Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

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:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
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	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

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

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Total
CfD	36	36
TfD	15	15
MfD	2	2
FfD	17	17
RfD	66	66
AfD	0	0

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.

December 4, 2024

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/veek2

Unformatted, probably LLM RfA from an ineligible candidate. To veek2, you might find WP:RFAADVICE helpful; most candidates have made thousands of edits over months of consistent, active editing. WP:NOTNOW has some good advice :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 3, 2024

Draft:Untitled LEGO film

Draft about something we don't know yet, no title, no info, no image, not relevant at the moment. We should wait for more information before creating a draft, the creator is not against deletion. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enough to precisely respect Wikipedia's rules without reflection. Do you know how to identify exactly what we are talking about? Because I don't. We just know that it is a Lego film that could be anything and whose release is not yet certain, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creation is rushed, we will end up with duplicates or give additional work to the draft reviewers. As I said to the creator of the article, I am not against the creation of a draft on a future Lego film but currently there is nothing, even the title of the article does not allow a clear identification, imagine that we start creating this kind of drafts/articles every day without a minimum identification being possible, we would not get out of it. The creator himself is not against deletion while waiting for additional information. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening SparklingBlueMoon, I would like to direct your attention to some points mentioned in Wikipedia:NDRAFT. Now, if this was created in mainspace, I do agree it would be deleted quickly, if not under CSD:A1 or A3 then a snow vote at AfD. That being said, draftspace is self cleaning, and unless there is a pressing, unambiguous reason to delete (copyvio, attack page, hoax, etc.), it is better to let the six month deadline pass rather than go through MfD. Not only can this create bad blood between new and experience editors, the bureaucracy this creates often extends the draft past its natural lifespan. Also, if the author agrees to CSD, they should blank and tag the page under G7 or explicitly ask another editor to do so. Thank you for your time VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Romani people (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Romani people

A bit useless to have a Portal which is simply a transclusion of an article Fram (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - This is not a portal, but, as the nominator notes, the lede section of the main article, in portal space, masquerading as a portal. There was a portal between 2007 and 2019, which was not maintained. It was viewed an average of 9 times daily, as opposed to the article, which was viewed 6077 times daily, and the portal creator did not edit after 2013. That portal was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Romani people . There have been four subsequent efforts to create something that appeared to be a portal, of which this is the fourth. The previous attempts at recreation have been deleted, including as G4, and the previous recreators have been Checkuser-blocked. The history shows that one user or more than one user are perseverating in an attempt to recreate something in portal space. Maybe the recreator can explain why they think that there should be a copy of the lede section of the article in portal space, but I doubt that they can provide a useful explanation. Otherwise, this fake portal should be deleted yet again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G5 or Delete. Originator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SALT - This is the fourth time that there has been an attempt to recreate the portal, and they have all been various sorts of crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant, not actually a portal. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 30, 2024

Wikipedia:Snuggle/Notice

This projectspace template is now not only useless and misleading. It consists entirely of a button that was intended to send a user to the Snuggle API. But Snuggle has been defunct since at least late April 2021. Clicking this button leads users to Wmflabs' 404 error page. Delete as dependent on a defunct tool. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an abandoned tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would "mark as historical" be a better outcome here than outright deletion? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah that. or redirecting to Wikipedia:Snuggle. Graham87 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Historical as a disused tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User South Indian separatist

Editor created blank template. Declined for speedy deletion, even though blank templates that I tag as WP:G7 have been routinely deleted for years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Encourage User:SavetheSouthofIndia to make new Userboxes in their own userspace, not template space. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I'm surprised "blank page" is an article-only CSD... charlotte ^👸♥ 19:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need blank userboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Leo 2

Dropped: https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/director-lokesh-kanagaraj-on-shelving-thalapathy-vijay-leo-2-and-final-line-up-of-his-lcu-2628332-2024-11-05 Kailash29792 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a possibility that an unreleased movie can still be notable. I'd let the draft be salvaged by anyone who wants to update it or wait for it to be deleted when it expires. As long as it's not a hoax, spam, or vandalism, there isn't any real issue with keeping it up. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles on cancelled movies should be deleted. Drafts on cancelled movies are not deleted, because drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessagesfromusers

Superseded by MediaWiki:new-messages-from-many-users. See also [1] Awesome Aasim 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to MediaWiki:new-messages-from-many-users, as should have been done in December 2023 (contrary to the commit message there, that message does still show up for logged-out editors). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages

Superseded by MediaWiki:New-messages. Awesome Aasim 03:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to MediaWiki:New-messages, as should have been done in December 2023 (contrary to the commit message there, that message does still show up for logged-out editors). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis

All edits are suppressed other than the most recent courtesy blank. The users who could access such suppressed edits could do so even if the page is deleted. No purpose, even historical, in keeping it on considering the information is not publicly accessible. Thebirdlover (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom since we're here, but this was WP:Ragpicking that did not need to be brought to MfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I never even heard of ragpicking before, but that is good to know. I was looking at pages relating to old LTA's (I find it interesting to research) and this was linked on an ArbCom case. I was not intentionally looking in userspace for this--but when I found it, I didn't see the logic in having a page online where no member of the public could access the history due to it being surpressed. The same people who have access to the history now could functionally access the history anyway even if it was deleted. --Thebirdlover (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Pppery. cc Alison, who blanked this some 16 years ago. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a useless rag. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's been 15 years and, without saying too much, the subject has been inactive of late. This page serves little purpose now - Alison ^talk 01:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 29, 2024

Template:User Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

RSS is an Indian far right Hindu nationalist paramilitary organisation, it has been involved in terrorism and riots, as well as assassination of Gandhi. This userbox is no different than having one that shows support for Nazism and Fascism which we will never have per WP:NONAZIS. There is also a similar userbox at User:UBX/Support_RSS, which should also be deleted if this is deleted too .- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, since you voted to keep this for similar reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (which closed less than an hour ago). Zinnober9 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would have any problem with an userbox that opposes an extremist organisation, would they ? But having one that shows support for it is problematic, the same thing applies here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, two different boxes with opposing sides, got it. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. It is unacceptable to have around userboxes that shows support for an organization like RSS. I also support deleting User:UBX/Support RSS, with basically the same message. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should be tolerant. Tolerance is not about tolerating things you like and approve of; it is about tolerating things that make you uncomfortable, that you do not like, and wish did not exist. If we only tolerate things we like, then we are intolerant - and that would make us just as ghastly as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that RSS has been involved in terrorism and that we should be tolerant of their supporters here, should we also tolerate people who support ISIL? As you want wikipedians to be tolerant, should we also extend our tolerance to vaccine deniers, holocaust deniers, white supremacists, etc here? - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:UBCR. This says "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)." It also says "userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive."

If you think that Template:User Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh breaches this policy, then Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh must also breach this policy. But in the deletion discussion on the latter, you advocated keeping it.^[3] Your comments were inflammatory and substantially divisive. If the existence of such user-boxes provokes editors into making such comments, there is a case for deleting both of them, and maybe for applying topic bans to editors who have them on their user pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC) This is not a personal attack: User:Ratnahastin does not have such user boxes on their user page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added User:UBX/Support RSS to this nomination, since it was intended to apply to both pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. This applies both to userboxes that express support and to userboxes that express opposition. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This userbox is inappropriate and should be deleted. Supporting organizations like RSS, which have been associated with controversial and extremist views, should not be promoted. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 28, 2024

Talk:F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to first revision, harmless. These sorts of deletions haven't been done here since 2008. Graham87 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Deleting a talk page is very seldom useful or a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – yes, this is the talk page of a redirect. That's not a reason to delete it. And what's an "affluent page", anyway? jlwoodwa (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 2024

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes

What even is this? It is certainly not a humorous essay, looks more like a steaming pile of hot garbage. It was kept when nominated fourteen years ago, and as far as I can tell has gotten progressively more stupid and pointless since that time. Perhaps the project has matured a bit since then and we can agree to just not have... whatever this is supposed to be. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a waste of precious bits. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bits are created, not saved, upon deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware. It's still a waste of psychic space - and full of rather inappropriate failures at humour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, Wikipedia used to be a sillier place. In articlespace, that's usually a good thing. In projectspace, I'd like to know what is gained by deleting a bunch of silliness that 508 people have contributed to in the past 18 years. Should it be linked from anywhere serious? No, of course not (and I just removed the link from WP:NOT). But that's true of all of the "humorous" pages. If kept, I also plan to remove a couple bits that are critical of specific Wikipedians. It kind of reminds me of the "graffiti wall" some BBSes used to have, where people wrote random thoughts, jokes, or nonsense, usually anonymously. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s project-reflection, which makes it ok. I find a little bit of value in the reflection, but I’m not sure it is worth anyone’s time to read to find. It sort of comments satirically on WP:NOT being serious and important. It’s not funny, it’s not clearly educational, but I am loath to agree to delete anything project-reflective that is not actually offensive in any way. Maybe blank. Maybe blank archive and protect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I do see things that are offensive. Comments about suicide, comments mocking Black Lives Matter protests, comments about gun control, comments about raping and killing hitchhikers.... And I've only read a small percentage of it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It being on balance negative makes me lean to “blank and archive”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it on balance negative? I just removed the crazy hitchiker business and a section devoted to apparently quite serious dunking on Neelix. If you see offensive nonsense, just remove it. I don't see any mocking black lives matter, but I didn't look that hard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, it is garbage. I don't personally like garbage, YMMV. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Middens are of great value, in some ways, even if few would agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical or Delete nonsense -1ctinus📝🗨 23:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that if for some reason this is kept, it should be moved so as not to be a subpage of an actual policy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless, nonsensical, and weird. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ancient cruft of no actual relevance to the Wikipedia of 2024. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are very few items that are retrievable, they should go somewhere else. The whole humorous essay collection could potentially be exterminated in the face of comments made here - the fact that anything remains is worth noting, as things get far too serious these days. I fully agree with JSS that it should not be attached to or associated with a live real policy. JarrahTree 07:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to the historical archive, along with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/BJAODN (which maybe should be added to this nom, or something)? – both those options would work for me (and I'd rarely be OK with deleting a page from 2006); this essay is too long, un-funny, and barely relevant to Wikipedia, but, for example, this early version makes a lot more sense. I have boldly undone all the recent edits by Gahex220, which made the page significantly worse; all of the text removed by Rhododendrites was added by Gahex220. There's also the search results for mentionns of this page to consider, but none of them are any more than trivial, and I wouldn't normally say that. Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if this page is moved to the historical archive, I wouldn't mind if some form of protection was applied to it to reduce the chance of it being fiddled with further. Graham87 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it was Gahex220's activities that led me to even be aware of this, he was making some highly questionable edits elsewhere so I was looking through his contribs, and ran across this. I considered just undoing his edits myself but I couldn't say they were all out of step with what is expected on this page because it appears to be a complete free-for-all, which is why I nominated it for deletion instead. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move, I guess) - I get why people think this shouldn't be a subpage of a real policy, but not why it would need to be deleted. Its humor value is obviously debatable, but also very subjective. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine humourous essay and a piece of Wikipedia history. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as harmless but maybe also lock page. Or make extended-confirmed required. Harmless as a fragment to old Wikipedia humor but let's let people make their own new humor pages for 2024, not do unfunny renovations of old humor pages like apparently happened here. SnowFire (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this article, and it is a piece of Wikipedia history. I read it when I was first getting involved in the project some 7-ish years ago. However, it has become much different than the version I read then, and much of the newer material could stand to be deleted. There is some value in the earlier stuff, like the commentary on appending Wiki- to everything, does have genuine humorous value and serves as a pointed commentary. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 18:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mildly amused that nearly everyone in favor of keeping this is also removing large portions of it....

It's almost like it's a pile of junk with no real purpose... Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose was socialization/expression, which there was more tolerance for years ago. It's worth keeping traces of that olde tyme Wikipedia culture via a page with 500 contributors, and worth pruning offensive stuff that does actually violate policy (most of which was apparently just recently added by one person). Being stupid doesn't change that value. I'd be fine with locking the page now, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a joke page. It's not hurting anyone. The Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^(hedgehogs) 01:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Calling a page a "steaming pile of hot garbage" is not a valid deletion reason. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia can't be all serious. There needs to be some places to channel the goofiness. Maybe someone that would have otherwise vandalized saw this and decided to add another section. I know it's unlikely, but maybe! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not simply a humor page, but obviously ~~an integral part of the main policy~~ is itself the main policy. Closer should be aware that the offensive stuff was added by a single blocked editor and was swiftly revdel'd, the article looked fine in October 2024 [4]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why does this page even exist? its not funny in the slightest and it shouldn't even be part of the main policy. 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Wikipedia:Humor. Drdr150 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CodingYT (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Clementechiton

Why’s this still here? It’s a McMenamin taxon, that probably speaks for itself. Although, as the Muzaffarabadmachli draft deletion is still indecisive…IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not going to be an article based on solid consensus about the lack of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Paul H. (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do not delete drafts based on value judgments of their sourcing and notability. If they (continue to) not pass the bar for promotion to mainspace, they will be deleted once they see no editing action for several months. I have no opinion on the merits of this specific draft, but oppose deletion unless someone can point to actual harm from them sitting there, awaiting potential improvement, incorporation elsewhere, or abandonment. Martinp (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drafts that will never become articles are harmless. See Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. The harm from deleting this draft is that it would establish a pattern of deleting drafts for notability, and then drafts could be deleted when they need more work, or when they should be held for future notability. User:IC1101-Capinatator - Is there an effort or idea to delete drafts concerning taxa proposed by fringe scientists? There is no guideline concerning the deletion of questionable drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page now also appears on the internet in different places, for some reason, such as everybody wiki , without the word draft, so delete it so it does not cause more trouble elsewhere on the internet. . Zhenghecaris (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. AfC processes suffice, let them work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so keep it as-is. Got it. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No AfC reviewer has pressed the REJECT button. It has not been tendentiously resubmitted. It has not been resubmitted after rejection. Bringing it to MfD is out of process, and you have not articulated a deletion reason that applies generally (eg a line item at WP:NOT). It is not a “keep”, it will either be developed beyond expectation or be deleted under WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator does not consider this taxon valid anymore, I have had an discussion on this already. Zhenghecaris (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zhenghecaris, are you a subject expert? The nominator stated gobbledegook, and your discussions are not linked. If all authors agree, it can be deleted under WP:G7. If you do nothing it will be deleted after six months under WP:G13. What are your expectations of MfD reviewers? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore (which means keep for now) user:Zhenghecaris can place a {{db-user}} if he wishes, or can use it as a practice for another draft. Since it is not causing trouble as a draft, we can just ignore it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 02:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC) ended today on 5 December 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

November 25, 2024

Draft:UGL Rail 5020 class

Duplicate of QR National 5020 class. This shouldn't be here, even as a draft. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to QR National 5020 class. Redirect in article space also, by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article...

I originally just redirected this but it was contested. Contextless Guantanamo related page, part of a project to make a lot of pages on a lot of Guantanamo prisoner BLPs (many of which are being slowly deleted as given our current rules they are non-notable) by an indef banned user that never went anywhere masquerading as a WikiProject page. Also, WP Terrorism is no longer a wikiproject so these are attached to a project that no longer exists. Marking it as historical is negative for that reason. I see no harm in letting it exist as a redirect so the page history is accessible but I do see issues with letting it remain attached to nothing.

Also nominating:

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to know whether I understand. It appears that there was a WikiProject until 19 October 2024, and then it was moved to become a task force of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo was a subpage of the project, and it had its own subpages. So the issue is what to do with the subpages of something that no longer exists. Is that correct? My own thinking is that marking them historical is exactly what should be done, to record the historical link to the renamed project. Is my reading of the history correct? If so, why shouldn't we record the strange history? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon What's the point of keeping project pages that have no project? I find they tend, even if marked defunct or historical, to attract random edits, vandalism, and people for asking for help on the wrong pages to get no response. Redirecting it stops that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect because in all this time no substantive argument has been given against doing so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo (marked historical); redirect the others to it. There's no firm rule on when to redirect and when to mark historical, and this compromise (which at least gives people links to the various redirected pages) strikes the balance I'm most comfortable with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ I'm opposed to keeping it in any form because this page exists to encourage the creation of more non-notable Guantanmo BLPs and we already have far too many of those. Looking at it is a net negative. If redirecting is a problem it should just be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo encourages the creation of anything, and at any rate it's already been marked historical. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates