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)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
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 | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 4 | 3 | 63 | 119 | 189 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 8 | 62 | 71 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 48 |
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.
May 20, 2023
Draft:Mahadi Mahamud Antor
- Draft:Mahadi Mahamud Antor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This draft was created by a blocked user, as it was used for promotion or advertising purposes. CastJared (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
May 19, 2023
Political userbox category
- Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete all userboxes in the category of Politics
Wikipedia, as an open platform for knowledge dissemination, aims to maintain a neutral point of view on all topics. However, the presence of userboxes related to political issues and ideologies can introduce bias and potentially compromise the platform's commitment to objectivity. This essay argues for the removal of politically charged userboxes on Wikipedia to promote neutrality, enhance collaboration among editors, and preserve the platform's reputation as a reliable source of information.
Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality serves as the foundation for its credibility and trustworthiness. Userboxes associated with political issues or ideologies can introduce bias and undermine the platform's commitment to impartiality. While Wikipedia encourages editors to contribute from diverse perspectives, the inclusion of politically charged userboxes risks creating an appearance of bias, potentially detracting from the perception of Wikipedia as an objective resource. By removing such userboxes, Wikipedia can reinforce its dedication to presenting information in a neutral and balanced manner. This approach will help maintain the platform's reputation as a reliable and unbiased source of knowledge, encouraging readers to trust the content they find on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia operates on the principles of collaborative editing and consensus-building. Political userboxes, especially those associated with divisive issues or ideologies, can hinder productive collaboration among editors. When users prominently display their political affiliations, it may create an environment where disputes and conflicts arise based on personal beliefs rather than a focus on improving content. Removing politically charged userboxes will allow editors to engage in discussions and debates without being influenced by preconceived notions or political biases. By eliminating these visual markers of personal ideology, Wikipedia can foster a more inclusive and productive editing environment.
The removal of politically charged userboxes promotes a focus on content rather than individual perspectives. This approach encourages editors to evaluate articles based on reliable sources, factual evidence, and the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia's editorial policies. It helps ensure that edits and discussions are based on the merits of the information presented rather than personal political beliefs. By removing these potentially divisive identifiers, Wikipedia promotes a collaborative atmosphere where the shared goal of creating accurate and unbiased content takes precedence over individual ideologies.
Politics often evokes strong emotions and can lead to polarization within communities. Userboxes related to political issues or ideologies can inadvertently contribute to this polarization by creating an "us versus them" mentality among editors. Removing political userboxes will help minimize unnecessary conflicts and promote a more civil discourse. Editors will be encouraged to focus on the content itself, basing their arguments on reliable sources and factual evidence rather than personal political beliefs. By removing these visual indicators of political affiliations, Wikipedia seeks to create an environment where editors can engage in constructive discussions and debates free from the influence of personal biases.
This approach reduces the potential for ideological clashes and fosters a more inclusive and welcoming editing environment. It allows for a broader range of perspectives to contribute to the development of well-rounded and balanced articles. By discouraging the use of politically charged userboxes, Wikipedia encourages editors to approach discussions with an open mind, facilitating the exploration of multiple viewpoints and the synthesis of diverse information.
WP:UBCR clearly states "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for... Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)"
-Crainsaw, 17:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It helps Wikipedia's trustworthiness when it's made apparent that people of different political orientations, ideologies etc. are able to collaborate. Such userboxes can hinder collaboration only when an editor is unable to look past them, due to their lacking in ability to stay centered on the goals of the project, and in doing so accept that they must collaborate with people with views they are not sympathetic to. When an "ideological clash" happens because someone is harassed for displaying userbox X/Y/Z, it's not rarely the case that a non-collaborative and a WP:NOTHERE actor has been identified, i.e. someone who simply doesn't get it; and this is not a bad thing.—Alalch E. 18:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think that when new users join Wikipedia, they have a strong sense that Wikipedia is/should be a strictly neutral site, but when they start to adjust to Wikipedia by creating user pages and filling them with userboxes for example they find categories such as politics, which may change their views that Wikipedia is strictly neutral, since you can display your political standing and opinion. Now, if a user (we'll call him user A) with a political userbox makes an intentional or unintentional biased edit, and another editor (we'll call him user B) notices it and has his own political opinion, which is opposite or against user A's political opinion, might go on the other user A's user page and see that A has a political userbox, which may lead user B to think that user A intentionally made a biased, fostering an "us versus them" feeling. Crainsaw (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep the last time all the political userboxes were deleted was before I joined Wikipedia, and many of the editors were fumming made when this happened. That is why political userboxes were recreated. It is better to delete political userboxes one at a time. Catfurball (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Wikipedia editors should have just as much a right to briefly express their political opinions as much as they can with their hobbies, religious beliefs, and other general interests. If someone take offense to or attacks a user for their non-harmful political opinions, it isn't anyone but that someone's problem. I can also see an scenario where displaying these types of userboxes can be useful to an editor seeking assistance from more-experienced editor while working on an article revolving around the specific politician/party that the experienced editor supports/is knowledgeable of.
- As for the quoted guideline page, I think "advocacy" is too vague. Briefly stating who you support in an infobox or userbox should be alright, even if that is considered advocating, but I want to assume that "advocacy" refers to rambling on about who or what you support instead of simply stating it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Editors most certainly do not have a right to use Wikipedia as a forum to express their personal views, nor should they. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with the "displaying these types of userboxes can be useful to an editor seeking assistance from more-experienced editor while working on an article revolving around the specific politician/party that the experienced editor supports/is knowledgeable of." part because then we know that the experienced editor who's trying to help will be inclines towards making biased and supportive edits, and won't add controversies or criticisms or the party/movement/ideology Crainsaw (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: So far as the political userbox can be read as declaring the editors interest and bias, they are a good thing. If the userbox or userspace material is blatant advocacy, sloganeering, or campaigning, that would be across the line. I’ve often proposed that anti-political-userbox people should start an RfC. If there is any serious notion of deleting political Userboxes, then natural justice consideration requires that every user hosting one should be advised of the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per SmokeyJoe. Greater benefit to Wikipedia to have these userboxes rather than to not have them; it's not going to stop people from possessing political opinions and viewpoints anyway, much less publishing them; and moreover, MfD isn't the place to discuss any changes to the existing userbox meta. It needs to be a centralized RfC. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Invalid MfD. While political userboxes are inherently disruptive, and people who feel inclined to use them generally aren't a good fit for Wikipedia, a mass MfD is not the solution without a broader consensus to enforce existing policies and guidelines against disruptive userspace content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Same thoughts on the issue. A smaller MfD, or several, could help analyse problematic infoboxes that could be deleted. That doesn't mean it has to be the case with every single one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Template:User Pro-Russian
- Template:User Pro-Russian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by a user blocked for sockpuppetry, this rather obscure (barely used) userbox could easily be interpreted as supportive of the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am probably against any userbox that uses the specific wording "X is a threat", because this language is inherently propagandistic. Such language essentially sounds a bell to like-minded people to band together against the threat. And calls out members of the implied opposing group as a part of that threat or being aligned with the threat. It's especially foreboding to stop at "threat" and not say what kind of threat, as then it particularly sounds like existential, ultimate, threat. It's friend-enemy rhetoric. I would treat any "X is a threat" wording as divisive wording that isn't acceptable under the relevant guideline.—Alalch E. 22:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and Wikipedia should be neutral on such issues. Crainsaw 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - If you have one, you've gotta have the other. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:POLEMIC content. Wikipedia is not a forum for the expression of controversial opinions. And before I'm accused of a double standard, yes, the solution is to delete all userspace content that supports a side in any war. If you can't hold in your opinions on a war, get a Twitter account (or heck, enlist). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aquabluetesla/Userboxes/DeSantis-Alt |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete under U1. MfD erroneously created by the author instead of using standard CSD reason. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 14:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC) user:Aquabluetesla/Userboxes/DeSantis-Alt
User would like this userbox page deleted. This user moved this userbox to their page after the original userbox was accidentally vandalized by the page creator. The original has been deleted. Aquabluetesla (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)(talk • contribs)
|
May 16, 2023
User:Kalaiselvan Vishvanathan/sandbox
- User:Kalaiselvan Vishvanathan/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Abandoned autobiography that has unatributted copied content from Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Tom Holland and Pradeep Kumar (musician). Misleading as reading it implies that subject: Has an M.S. from Stanford University in materials science and engineering, has an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was named a Siebel Scholar, is the CEO of Google, is included in Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People of 2020 and much more. Nobody (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both as an unreferenced biography of a living person and as a hoax. This also raises concerns about whether the originator is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - hoaxish content -- Whpq (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above.—Alalch E. 21:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
May 15, 2023
User:Shahihussain2001/sandbox
- User:Shahihussain2001/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Likely self-advertising page. The page (rather Shahihussain2001's sandbox/draft subpage) is talking about an educational center named Brave Educationuk which is ordinary/unremarkable and may not meet the general notability guideline for companies and organizations. ☀DefenderTienMinh☽ (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment You should craft your nomination in a more complete manner before posting. Your repeated edits have twice triggered an edit conflict and your intermediate edits were not an appropriate use of {{Under construction}}. Otherwise, it's all good, as this page reads like a textbook example of Wikipedia-for-hire. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I got it! Thanks RadioKAOS. ☀DefenderTienMinh☽ (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. It's a sandbox. Sandboxes can be blanked. They don't have to be deleted. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a valid G11. Sandboxes that are G11 can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Apply G11. This should have been routinely deleted under the relevant CSD, and was properly tagged; starting an MfD was unnecessary.—Alalch E. 19:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a valid G11 page; I maybe would have let it sit longer before deleting but the number of external links, no valid references, and no apparent notability makes it fine. I don't know why the nominator removed the G11 nomination only to do a MFD instead of letting an admin delete or, if declined, creating this MFD. Skynxnex (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- yes! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - clear G11 Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted per WP:G11 till I saw someone had "declined" the G11. Spam is deleted where ever it appears. @DefenderTienMinh07: As a technical point, while any user can remove a CSD tag, only an admin can decline to delete under CSD. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Due to the effect of WP:G11. ☀DefenderTienMinh☽ (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under G11. CastJared (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
May 13, 2023
Draft:Origami (Shakira and Ozuna song)
- Draft:Origami (Shakira and Ozuna song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Another hoax article/draft by a user who has been blocked indefinitely and there are no reliable sources showing that it's even real. Erick (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - The lack of sources is not in itself reason to delete a draft. Not a G5, because not blocked at the time of creation. The combination of problems is reason to delete. This fails verifiability, and probably will never be verified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ItsMario97 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion - there is no official confirmation of the album Deseo Inherente, from his track-list or from this song "Origami". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Julián Martínez (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be a hoax.—Alalch E. 23:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The content of the article may well be untrue, but it has been widely publicised on social media and the like. It is therefore perfectly likely that this draft was created by someone who had read about it on the internet, and believed what they read, in which case the article is not a hoax. There may or may not be good reasons for deleting this draft, but it being a hoax is not one of them. JBW (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're right that this is probably not a hoax that originated on Wikipedia in a strict sense that the creator came up with something false and wanted to trick readers into believing that it's real, but the original content about this found on the internet appears to be a hoax.—Alalch E. 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
May 12, 2023
Template:User ref
- Template:User ref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Userbox related to long-obsolete tool User:Cyde/Ref converter. The related category was just deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_25#Category:Wikipedians_who_convert_reference_tags. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: This is already long-obsolete. CastJared (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and CastJared. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 06:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't matter that the thing is obsolete. It suffices that User:Cyde/Ref converter is marked as historical. Active users have the userbox. In truth, these users are official converts to <references/> (a historical tool): They were interested in improving references using this method when it was current, and this is a part of who they are on Wikipedia. They get to keep it as a badge. The purpose of a userbox is satisfied.—Alalch E. 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Alalch E.'s comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Fixed. A trivial fix only was needed. There is no good reason to delete historical Userboxes and break userpages that are using it, and old Userpage versions that used it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: as stated above, it doesn't matter that it's obsolete, the statement is still valid, especially since the fix done by SmokeyJoe. Just because something is obsolete doesn't mean references to it should be removed. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Old business
April 30, 2023
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. —ScottyWong— 04:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references
This was created as an archive of an old cast list in the main article that was largely removed in this edit. However, we already have an archive of the old cast list in the form of page history. I believe this should be deleted by the same logic that underlies WP:COPIES: having forked content lying around is a slight net negative to the encyclopedia, which is easily overcome by the fork having some use, no matter how remote. This one does not, and thus should be deleted. HouseBlastertalk 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Editor WikiProject Eurovision News |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. —ScottyWong— 04:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Template:Editor WikiProject Eurovision News
Userbox appears to only be used by about 3 inactive or relatively users. The "editor" position for this Wikiproject for which the userbox exists for has been inactive since at least 2017, and the last new transclusion of this userbox was around 2014. This is a housekeeping item for our WikiProject. Grk1011 (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CodeEaterVien/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. —ScottyWong— 04:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) User:CodeEaterVien/sandbox
Re-creation of Shift (company) which was deleted under WP:PROD. The concern was: "The games may be notable, but WP:BEFORE reveals no evidence the company is. See WP:NOTINHERITED."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs)
|
April 22, 2023
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tornadoes/Recent tornado outbreaks |
---|
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The nature of this portal subpage requires that it be updated relatively frequently, whether that is manually or automatically updated. Since the subpage is about "recent" tornadoes, it serves only to confuse and misinform the reader if it shows events from the distant past. The subpage was published in December 2021, and it was dutifully updated roughly once every month until June 2022, about 7 months total. Then, about 4.5 months went by with no update until October 2022. After the October update, about 6 months went by with no update until April 2023, when this MfD was started. All this is to say: while there is currently no clear consensus to delete this portal subpage, it will almost certainly be deleted if it goes through another long period with no updates. Therefore, I would encourage the portal maintainers to devise a system that guarantees regular updates of the page. —ScottyWong— 04:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Portal:Tornadoes/Recent tornado outbreaks
Unsourced and non-notable tornado events that are not worthy of being housed in a separate portal. This low visibility page will ultimately be doomed to being outdated due to lack of frequent updates. United States Man (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
|