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 |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- 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 | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 2 | 131 | 0 | 133 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 16 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 55 | 0 | 55 |
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.
June 4, 2022
Wikipedia:List of youtubers that give content warnings for epilepsy sufferers
- Wikipedia:List of youtubers that give content warnings for epilepsy sufferers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Not a topic for WP. and in any case not verified in articles Smerus (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete We are not a WP:WEBHOST (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draftspace or userspace It's an attempt at an article, just in the wrong namespace. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify - Possibly worth keeping but not as an article.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Userfy: It could be the beginning of content suitable for mainspace somewhere. Do not Draftify, as it is not on a pathway to being an article. As it does not speak to Wikipedia and epilepsy intersection issues, it does not belong in projectspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Seanisverybest/sandbox/~
- User:Seanisverybest/sandbox/~ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Patent nonsense, gibberish, violation of WP:UP#GOALS, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Page is 2 million bytes in size, 51st largest page on the English Wikipedia [1]. User’s last edit was to this page in March 2020. MxYamato (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete User pages aren't a free pass to do anything. There is more leniency in userspace but creating a page with over 2000 (useless) citations seems like a waste of server space. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Armin111222/sandbox
- User:Armin111222/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Patent nonsense, gibberish, violation of WP:UP#GOALS, and WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Page is ~2 million bytes in size, user has made a grand total of 4 edits, last one dating to March 2014.
66th largest page on the English Wikipedia [2]. MxYamato (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No use I can think of of having ~2mb of the letter "I" especially on an inactive user's userspace (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Blackture/sandbox
- User:Blackture/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Patent nonsense, violation of WP:UP#GOALS , WP:NOTAWEBHOST. User’s last contribution was on 8 June 2020, 2 years back. All their contributions are limited to their own user space. Other user page(s) are in a similar state. This page is the 47th largest on the English Wikipedia (see: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/largestpages/en.wikipedia.org?include_pattern=&exclude_pattern=). MxYamato (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest that as a rule, you first consider blanking very large pages when the author is long inactive. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} was made for things like this. You can do that as a simple edit, no formalities required, but ideally explain why in the edit summary.
- I suggest that inactive user is never a big part of a deletion rationale. If it is ok for and active user, then it is ok for an inactive user. There are no timelimits. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the other page, but this one is plain gibberish? MxYamato (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that “gibberish” is a reason to delete a sandbox. Gibberish includes testing, and sandboxes are intended for it, and users should not be asked to explain their testing in sandboxes. There may be something offensive in it, but merely being gibberish is not offensive for a sandbox. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- UP#GOALS are very liberally interpreted in userspace.
- For NOTAWEBHOST, the deletion nominator needs to explain how they think it is being used for external purposes. I think the content does not look useful to others. I think that https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-05-14&end=2022-06-03&pages=User:Blackture/sandbox is evidence against it being used as a webhost. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not asking anyone to explain their test edits. I’m saying that this user has content that is gibberish, quite old, and the 47th largest page we have on enWP. Usual testing generally does not include ~2 million bytes. My point is given the sheer size, and the age and incomprehensibility, this page should be deleted. MxYamato (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that “gibberish” is a reason to delete a sandbox. Gibberish includes testing, and sandboxes are intended for it, and users should not be asked to explain their testing in sandboxes. There may be something offensive in it, but merely being gibberish is not offensive for a sandbox. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the other page, but this one is plain gibberish? MxYamato (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
June 1, 2022
User:UBX/SRI asexual
- User:UBX/SRI asexual (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I think that this may fall under WP:UBCR. Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction but it's enduring. It's an orientation that people identify as. This is like saying someone's gay because they take fluoxetine. Also while the adverse effects section in the article claims that it can cause "decreased libido" which again, is the not the same thing as asexuality, there's no evidence I'm aware of that taking antidepressants somehow irrevesibly changes your sexual orientation. The userbox states "past use of SRI drugs". Clovermoss (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC); edited 05:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC) and 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'm not against people identifying as asexual if they feel that label describes themselves. What I think could be under WP:UBCR is that "must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive" or "must not include incivility or personal attacks". The image in the userbox includes an image of a skull, which could potentially be seen as dehumanizing. That, with the accompanying text, which is "This user has been rendered mostly asexual and aromantic by the past use of SRI drugs" seems problematic. But if it's not something that qualifies for deletion under MfD, maybe it should be reconsidered being in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality#Asexual & related orientations? Clovermoss (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. This very possibly falls under WP:UBCR, and to me seems to be enough "inflammatory or substantially divisive" to warrant deletion. Also, an image of a skull really speaks for itself; I really wonder what the creator had on their mind when deciding to use it as part of the userbox. —Sundostund (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: While it may be true, eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108697/, it is uncited assertion of medical opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
May 31, 2022
User:Σούπερμαν/Userbox/Dnote
- User:Σούπερμαν/Userbox/Dnote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I'm aware that this is an anime reference but I don't think we should have userboxes that resemble death threats, even if meant as a joke. Spicy (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cute userbox, but yes, the wording is not ideal. Maybe (if the user is still active) you could ask them to reword it for something that's a bit less on the nose. WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as there is no particular person or persons involved here. The link to "Death Note" is clearly there to indicate that it refers to a work of fiction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. There should be no userboxes around that mention death threats in any way. IMHO, this userxbox is tasteless and immature, at best. —Sundostund (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Death jokes don't belong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Death note is a fairly known work of fiction, and in any case it's linked. It isn't threatening a specific person, it's a tongue-in-cheek dig at vandals (although an argument could be made for WP:DENY. Maybe reword it but I don't think it should be outright deleted. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
May 29, 2022
Draft:Marvel vs. Star Wars: Which is better?
- Draft:Marvel vs. Star Wars: Which is better? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I didn't know an opinion warranted a draft. — SirDot (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a draft, and drafts are normally kept unless there is a reason to delete them. Needing declining or rejecting is not a reason to delete a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep – Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Just let it be G13'd after six months. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an obvious violation of WP:NOTESSAY since its been brought here, but this really should have been left for WP:G13. This has no chance of ever making it to article space since it is just someone's personal essay on which of two franchises is better, and it fundementally violates WP:What Wikipedia is not 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTOPINION. Since it's been brought to MFD, let's not waste any more 6 months. Neocorelight (Talk) 05:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not a draft and so is not welcome in draftspace. Userfy it for the author, Mrsvision (talk · contribs), to User:Mrsvision/Marvel vs. Star Wars: Which is better?, and then Speedy Delete per WP:U5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- KEEP per WP:NDRAFT. I have learned from my previous nominations of drafts that you should not try to delete drafts for reasons that only applies to normal articles. Like I learned, I think you should've left this for G13 since the cycle has now been reset. THE Pizzaplayer!TALK TO MEE!! contribs 13:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTWEBHOST applies to all namespaces. This would be deleted in userspace and projectspace, so they reason does not only apply to articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a webhost criteria. Traveler • chat 01:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Being a draft doesn't give you free rein to write whatever you want. Drafts have to be drafts of serious articles, not some pseudo-essay about your opinion on pop culture franchises. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Lando
- Draft:Lando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Copy/paste of the German de:Lando (Graffitikünstler)
No single reason, but multiple non-fatal reasons taken together means this is already a stale draft:
- no attribution of original .de WP
- not English, and no attempt or request to translate
- bad title - will never reside at target, but just annoys me editing the dab
- 4 months stale, so in 2 more it's a speedy
- Two, maybe three of the sources are acceptable and one of them is big enough to add toward notability. But there's also pure spam, here, and as Widefox says, there's all kinds of other problems. I looked at it to see if it's worthwhile working on it, but I don't see that. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete only because the MFD nomination has restarted the calendar, so that it will now run for another 6 months unless we delete it. It had needed declining in January when I declined it, and it needed leaving alone, but wasn't left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Should the draft policy be edited so an MfD nomination doesn't restart the clock? Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Status quo ante: OK Robert McClenon, I wasn't aware my nom had the side effect of resetting the clock. Logically a failed MfD doesn't change the draft, and nothing comes to my mind why an MfD Keep close would want to reset the clock. So yes, I'd be in favour of changing the draft policy, surprised we have this jeopardy per WP:SNOW / WP:NORESCUE (rather than WP:TNT). An improvement sooner is better than an improvement later. (specifically with this case, we have a .de WP:CFORK instead of per WP:RFT creating an English stub and translating from the .de article, so is a procedural WP:NORESCUE) Widefox; talk 07:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Should the draft policy be edited so an MfD nomination doesn't restart the clock? Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Southafricannews/sandbox
- User:Southafricannews/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Seemed like self-promotion or hoax, But not sure. PAVLOV (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#U5. Also, delete as an unsourced WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as roughly equivalent to U5. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as doesn't appear to fall foul of WP:UP#PROMO. Amisom (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an unsourced BLP on a non-notable person, I can find no real coverage of this person, but after a bit of searching I managed to find their youtube channel which has 22 subscribers and 165 views. Created by an account who's only other contributions have been hijacking an article to promote this person.
User talk:Gay b1itch
- User talk:Gay b1itch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Disruptive
- username not widely appropriate Volten001 ☎ 03:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:DENY. Has not been used as a talk page except for the notice of this mfd. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is no point in deleting the user talk page. Maybe the nominator was trying to tag the user page for deletion, but there isn't a user page, and deleting a user page is not how admins deal with inappropriate usernames. It appears that the user has been blocked, probably for a username violation. I think that a deleted user talk page may be recreated by various actions anyway, which is a reason not to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and WP:BLANK per WP:DENY. There is no need to have this thing come back to us at a later date through recreation, blanking the page would indeed be the better option here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. This seems as highly inappropriate to me. —Sundostund (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong venue Pretty sure this isn't where inappropriate usernames are dealt with, I'm not sure where/how exactly you report this stuff to admins but if someone knows how that'd be great. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
May 28, 2022
Draft:Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki
- Draft:Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki
I was in the process of writing an AFD for this page, and then it was moved to draft space. The author appears to be trying to spam with articles about a Nepalese politician who may be himself or his employer. A check of the references is normally not relevant to a nomination to delete a draft. But in this case the references are about someone else and a different office, so that this draft is a non-obvious hoax. It doesn't qualify as G3, but it needs deleting.
Number | Reference | Remarks | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Kathmandupost.com | About the office of mayor rather than a person | Yes | Not about the subject | Yes | Yes |
2 | English.onlinekhabar.com | About the office of mayor of Kathmandu | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
3 | Kathmandupost.com | About someone else in a different office | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
4 | Wikipedia article | A circular reference | No | No |
The subject is supposedly the mayor of Mechinagar, which is being redirected to Kathmandu, but there is no indication that Mechinagar is an alternat name for Kathmandu. The mayor of Kathmandu appears to be Balendra Shah, and not the subject of this page. This is an non-obvious hoax, and should be deleted.
There appears to be a conduct issue, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I did some digging and found Mechinagar Municipality is a real place [3], and our Mr. Gopal is apparently the mayor of it. I have no idea why it redirects to Kathmandu. However, the wikipedia article has no sources so it's dubious. There is a user named '2022 Mechinagar Municipal Election' who changed the mayor from a Bimal Acharya to our Mr. Gopal on that page. The elections themselves aren't fake, the 2022 Nepalese local elections are definitely real. However, it's bizarre that someone made an entire account dedicated to updating the government of a tiny Nepali town, and I suspect that this may be some kind of sockpuppet case, perhaps even some political scandal may be involved here.
- [4] - the guy behind the nominated page
- [5] the guy who updated the mayor on Mechinagar Municipality
- I also found Draft:Resettlement plan, which baffles me. Again, this small town election is nowhere near notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Perhaps it's time for a batch nomination?
- Regardless, I have neither the time nor energy to delve deeper into investigating this like a wannabe Poirot. We are here to discuss the page, and it should be deleted for the reason it is not notable. The mayor of mechinagar has done nothing notable other than being the mayor of mechinagar. There is nothing notable about this office, about the person, nothing. If we are seeing a WP:SPI or WP:HOAX being discovered, that is not for MfD to decide. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SegaSonic the Hedgehog (spin-off franchise) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Draft:SegaSonic the Hedgehog (spin-off franchise)
Fails WP:GNG. And plus there is only one game and one canceled game that barely anyone knows about in this "Franchise". THE Pizzaplayer!TALK TO MEE!! contribs 17:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mario Versus Sonic |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Draft:Mario Versus Sonic
I HIGHLY doubt that this is going to happen. And plus WP:CRYSTAL. THE Pizzaplayer!TALK TO MEE!! contribs 17:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not
- Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete per WP:G5 as WP:SANCTIONGAMING which is skirting very closely (too closely, IMHO) around the edges of a topic ban. Was CSD'ed but that was removed by an editor who has since gone on to post a long WP:BATTLEGROUND rant at ANI coupled with WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page. Plus most of this is just bad advice that occasionally goes directly against policy and shouldn't be in project space (along with some broad-ranging but obvious ASPERSIONS against groups of editors, like for ex. Some editors go by an ultra-orthodox approach to implementing MEDRS, blanking articles and deleting text they consider to be in violation of the guideline and refusing to participate in subsequent discussions.
). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- This essay is random bad advice written by someone who has consistently found themselves in conflict with core policies. It is a place to bitch about editors they are in conflict with (conflict that has resulted in a topic ban which has just been widened). We already have a page that describes community consensus on what MEDRS covers and may be used for: Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which has long been the semi-official description of MEDRS's scope. -- Colin°Talk 15:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't feel this qualifies for G5 speedy delete, especially as editing occurred before the TBAN was expanded to all COVID. But in the context of this essay being part of the disruptive behavior that caused the TBAN to be expanded, I do believe the result of this delete discussion should be to delete. Particularly as almost all of the essay creator's edits involving MEDRS sourcing have related to COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, my concern is not that the essay is merely incorrect or invalid advice. It's that it's indicative of being WP:NOTHERE. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's true, but that tells us about a property of the author (not here), not of the essay itself. I agree though, it's rubbish - but Wikipedia has lots of rubbish essays. If things go the way they have with similar efforts, the essay will be allowed to stay but the project space shortcuts will need to go, which needs to be done via a separate process. O what a load of work this monkeying-around creates. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Precedent may dictate otherwise, but my comment remains that without a clean start from scratch, the provenance means it will continue to attract WP:NOTHERE editing. Can't build a stable house on a faulty foundation. I wouldn't be opposed to an inclusionist essay on this topic, but think the only way it will prove productive is a fresh start. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's true, but that tells us about a property of the author (not here), not of the essay itself. I agree though, it's rubbish - but Wikipedia has lots of rubbish essays. If things go the way they have with similar efforts, the essay will be allowed to stay but the project space shortcuts will need to go, which needs to be done via a separate process. O what a load of work this monkeying-around creates. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, my concern is not that the essay is merely incorrect or invalid advice. It's that it's indicative of being WP:NOTHERE. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep this is good advice for editors trying to navigate the pitfalls and traps of MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in medical and political topics. Gimiv (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Help me interpret
navigate the pitfalls and traps of MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV
in a way that isn't WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Help me interpret
- Delete because re-writing it to say something sensible – something that would actually help editors navigate MEDRS and FRINGE, and not just set them on a path towards getting blocked and TBANned – would require blowing it up with WP:TNT and starting over. If we can't agree to just get rid of it, then I'd suggest as my second choice to stick it in the editor's userspace and to delete the shortcut, because (a) that kind of shortcut gets misunderstood, especially by less-experienced editors, and (b) we might want it to point to a section in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Biomedical information. I am particularly concerned about the shortcut being confused with a section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - basically per WAID. It's an essay which is, at its core, three things: a statement that MEDRS is sometimes misapplied, an argument that we should include fringe or low quality biomedical information as long as it's attributed, and aggrieved finger-pointing. I completely agree that MEDRS is sometimes applied too broadly, but any attempt to address that is thoroughly undercut by the essayist's own arguments and behavior, which come out in the other two components of the essay. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. There seems to be a pattern of this user making controversial essays in projectspace during disputes. Does WP:CRYNPA also need some eyes on it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to have been created as the content was ejected from WP:NPA. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the order of events was CP added it to NPA, it was reverted, then CP made a projectspace essay about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's what I meant. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the order of events was CP added it to NPA, it was reverted, then CP made a projectspace essay about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to have been created as the content was ejected from WP:NPA. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
KeepUserfy —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Important policy discourse. To the extent of it being (in parts) bad advice or wrong, that can and should be solved by WP:EDITCONSENSUS and discussion on the talk page. The discourse is very important noting that WP:MEDRES is a specialist almost credentialed authority that most editors are unable to engage with. Even if this essay is poor, suppression of an essay is more evil. I agree with deletion of the shortcuts. I don’t support userfication because multiple editors, including me, support its continuation in project space. I support renaming to add the suffix “(essay)” to the title. Essays are allowed to be wrong, but essays looking like policy, by url or linking, can be misleading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t support TNT of the page, but I do support extensive editing to respond to the alleged wrong ideas. Use the current text as seed information representing what some people might think, and improve it, even to the point of a complete rewrite, but this does not require deletion of the original versions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe, the essay isn't so much a "poor" attempt at making a valid point, albeit perhaps a minority one on Wikipedia. What makes it irredeemably bad is that it purports to be a clarification of the scope of MEDRS, but is in that role a fork of the longstanding and semi-official essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information (which has more text dedicated to what MEDRS does not cover, than to what it does cover). If we are to discuss views of MEDRS scope then surely BMI is a better location than allowing topic-banned editors creating their own deviant variations. If there is a place to discuss how Wikipedia should handle fringe theories, then surely Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the place, and not a fork by an editor who pushes fringe theories and has got topic banned for doing so. The point about your suggestion that it can be improved is that editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia based on consensus policies and guidelines can already do that on other pages, without wasting their time fighting a battle on two fronts. If most editors feel the entire content of the page actively harms the project then what really is the point?
- I'd support keeping a somewhat contrarian essay if created by an editor in good standing and which clearly indicated that it was advocating a viewpoint that did not currently have consensus in policy. But this is neither of those things. -- Colin°Talk 07:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- You make the argument to redirect to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, aka WP:BMI. I wasn’t sure what the BMI stuff was about, Body Mass Index? I really dislike discussions with essential points in jargon.
- Forks should be fixed by redirecting, not deletion.
- I
support a merge and redirect, but not “delete” and not “pseudo delete by redirection”. This essays raises issues that I don’t see addressed at WP:BMI. - For WP:BMI, I don’t think the fringe elements are valuable, but do think that MEDRES-interpretation disputes is an important issue to document.
- I see that there is definitely a problem with the page as it stands, but I don’t agree that it is delete-worthy, and nor that the decision on how to fix is an MfD matter. If the page is continue, it most definitely should reference WP:Biomedical information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- That WP:BMI is the shortcut to Wikipedia:Biomedical information is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the essay we are discussing, and is highlighted at the top of Wikipedia:Biomedical information, the page I've explained already exists to document consensus on what MEDRS is or is not for. I don't know, I think indicating a lack of familiarity / careful reading of the subjects of the deletion discussion wasn't a good move.
- Wrt whether the essay raises issues not at WP:BMI, you don't give specifics. What are they? Perhaps they could be included? Perhaps they are mentioned already on endless talk page discussions and they just seem novel to you. You now recommend "merge" but what would be merged, if most of the comments here are of the "nuke it" variety? Most of it seems to be an explanation of why the author has earned their topic ban. -- Colin°Talk 11:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I hold MEDRES in very high respect, but have never engaged with it. Yes, “BMI” is throughout the page, I guess I expected it to be bluelinked, and I disliked the piping style that hides “WP” prefixes. I did read it through, but on a third read I note that I dislike it and can barely help skipping ahead. The writing annoys me in that is reads as self-asserting policy, and not as an essay. I see why it is nominated for deletion, but I think an effort should be made to capture the minority complain, not delete it.
- What is in the essay that is not in BMI is discussion on editor disputes. I see some considered opinion there. I have no experience with such disputes, but it is this, editor’s opinion on editor disputes, is the sort of thing that shouldn’t be deleted.
- If MEDRES editors can tell me that the author’s efforts are worthless, then maybe it should be userfied. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, for what it is worth, I created MEDRS, though am not the author of most of its content. And you already know WhatamIdoing, who created Wikipedia:Biomedical information in order to document the limitations of MEDRS scope (IIRC). -- Colin°Talk 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I now lean Userfy and delete the shortcuts. Userspace is exactly the right place for users to challenge guidelines and policy. I have read nearly none of the user’s TBAN history, but I don’t see anything in this page that is delete-worthy from userspace. I do agree that it does not belong in projectspace, where it is prone to mislead. It’s talk page looks like reasonable discussions can be had, and these can continue in userspace, subject to the scope and duration of the TBAN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:Colin, I have seen you in conversations with WAID, but I had you confused with someone else.
- I've settled on my !vote being "userfy, delete shortcuts, subject to TBAN conditions". My decision is based on my general preference to allow users to complain about policy, and against policy experts being allowed to easily suppress dissent by deletion.
- I do not mean to argue against others, who may know more about MEDRS, who are !voting "delete".
- I think a good reason to delete includes the page representing the user disrespecting their TBAN. However, I prefer to not even read about their TBAN, but instead to let people who do know about, and especially the TBAN discussion closer, to comment more meaningfully. Has the TBAN discussion closer been pinged? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Tamzin was pinged below. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, for what it is worth, I created MEDRS, though am not the author of most of its content. And you already know WhatamIdoing, who created Wikipedia:Biomedical information in order to document the limitations of MEDRS scope (IIRC). -- Colin°Talk 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t support TNT of the page, but I do support extensive editing to respond to the alleged wrong ideas. Use the current text as seed information representing what some people might think, and improve it, even to the point of a complete rewrite, but this does not require deletion of the original versions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The essay was clearly intended as a response to their TBAN. I have no opinion as to whether that triggers the G5 deletion rule. (I don't usually look at MfD.) IMHO, Nothing of value would be lost if it was deleted, to me it just reads like thinly veiled pro-fringe apologism. ApLundell (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: (a) The essay includes multiple statements implying / imposing action on editors such as "editors must consult the WP:BMI page", "editors must consult the WP:FRINGE page" and " If a dispute persists, ... editors should escalate it to a noticeboard or seek arbitration." rather than using "should consider" and other more neutral phrasing.
(b) I agree that having an essay / workflow on dealing with WP:MEDRS related discussions would be good but I think WP:TNT would be the best way of starting with it.
(c) If it is kept then I like the removing of the shortcuts and adding "(essay)" to the page name sounds like a good idea.
(d) We should remember that some people will use Wikipedia as one of the inputs for medical decisions which means that we should hold those pages to a higher standard than, for example, Harrods Christmas Bears which are unlikely to have peer reviewed articles about them (which is a pity).
(e) At the risk of being tagged for WP:OR this article talks to the impact of tv and newspaper stories on health topics and says "Studies of local TV coverage of crime, politics, and health, however, have typically concluded that its content suffers from sensationalism and frequently contains little substance". and finally
(f) others are better placed than I am but I am not sure that I would agree that "The WP:MEDRS guideline was created to uphold the WP:NPOV policy on biomedical information (WP:BMI)" rather than talking about the importance of providing accurate information. Gusfriend (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC) - Comment. Just a note that WP:G5 does not apply, as speedy deletion criteria are only valid when they apply unambiguously and need no discussion. Specifically, "For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban...", not "skirting very closely". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that I wrote this essay after an editor claimed that only MEDRS could be used to WP:INCLUDE allegations that the Chinese government was/is undercounting COVID-19 infections and deaths, despite the fact that those allegations are attributed to Chinese CDC and public health officials speaking off the record to Caixin. After the editor responded comparing these whistleblowers to "Dr Woo" and their allegations as "Woo pills" [6], I decided to write this essay and posted it on WP:VPP to get input, but instead this editor and others attacked me personally, labeling me a proponent of conspiracy theories [7]. This essay deals almost exclusively with a behavioral problem, and does not challenge WP:MEDRS, or usurp WP:BMI in any way. The accusation that I violated my TBAN in writing it is completely unfounded, just like the allegation that I am "anti-MEDRS" and it is telling of a personal vendetta against me. The persistent abuse of MEDRS is well documented on Wikipedia, and during the VPP discussion on this essay, the same editor claimed Havana syndrome is a conspiracy theory, despite the latest report providing very little certainty, just like the reports before it. I intend to write another essay as a guide for editors to communicate scientific uncertainty, and put it through the rigours of an ARBCOM case, if necessary. CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- More falsity. I gave an example about attribution of quackery, and it has nothing to do with any "whistleblowers". At this point, I am thinking this user needs a site ban because, either through intention or severe lack of competence, they are nothing but a blight on the Project. The promised new essay and arbcom drama strengthens the case further. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why did you give an example of quackery? It was clearly in response to my post about the whistleblowers. If there is no behavioural issue here, then surely the case request would be thrown out and you would have nothing to fear? CutePeach (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Read what I said. Your wheeze of "when attributed anything is allowed as it's no longer biomedical!" is something that's been tried (wrongly) in the past to try to inject quackery into articles. I am thinking of the good of the Project as a whole and not hyper-focusing on lab leaks, bioweapons etc. I guess you can't see that's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why did you give an example of quackery? It was clearly in response to my post about the whistleblowers. If there is no behavioural issue here, then surely the case request would be thrown out and you would have nothing to fear? CutePeach (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: I see you are now topic banned from "all of COVID-19, broadly construed". Considering that this essay does specifically include Covid-19, it might be an idea to check with the admin who extended your ban (@Tamzin: courtesy ping) whether you are still allowed to discuss this. (I'm not saying you can't, just that it's possibly worth checking). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: it is traditional to allow a few days for a newly TBANNED editor to unfurl things. I am in the process of responding to Tamzin and preparing an appeal via WP:ARBCOM. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: Sure, and I think it is reasonable for you to be able to defend your own creations in discussions such as this - I just didn't want you to be caught out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed site ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: Sure, and I think it is reasonable for you to be able to defend your own creations in discussions such as this - I just didn't want you to be caught out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: it is traditional to allow a few days for a newly TBANNED editor to unfurl things. I am in the process of responding to Tamzin and preparing an appeal via WP:ARBCOM. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a misrepresentation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a good-faith attempt to improve policy understanding, it is a WP:Pointy essay that attempts to legitimize OPs personal views, which are in direct conflict with the community. Alternative is userify and remove the shortcut.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete without userfication per AndyTheGrump. Essay space is not license to contravene standing policy with invective.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per multiple experienced editors, and me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Per WP:POLICY,
[e]ssays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.
I disagree with a number of editors who take the view that the only legitimate essay is one that explains the current policies and guidelines. It is the case that we should userfyessays the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus
, but the former is clearly not true (I edited the essay without objection from the author) and the evidence given by delete !voters for the second is not persuasive. As such, I don't really see evidence that this meets WP:DEL-REASON#13. The arguments for deletion argue that the whole essay was written in bad faith, which I take some offense to given that I substantially edited portions of it. No argument seems to touch another deletion reason given in the WP:Deletion Policy, so the arguments from WP:TNT could only draw support from WP:IAR. And to argue that this is TNT-worthy, per the text of that essay, would require that all the content—including all edits in its history—be useless, which seems like a bit of a stretch. Editors are allowed to write essays that do not directly contradict policies; if other editors find the essay either unwise or poorly written (as I do for this essay), they are free to write a counter-essay or to improve the rhetoric respectively. But deleting an essay because we either do not agree with it or find the rhetoric to be imprecise lacks a strong policy basis. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)- Nobody here has said the "the only legitimate essay is one that explains the current policies and guidelines". And I think if users edited the essay to effectively neutralise CutePeach's viewpoints, they would object. Your argument is not persuasive given that there exists a forum whereby essays can be deleted. If CutePeach had written an essay about why they think current policy and guidelines are wrong and how they should be changed, that might be fine. But they have written an essay that misleads readers about policy and guideline, which is meritless. -- Colin°Talk 09:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above, came here via the ANI discussion and after looking at it all together, surprised this wasn't speedy deleted. Would support a snow delete, and also against userfying. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WhatamIdoing. starship.paint (exalt) 01:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Userfy if not G5 eligible: it is clear from this discussion that the essay does not reflect even a substantial minority view of the community, but the view of one editor. I am not seeing where this view, however, is so dangerous that it must not be expressed on Wikipedia. Perhaps I've missed something.The page has been almost entirely written by one editor, so it is not misleading to put it in their userspace (or, they can request deletion there if they feel it is). I understand that there is underlying context to the situation, but on the face of it there is nothing wrong with somebody expressing their opinion on the interaction between MEDRS, FRINGE and other policies and guidelines, whatever motivated them to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and do not userify. This user is TBAN'd from COVID-19, broadly construed, and that would unfortunately include a big chunk of this essay. The essay itself is clearly not fit for project-space, as it contravenes current policy with soapbox-level invective, rather than any policy-based argument of any kind. If the user were not TBAN'd, I would support userification. But a user essay that the user cannot themselves edit is probably not a good idea. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep or Userfy per SmokeyJoe and Bilorv. Even if the user is TBANNED from COVID_19, it doesn't mean we. should retroactively delete everything they said on the topic. The delete !votes ironically prove how personal this dispute is for some editors. Francesco espo (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not personalise this dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I am uninvolved in this dispute and unfamiliar with most of the individuals involved. The minute I saw this essay linked on ANI, I gave it a read... and it's very clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND attempt at doing an end-run around MEDRS. The essay quickly devolves into labeling others as Inclusionist/Deletionist, terms I had hoped would be considered sorely outdated years ago. The essay also presents itself as rules, rather than suggestions or guidelines, repeatedly claiming editors "must" do as it says. Finally, it falls into trying to say WP:FALSEBALANCE is a good thing. There's nothing redeemable left in this essay once you try to pare it down to any useful advice, so it should be deleted outright. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Contrarian advice can be useful but this is not. The only take-home message from the essay is that MEDRS can be ignored by wikilawyering. Sprinkling links such as WP:RECENTISM + WP:INCLUSIONIST + WP:DELETIONIST pads out the text but adds nothing other than demonstrating how to parry opponents while burying the issue. Some editors may refuse "to participate in subsequent discussions" after a discussion has been settled, while others would be encouraged by this essay to battle forever. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It is basically an antivaxxer manifesto on how to subvert MEDRS. ValarianB (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean that by saying that this is
an antivaxxer manifesto
? If you're referring to the Dengvaxia controversy, the attempt to tie "anti-vaxxer" to some sort of policy violation is a swing-and-a-miss; the CDC notes that the Dengvaxiais different from other vaccines in that it is only recommended for people who have already been infected with dengue virus. The reason is that children without previous dengue infection are at increased risk for severe dengue disease and hospitalization if they get dengue after they are vaccinated with Dengvaxia.
There's quite a big difference between that sort of thing and the Wakefield-MMR-Autism quackery shebang, which this essay doesn't appear to advocate toleration of. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)- If you think anyone is going to engage in antivax rhetoric with you in this deletion discussion, you are mistaken. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- My goodness, you've missed the point! I don't anticipate that anyone will
engage in antivax rhetoric
by denying the well-documented safety of the MMR vaccine to favor fringe theories about an alleged association with Autism. And if you've noted my comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355#CounterPunch_and_Al_Bawaba, the publication of that sort of garbage in the case of so much evidence is the sort of thing that contributes towards an evaluation that a source should be deprecated. My point is that the use of "antivax" in your argument where the U.S. CDC is saying thatthis vaccine is different from other vaccines in that it is only recommended for people who have already been infected with dengue virus
owing to Antibody-dependent enhancement in people without prior exposure to Dengue is like saying that a person is "anti-chemotherapy" for not prescribing cisplatin to a pregnant woman because the cancer treatment is a teratogen. The shorthand of "anti-vaxxer", the connotation of which usually refers to the sorts of people who obstinately deny good science, is simply misused in your response. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- My goodness, you've missed the point! I don't anticipate that anyone will
- If you think anyone is going to engage in antivax rhetoric with you in this deletion discussion, you are mistaken. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean that by saying that this is
- Comment Also note that they are starting another draft, Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN, which by the opening and only line so far, will be similar to this one. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, mostly as per User:Rhododendrites. Argues with usual interpretation of existing guidelines. An essay providing a less tendentious contrarian view of MEDRS would be in order, but this is not it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022/Britisth Rail Class 420
- Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022/Britisth Rail Class 420 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I just don't get how a mildly vandalised copy of a page is needed, or helpful. It's just vandalism, and it was a long time ago that the decision was made that stuff like WP:BJAODN was not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd speedy it, but I am not certain that it meets G3 as it is (supposedly?) a "joke". I have got a fairly broad sense of humour, but I still don't see how this is funny. If they'd rewritten the whole article, maybe, but they haven't even gone past the lead. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: No reason for deletion articulated by the nominator. Consider archiving. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Reason for deleting: BJAODN isn't a thing any more. Is that what you were asking for? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- BJAODN was deleted due copyright problems, too many to fix to Wikipedia's best practice standards. The deletion log mentions other things, but the copyright issues were the killer. Read more at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive99#BJAODN_deletions.
- The page is not "just vandalism". It's an April Fool joke, and jokes have an angle of being useful educationally, even if slight. One person finding it "not funny" does not diminish the possible educational value. Accordingly, as I think is the practice, these possible things are archived, like this. Obvious useless things are not archived. I think you should know a lot more about this before MfD-ing archived pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Reason for deleting: BJAODN isn't a thing any more. Is that what you were asking for? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, made up article that serves no purpose, is garbage from start to finish. Nukerstt (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Old business
May 27, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sonic the Series |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Draft:Untitled Knuckles series. ✗plicit 11:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Draft:Sonic the Series
No use in having this draft when we have an even better draft at Draft:Untitled Knuckles series THE Pizzaplayer!TALK TO MEE!! contribs 20:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
|