userbox Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Stalinism" is not a concrete concept that one could "support". Deletion consensus is established per-case and what is indeed unacceptable is deriving a broader consensus than has been obtained. Deletion discussions establish consensus for deleting content - not for what is acceptable or unacceptable content - that is derived from Wikipedia policy. To say otherwise would be untenable and frankly illogical. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Previous deletion discussions have established that supporting Stalinism is unacceptable content for a userbox Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the content is disruptive, why don't you go ahead and tell us how? All you've offered is an ideological argument and that "nobody cares" - that is what I would classify as being disruptive, not making an infobox praising a long-gone leader of a now-nonexistent state. WP:NOTHERE is not a content guideline - it is a user conduct guideline and does not permit you to unilaterally declare all of that user's content disruptive by-association. I thought we were done with misusing policy? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Their content is disruptive. And it’s their only real editing, so WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- We delete content based on the content, not on the user who created said content. I thought this went without saying? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not particularly interested in this, I’m just going through boxes created by a disruptive user. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not "admonishing" you for not doing enough mainspace editing, I'm simply suggesting productive rather than destructive avenues for your interest in Soviet history - I'm sure there is no other reason for why you would be deleting this userbox, no? PS. Doubling down on it doesn't help, friend. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is it “pathetic” when you’re admonishing everyone else to do more mainspace editing when you have barely done any yourself?! 44% of your 280something edits are classified as “small” which doesn’t exactly scream “great article writer”. Dronebogus (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can see you might consider basic competence in Wikipedia regulations to be "wikilawyering". Good faith has its limits, just like any policy, and when your primary stated reason for a deletion is "pro-authoritarian tankiebox", well, that's well beyond said good faith. I'd like to see where exactly I have made personal attacks against you - pointing out your misconduct and suggesting better avenues for your collective interests are not by any measure personal attacks. I can see you have not actually thoroughly read WP:POINT, so I invite you to do so, as to not misuse it again. If you're quite done with your gish gallop of pointlessly bringing up policy in invalid contexts (I believe there's a term for that - "wikilaw... something", anyway...), then we can either move onto discussing why this completely harmless infobox deserves to be purged, other than that you do not personally agree with its sentiment and you don't think it's quite that useful. If we can't do that, I suggest you take a breather, relax a bit, put things in perspective. It'll do you some good. PS. Bringing up someone's edit count to prove a point is frankly pathetic and I would rethink that tactic if I were you. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Guideline, whatever. Stop Wikilawyering. And how exactly am I supposed to use IAR “in a proper manner”? Your comments here seem to be intended to WP:ABF, make WP:personal attacks, and make a WP:POINT against users you think aren’t engaging in the “right” areas of the wiki. Why don’t you “get to work on some articles” and “channel your apparent recentism into something productive” instead of making passive aggressive comments on subjects you supposedly don’t care about? Especially considering you’ve made a grand total of 285 edits since 2020. Dronebogus (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Glad you noticed. Now if you only employed IAR in a proper manner instead of weaponizing it to remove content you personally seem to disagree with (and seem to be, by all indication, especially concerning the language used, on a crusade against), and also noticed that WP:UBX is not policy, we could maybe get somewhere. All the best. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The incivility and condescension is not appreciated. No offense is intended by this, but a very new user such as yourself shouldn't be making attacks along the lines of some users here seem to be unaware that Wikipedia has these things called "policies"
. Our !votes here are consistent with the relevant guidelines for deleting userboxes, specifically WP:UBCR and WP:UP#NOT. See Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)
and In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense
. There is precedent for deleting userboxes that are considered sufficiently useless, too. Your other comments, such as If you are apparently so upset by a userbox promoting a national leader of a country that no longer exists, I implore you to get to work on some articles - Supreme Soviet of the National Economy is in quite a sorry state for a such key agency in the USSR
reek of WP:Other stuff exists and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before patronizing others over their perceived lack of familiarity with them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- They’re not new, they’ve been here about as long as me. They’re inactive. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, but you can’t do practically nothing to build an encyclopedia then chastise others for not building an encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Odessa in 2014
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Killed in Odessa in 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by a user known for pushing Soviet/Russian propaganda, this userbox was apparently intended to present the Russian side as victims in the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. —Sundostund (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete neither side looks particularly good here, and the event was internationally regarded as a tragedy. But context obviously implies this is supposed to be promoting the pro-Russian wing as political martyrs and not show sympathy to victims of civil unrest. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This is per the article (sourced from the Ministry of Internal Affairs -Ukraine): "Later reports showed that none of the identified victims was from Russia or Transnistria. Out of the 48 people killed, 46 were from Odessa or Odessa region, one from Mykolaiv Oblast and one from Vinnytsia." Hence there is no evidence that the people burned that day were activists or were from Russia. Maybe the userbox can be re-worded? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87: Nobody claimed that the people burned that day were from Russia. They were locals from southwestern/southern Ukraine, supporting Russia during the 2014 unrest. This userbox is not intended to show sympathy for them, but to present them as victims/martyrs of a "genocide" perpetrated by Ukraine. —Sundostund (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Sundostund, the userbox's decision to be in the Soviet colors of red and gold (as many of this user's more propagandistic ones are) isn't helping anything either. This is just one of many userboxes created for the sole purpose of depicting Ukraine as a barbaric anti-Russian state, not to respectfully honor those who died. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: Road to Christmas
- User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void: Road to Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTWEBHOST fake article Dronebogus (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a userspace draft. notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia. a draft is related to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per same rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews. Not a userspace draft. These should have been bundled and nominated for speedy deletion as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void was. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per VanillaWizard and FAKEARTICLE. Is it just me, or are there three deletion templartes on the page? SN54129 12:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/List of South City High episodes
- User:Mariofan3/List of South City High episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake article. WP:NOTWEBHOST. No evidence of notability Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a userspace draft. notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia. a draft is related to Wikipedia. userspace drafts don't have to be notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per same rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews. Not a userspace draft. These should have been bundled and nominated for speedy deletion as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void was. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is it not a userspace draft? (asking this at both articles -- feel free to reply in just one). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It’s not a draft because the creator has implied at ANI that it’s a vanity page. Dronebogus (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- What Dronebogus said, and what the creator says on their own userpage -
"here I will post my edit timetables, information on myself and where my fans (if so) are free to check out my talk page and to my articles (they are fake, they aren't relevant)"
. Fake articles from a user who's admittedly using their Wikipedia page as a web host. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is it not a userspace draft? (asking this at both articles -- feel free to reply in just one). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/List of Snowtab in the Void episodes
- User:Mariofan3/List of Snowtab in the Void episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake article for non-notable web series, WP:NOTWEBHOST abuse Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a userspace draft. notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia. a draft is related to Wikipedia. userspace drafts don't have to be notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per same rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews. Not a userspace draft. These should have been bundled and nominated for speedy deletion as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mariofan3/Snowtab in the Void was. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is it not a userspace draft? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews
- User:Mariofan3/Rom Hack Reviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fake article for non-notable web series, WP:NOTWEBHOST abuse Dronebogus (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment All of the subpages of User:Mariofan3 should be bundled together, as the same deletion rationale applies to all of them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete None of these are actually userspace drafts, they describe them as fake articles themselves. If I'm not mistaken, these hardly even count as WP:FANCRUFT because these are about the editor's own YouTube channel. All of these fake articles are about a supposedly very popular series created by someone named "Ryan Jay", which just happens to be this editor's signature. This is their IMDb page and this is their YouTube channel. I have a feeling this is all they're on the encyclopedia for judging by how they reacted to their sandbox being nominated for deletion. Fandom is definitely the website they're looking for. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - If they're sufficiently self-promotional to be deleted, tag them for CSD. Otherwise, they're just userspace drafts. Nobody will ever see them other than people looking for stuff to delete in other people's userspace. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
April 11, 2022
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Antitrotskyist
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Antitrotskyist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Trotsky was murdered with an ice axe, which is what’s depicted in this userbox. Though there’s nothing offensive about the text, an image is worth a thousand words— even if this happened ages ago it’s still basically endorsing the assassination of political enemies. Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Its inexcusable and unacceptable to create userboxes with the intention to condone murder of people, regardless of the fact when the murder in question happened. —Sundostund (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I normally avoid userbox deletion debates, but this is a special case, because, as the nominator notes, it is endorsing, if not the assassination of political enemies in general, one historical assassination. Wikipedia has No Nazis largely because the Nazis were political murderers, and all political murder must be condemned. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Dronebogus, Sundostund, and Robert McClenon: I made an attempt to salvage this userbox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Knowledgekid87: Your attempt to salvage this userbox seems quite legitimate to me, but the fact remains that, even if modified as you proposed, the history of this userbox will still contain something highly unacceptable (its original version). I still think its necessary to expunge it through deletion. My advice to you would be to create a completely new Antitrotskyist userbox, as you proposed it here, while this one should remain a subject for deletion. —Sundostund (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I see that as an issue, I was just trying to show that you can make something acceptable out of the situation. I really have no opinion on Trotskyism here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t either. But I think the revisions need deletion Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The ones condoning murder I mean Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t either. But I think the revisions need deletion Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I see that as an issue, I was just trying to show that you can make something acceptable out of the situation. I really have no opinion on Trotskyism here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The salvage attempt is appreciated, but I agree with Sundostund that the original was so egregiously unacceptable that it'd be better to make a new one for people who disagree with the ideology than to salvage one that originally explicitly endorsed homicide. Userboxes are cheap to make and cheap to delete, after all. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as it doesn't explicitly endorse/condone political assassination. I'd agree that's an interpretation of it but it doesn't say that on the tin. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The photo in the userbox is of Trotsky in 1924; I don't see how that image is disruptive or expresses a murderous message. An infobox containing
this user opposes communism
with a picture of Karl Marx would not be so inflammatory or disruptive as to warrant deletion. Likewise, a userbox that contains an image of Trotsky and expresses a disapproval of the ideology doesn't violate WP:UBX. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)- It was altered. The deletion request has been disrupted by this change so I’m reverting even though it’s in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Thank you for your revert, its the only logical way to avoid confusion here. @Mhawk10: I think you may want to reconsider your vote, now when you can see the userbox in its original state, as its creator envisioned it. —Sundostund (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund and Dronebogus: From what I'm seeing, a user attempted to modify the userbox so that it would be compliant with WP:UBX, which was subsequently reverted by the nominator arguing that it hurt deletion arguments. That isn't a good reason for reverting an edit; in almost any other deletion discussion, destroying all attempts to improve the entity nominated for deletion would not be seen as productive. While the original version of the userbox clearly violates the guideline, the current version does not. That a previous version of a page was a violation of WP:UBX is not a valid deletion reason. If I wanted to delete a page because of this edit, even though the current version of that anti-anarchist userbox is fine, then my nomination would be moot. The same applies here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd agree that the example you linked to is analogous; I think there's a meaningful difference between pages that happen to have a bad revision and pages that were created for the wrong reasons. Difference between an article that was vandalized once and an article that was made as an attack page. Userboxes in particular tend to be created with a specific message and purpose in mind, so while some can be salvaged, the most extreme ones are better off being deleted than turned into loosely related inoffensive ones. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sundostund and Dronebogus: From what I'm seeing, a user attempted to modify the userbox so that it would be compliant with WP:UBX, which was subsequently reverted by the nominator arguing that it hurt deletion arguments. That isn't a good reason for reverting an edit; in almost any other deletion discussion, destroying all attempts to improve the entity nominated for deletion would not be seen as productive. While the original version of the userbox clearly violates the guideline, the current version does not. That a previous version of a page was a violation of WP:UBX is not a valid deletion reason. If I wanted to delete a page because of this edit, even though the current version of that anti-anarchist userbox is fine, then my nomination would be moot. The same applies here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Thank you for your revert, its the only logical way to avoid confusion here. @Mhawk10: I think you may want to reconsider your vote, now when you can see the userbox in its original state, as its creator envisioned it. —Sundostund (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was altered. The deletion request has been disrupted by this change so I’m reverting even though it’s in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This picture encourages murder. Illegal under the first amendment, illegal under wikipedia. User:Mr Reading Turtle
April 10, 2022
Portal:Tennis
- Portal:Tennis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unmaintained and out of date—the "Upcoming tournaments" section includes tournaments that became defunct 5+ years ago—so does a disservice to readers and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Receives just 20 views per day despite being linked on 55000 pages including articles that get millions of views a year, e.g. Serena Williams. Letcord (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Redundant and inferior to Tennis and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Another useless portal SK2242 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep When you have an article that has been here and been used (by no matter how few) for 15 years you would never just delete it. Perhaps someone would want to fix it up better. I would redirect it to Tennis or Outline of tennis until such time that someone would like to tackle an upgrade. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think that will happen? Portals are slowly dying, not being built anew. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have suggested redirecting as a method of archive before, but no one interested in portals seems interested. I guess it’s not as if there is actual unique content in the portal, so it doesn’t matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: But redirects are cheap. They give an added bonus that if someone does want to take on the updating it can be done in the same style and not from scratch. And yes it archives which is important. It seems like a no brainer to me that we would redirect the page unless someone wants to do the work right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep –
- I removed the outdated Tournaments section (diff). This took a matter of seconds to accomplish.
- The portal contains links to high-quality subject and biographical articles.
- The portal is a useful navigation tool.
- The portal would benefit from more links to it in articles, which would then increase the page views it receives. The portal actually has only 1,015 links to it in article namespace.
- The link count cited in the nomination are mostly from the portal template being on the Wikiproject banner template on talk pages, but most readers to not read or navigate from talk pages.
- The portal was significantly updated in May 2020. See the page's Revision history for more information.
- – North America1000 13:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that. All the high-quality subject and biographical articles are already linked at WP:TENNIS. The "only" 1,015 articles that link to the portal receive 400,000 page views a day; of which 25 (0.00625%) click through to the portal, so in practice it's not a useful navigation tool. "Significantly updated", perhaps, but evidently not by an editor with a enough knowledge of the subject area to realize that a key section was completely out of date. This portal is obviously not wanted by the tennis-editing community, and that is reason enough to delete it as they're needed to keep it properly up-to-date. Letcord (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Easy updates not being done is a sign of its failure.
- The mainspace page is where quality links are to be found.
- If it is useful for navigation, why isn’t it used for navigation?
- The portal would benefit? Does Wikipedia exist to benefit portals? More links from articles would detract from the quality of articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that. All the high-quality subject and biographical articles are already linked at WP:TENNIS. The "only" 1,015 articles that link to the portal receive 400,000 page views a day; of which 25 (0.00625%) click through to the portal, so in practice it's not a useful navigation tool. "Significantly updated", perhaps, but evidently not by an editor with a enough knowledge of the subject area to realize that a key section was completely out of date. This portal is obviously not wanted by the tennis-editing community, and that is reason enough to delete it as they're needed to keep it properly up-to-date. Letcord (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:Tennis:
- In 2021, the portal had 18 average daily pageviews, and the article had 2034 average daily pageviews. In 2020, the portal had 16 average daily pageviews, and the article had 1776 average daily pageviews.
- The number of viewers who find it a useful navigational tool is less than 1% of the viewers who read the article. Portals have two limitations as a navigational tool. First, they only permit the viewer to view the pages that the portal maintainer has already selected, which is less flexible than the use of links or categories. Second, they are only used by viewers who know about and use portals in the first place.
- There is no regular portal maintainer. The portal is maintained occasionally,
especially when there are questions about whether to keep it, bythe WP:Portal rescue squad consisting largely ofUser:Northamerica1000. Northamerica1000 likes portals. User:Northamerica1000 maintains portals either randomly or when they are questions about whether to keep them, functioning as an unofficial WP:Portal rescue squad. - Deletion of a portal does not delete encyclopedic content. It only deletes a navigational tool to information that is normally navigated using links or categories.
- Portals evidently have some mystical value. Some readers and editors either have no use for mysticism, or prefer organized religion.
- There are no guidelines for the keeping or deleting of portals, so that the main guideline is to Use Common Sense.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – regarding
"The portal is maintained occasionally, especially when there are questions about whether to keep it"
above, this is the first time the portal has been nominated for deletion. The portal was not nominated for deletion when I improved it in May 2020. It is quite misleading to suggest otherwise. Also, I am not a member of any rescue project on Wikipedia. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. North America1000 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Question – This portal, despite its above-average quality, fails in the usual questions, which have already been widely discussed, unnecessary complexity, excess links, narrow topic (Portal:Sports would be enough), lack of Wikiproject integration and unreferenced content, an example, the quote [1], which does not exist either in the Biographed article or in Wikiquote. The question is... like this portal, It's a problem a portal that was not created and maintained by the related Wikiproject? Analyzing [2] and [3], recently content portals are not being created and maintained by related Wikiprojects.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as I feel the arguments presented here are the same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland. The standard arguments being "portal topic is too narrow, that there are only a few page views, and that in its current form the portal is selective in a non-NPOV way" versus "broad enough to justify a portal, that the portal can be fixed and that the deletion arguments are not grounded in policy". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What benefit does an abandoned portal not curated or maintained by editors knowledgeable in the subject-area and not viewed by anyone bring? The years-outdated tournaments section demonstrates that such a portal can be a serious liability, so there should be a clear benefit for it to be worth keeping. Or is there no circumstance in which you'd not vote "keep" for a portal that passes your subjective "broad enough" threshold"? If so just say that.
- There is no specific policy for deleting a portal AFAIK, so arguments cannot be "grounded in policy". Letcord (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again... you are throwing out the same arguments. There is nobody stopping anyone from maintaining the portal until it meets standards so its a WP:SOFIXIT situation. Your reasoning of page views, maintenance and out of date info is actually covered in arguments to avoid for deletion discussions. These are surmountable issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What same arguments? I asked you specific questions. ATA is an essay tailored for content-deletion discussions. Portals are not content. Letcord (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, your arguments about management and dated information. WP:ATA does apply here as portals are considered content on Wikipedia, and the lead of the essay specifically states "this page is tailored to deletion discussion". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's an essay that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" which explicitly says "just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid" and that it is "tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects" i.e. not portals. You haven't answered the question about what clear benefit this portal provides that outweighs the cost of it being so unmaintained by knowledgeable tennis editors that it has sat displaying misinformation for 5+ years, something completely antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose as an accurate compendium of knowledge. Letcord (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, your arguments about management and dated information. WP:ATA does apply here as portals are considered content on Wikipedia, and the lead of the essay specifically states "this page is tailored to deletion discussion". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What same arguments? I asked you specific questions. ATA is an essay tailored for content-deletion discussions. Portals are not content. Letcord (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again... you are throwing out the same arguments. There is nobody stopping anyone from maintaining the portal until it meets standards so its a WP:SOFIXIT situation. Your reasoning of page views, maintenance and out of date info is actually covered in arguments to avoid for deletion discussions. These are surmountable issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Robert McClenon. Those claiming that portals are "useful" have not provided sufficient evidence, whereas the <20 pageviews a day are more than sufficient evidence that the portal is not benefiting anyone as a navigational tool. The argument that "you wouldn't delete an article that has barely been touched in years" is not valid since an article serves a vastly different purpose than a portal. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Maintained portal. It wasn't even that out of date before nominating it for deletion. The personal attacks towards Northamerica1000 here, and the framing that portals would be deleted if not for the one-person "portal rescue squad" only coming to save them when they're being nominated for deletion, are not acceptable. Deletion discussions very often result in rapid improvements being made, this is normal (WP:UDAC). I find it unconvincing that those who are quick to say "portals are not content, there are no deletion criteria for portals, they can be deleted per common sense" (really meaning per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) are appealing primarily to the same arguments used at the RfC to delete all portals (that portals are dying etc). I will never understand why those who feel very strongly that portals ought to be retired have to be so unnecessarily hostile and aggressive about it (accusing those who wish not to delete them of believing they "apparently have some mystical value" - really?). The proposal to delete all portals failed spectacularly years ago; arguments along the lines of "portals are useless" aren't enough to delete any specific portal. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do want to add in response to the nom's
The outdatedness of the tournaments section reflects the Tennis WikiProject's total disinterest in maintaining this portal; your removal of it doesn't change that.
- that's not how it works. I've participated in my share of portal MfDs over the years, and if a portal's only issue is that it was outdated (rather than fundamentally broken, unfinished, etc), then one person going in and fixing it up is enough to make it perfectly fine and no longer worthy of deleting. You can't go from saying "it's outdated" to saying "well, the project wasn't keeping it up to date." We don't care who fixes it up, all that matters is that it's up to standards. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)- I can say that actually because the removal of that section was only sparked by myself, a tennis editor, pointing out its outdatedness in this deletion discussion. If I hadn't done so then that completely false info would have remained proudly on display for who knows how long, and to what benefit? This kind of maintenance can only be done (or requested to be done) by tennis editors, so if none are interested then the portal cannot remain up-to-date and should be deleted. The RFCs, which were for the binary deletion of all portals at once, have no impact on specific portal deletion discussions and the validity of arguments made therein. If there are no specific deletion criteria for portals, then "IDONTLIKEIT", "portals are useless" etc. are arguments as valid as any, though they're not ones I've put forth here. Letcord (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do want to add in response to the nom's
- Keep most of the arguments put forwards for deleting this are actually arguments against portals in general. That's not something which can be settled at the level of an individual MfD, and an RfC on that topic produced a consensus against deprecating portals, so it's fair to say that arguments that portals should all be deleted go against community consensus. Pageview counts are fundamentally not a reason for deleting something. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and if something is encyclopedic then it has a place in that encyclopedia, regardless of how many people read it. If the number of people reading Wikipedia dropped sharply we wouldn't go and delete a bunch of articles. Hut 8.5 17:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
April 7, 2022
User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox
- User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. Per WP:USERFY#NO, material already not permitted in user namespace is not allowed to be userfied. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Inability to Smile, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - this is clearly a student using their sandbox to try to write and develop wiki articles, which is exactly what the sandbox is for. This stuff gets userfied because userspace is an appropriate place for it. Let the editor practice and make mistakes. No need to delete good-faith attempts at editing when there is no copybio or BLP vio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all, preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. And it's pretty poor to see Wiki Edu condoning this kind of thing. SN54129 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L - this is a sandbox, not a mainspace article wizzito | say hello! 03:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L. Nobody will see this apart from the person who wrote it, anyone helping that person, and people digging through other people's userspace looking for stuff to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN
- Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Article presents only a single view or definition of what the phrase means and does not go into depth or talk about any philosophy, approach or standard when it comes to editing or thinking about Wikipedia. I do not believe that providing a link to the essay would assist new users understand what Wikipedia is about. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the best “huh what?” statement since “plastics”. Not helpful to anyone, unclear what this even means in regards to WP. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve created an advice page that’s equally useful Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, since these two essays seem to be covering essentially the same topic and point of view, they are used in pretty much the same context in discussions, this essay doesn't really add anything that isn't better discussed in the other essay and I don't see how quoting lyrics from a copyrighted song and saying "we should do what this song says" is compatiable with the WP:Non-free content Policy. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Too small to be a copyright violation, if it was Wikiquote wouldn’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If we were to put in a redirect then I would actually prefer WP:SNOW as you can tell which way the wind is blowing, it is all heading in one direction, and it is time to invoke WP:SNOW. Which again highlights the lack of depth or explanation in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because the nom disagrees with the essay is not a valid deletion reason. There are big disclaimers on essays that say they lack community consensus—this is perfectly fine and acceptable for essays. If the essay sucks, you don’t have to cite it and you are free to write a counter-essay. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This essay doesn't say enough to be worth keeping or deleting, but it isn't against policy, and none of the reasons to delete it apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userify or weak delete. There is no essay here to be kept or deleted, as Robert McClenon correctly pointed out. I don't think it needs to be redirected to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue because I don't think anyone has ever keyed Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN. This page started as a single vague sentence in 2013, and it was never developed into anything more than that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userify or delete. This is vague and confusing as others have already pointed out. I don't see any disagreement with the essay from the nominator, but rather confusion on if its helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rampyari Gurjar |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Malformed nomination, no rationale given by nominator. The nomination was malformed. The discussion had no deletion rationale give, Closed pending education of the nominator (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Rampyari Gurjar
The nominator did not give a reason. 08:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Old business
April 12, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC) User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo
When used, this template can interfere with the interface by overrunning other elements, such as the control bars. — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/SCSE |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/SCSE
Beside being minimally used, this userbox was created with only purpose to push for pro-Soviet historical revisionism of the events surrounding the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt. —Sundostund (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
|