Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, 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[edit]

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 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[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

Edit PageName:

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

for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}


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 transclued 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
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.
  • Save the page.
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
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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
  • 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[edit]

XFD backlog
V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
CfD 0 1 11 0 12
TfD 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 3 0 3
RfD 0 0 44 0 44
AfD 0 0 17 0 17

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions[edit]

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

February 6, 2023[edit]

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism[edit]

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is an obvious breach of several policies and guidelines (WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UPNOT, WP:POLEMIC and WP:PURPOSE), not to mention its inflammatory and divisive character, as its nothing more than a long pro-Confederate opinion piece. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 03:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per all cited reasons, most of which were not addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Userspace is not the place for opinion pieces only tenuously related to Wikipedia editing, and it's certainly not the place for racist spiels. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: We don't need any more faux-articles or historical revisionism. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: This is a disruptive nomination, WP:Presentism, and IMHO an attempt to improperly censor userspace. This user subpage was nominated for deletion less than six months ago and there was clear consensus to keep. Nominator participated in that discussion, made essentially the same points, and literally nothing has changed since that MfD, these arguments being rejected then. On the merits, as I described in my keep assertion then, this is "a personal user essay explaining in some detail how his view (of the Confederacy and appropriate coverage) was formed." We shouldn't be in the business of whitewashing Wikipedia's history when a fair number of readers have developed their views in a similar manner, for good or for ill. This retired user's point of view might not be popular (and certainly violates the precepts of essay Wikipedia:No Confederates), but for a user to explain their thinking does the pedia a service, because many modern people hold these somewhat anachronistic views. Historians of Wikipedia shouldn't be compelled to ask for REFUND just because explaining such views have fallen out of favor among a minority of editors. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The problem is that it's formatted like an article, and presents those opinions as if they were facts, which they're not. We aren't obligated to host this just because it's "unpopular", especially when it's unpopular largely due to its lack of merit. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 04:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • These arguments were unpersuasive in October, and renominating a kept object mere months after a previous deletion discussion not only breaks with normal deletion procedure, but appears intended to police thought on userpages. I'm not okay with that. If somebody wants to say something on Wikipedia which reveals a foolish view, other wikipedians are entitled to read the foolishness and draw their own conclusions about the user. Courtesy blanking a page which might offend is just fine with me, but permanently deleting such material removes a significant part of the pedia's history and handicaps those wikipedians who come behind us. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 4, 2023[edit]

Draft:Mukesh Bhatt[edit]

Draft:Mukesh Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
Draft:Mukesh S.Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Rohit3648/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At this point this is a case of disruptive editing and submittal after 2 rejections and multiple attempts to remove prior declines and rejections. It's time to remove all versions of this. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

added the 2 other versions as a secondary edit. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all: This guy could be notable, and there could be non-English sources about him that aren't easily available online, and if those were theoretically added I might support keeping this. But this draft as it stands has no merit as a potential article, and it's not any other editor's responsibility to source the author's work for them. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 19:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Silvia. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and semi-protect, at least the ones in draft space. Protection would keep them safe from disruptive editing while giving less disruptive editors a chance to work on them. Zerbu 💬 03:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I appreciate the editor's intent to fill in a bio, it should be noted that the exercise has resulted in showing the subject does not meet WP:ENT or WP:TOOSOON at this time, as his roles are not star-billing at all. No external news sources were provided, only IMDb-like databases. If kept, this should be merged to draft:Mukesh S. Bhatt since there is a notable film producer Mukesh Bhatt already in mainspace. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 16:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Tendentious resubmit after rejection, gaming the system with multiple resubmits, deleting AFC comments. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 16:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 3, 2023[edit]

Draft:JEON JUNG-HYUN[edit]

Draft:JEON JUNG-HYUN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Fails WP:BIO just because they have a famous brother does not make it notable. Furthermore, it is written from a fan point of view not a neutral point of view. Lightoil (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2, 2023[edit]

Draft:Ivana Knöll[edit]

Draft:Ivana Knöll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Submission declined on 30 December 2022. No edits since December 2022 decline. Fails WP:GNG. User who created draft now banned due to multiple drafts that do not meet WP guidelines to move to article space. AldezD (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Discussion not needed, will be deleted anyway in due course. —Alalch E. 08:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. With the user now banned, there's no need to manually delete the draft. Speedy delete will take care of it.--WaltClipper -(talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: I would say leave to G13, but this person clearly isn't notable and I really don't think there is any benefit in retaining a draft that has nothing to say but "some people were mad about her breasts once." It might not be a BLP issue per se, but I personally think it's kinda rude to the subject to keep this draft around which only dubiously meets NPOV. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 05:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
The content is generally factual and the subject is a famous social media influencer with the most instagram followers in Croatia, recently gaining more than Severina, who is the number one regional celebrity. Nothing rude. As a bit of interwiki trivia, this (by "this" I mean an article about this, and it was a reasonably well-written and sourced article) was AfDd (sh:Wikipedia:Članci za brisanje/Arhiva 1#Ivana Knöll) on a language version of Wikipedia that geographically and culturally relates to this subject much more closely than the English Wikipedia. The result was delete due to lack of notability; I !voted to delete. But I still don't see this as a reason to delete a draft here. —Alalch E. 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Hiroshi Naigai[edit]

Draft:Hiroshi Naigai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Fails WP:GNG. User who created draft now banned due to multiple drafts that do not meet WP guidelines to move to article space. AldezD (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. —Alalch E. 08:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit about the subject: Draft talk:Hiroshi Naigai#LinksAlalch E. 09:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviewing everything later in the day, this draft is totally fine and the subject seems notable. —Alalch E. 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Alalch E. "Totally fine"/"seems notable"? There are no sources in this draft and subject fails WP:GNG. Also, what is the link to NIAGARA SONG BOOK? AldezD (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some sources, and it doesn't even matter whether the subject is notable; drafts aren't deleted for this reason. jp:NIAGARA SONG BOOK. —Alalch E. 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Alalch E. there are no sources that meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a completely unsourced biography, no inherently contentious claims, no reason to delete. —Alalch E. 00:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 1, 2023[edit]

Portal:Oli2000s/User drinks Bomba[edit]

Portal:Oli2000s/User drinks Bomba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not a portal, and no useful content: just an empty page with a user box in it. JBW (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 22:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete literally just wasting space.--WaltClipper -(talk) 16:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Userfy it looks like the creator was trying to create a userbox, but accidentally created it in the wrong namespace. Zerbu 💬 17:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 19:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 31, 2023[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki"[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This essay is uncivil and unwelcoming. It goes against long standing policy that 'anyone can edit'. If it stays it should be in user space, not wiki space. JeffUK 16:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep - I disagree that it's uncivil. Unwelcoming is a more feasible accusation, but I don't think it's too problematic for publication as an essay. I wouldn't advocate for including it in a welcome template, but it's fine in WP space as an editor's perspective on diction related to Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "New editors who say stuff like "Wiki should do this" and "I'm trying to improve Wiki" always seem to know nothing about Wikipedia" is explicitly biting newcomers, I thought that essays that went against wiki policy should live in user space, not in the WP space? JeffUK 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At this point I'd say there's at least one newcomer who needs to look up explicitly in a dictionary. And don't call it "wiki". EEng 15:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adding that I think the merge/userfy suggestion below is fine. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Meh, I'll stick to keep given that there's no Highlander rule for essays. Obviously if there's disputed changes made by other editors EEng can choose to userfy, but we don't need to decide that in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Not clear why the nominator thinks it's either uncivil or unwelcoming; it's advising editors on a possibly non-obvious community social norm, using an anecdote by way of simile, and at no point says "not everyone can edit". --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The article says, " no one who actually edits calls it that," i.e., you're not welcome here if you call it 'wiki'. and "When someone tells you they're "here to improve Wiki", watch out!" i.e. that if someone says they're here to improve the encyclopedia, we should care more about the terminology they use than the fact they're here to improve the place. I suppose my main issue with this is that I discovered it when it was thrown at a new user with 'Don't call it wiki', which probably coloured my opinion of the essay itself, but I still think it seems cliquey, elitist, and doesn't have any place here. JeffUK 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm going out on a limb to guess that it was thrown at a new user refers to this diff at the ANI about MrsSnoozyTurtle? If so, I think it's very much appropriate to advise a new editor jumping on an ANI bandwagon and improperly tossing around phrases like "NOTHERE" that they're in over their head. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I see the point Jeff is making. Hopefully the hostility can be reduced. Better? As GabberFlasted writes below, it is true that pointing out any kind of jargon cements a kind of divisiveness between new and experienced editors, and if we didn't have any jargon whatsoever, that would be better. However, we do. There are 159 users with {{user notwiki}} on their user page, proudly declaring they feel physical pain when someone uses Wiki to refer to Wikipedia. There isn't an industry, or group, or profession, or organization of more than a few years of existence that doesn't develop jargon, it seems to be the nature of humans. So as long as we do, we should explain that jargon, and help new users not offend at least those 159 people, not to mention the many who feel that way and just don't mark it with a userbox. --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Userfy Userfy or Merge Addendum: The essay's wording has been tweaked/softened since original writing GabberFlasted (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)TL;DR: It's otherizing, unwelcoming, and if true: entirely unnecessary. I don't understand what good is meant to come out of this essay, and think it's more likely readers will walk away with a new way to categorically disregard their fellow editors.Reply[reply]
    Like Rosguill above me, I don't think it's necessarily not everyone can edit-level but I do think it's unwelcoming and bears hallmarks of that nebulous bundle of lite elitism or exclusivity that hangs around any community (particularly online ones) like a bad smell. I believe the essay does not actually convey any constructive or helpful meaning, and that it's rather trying to push some kind of (although very minor in magnitude) badge-of-shame, or generally give editors an excuse to categorically disregard another editor. I strongly disagree with the categorization made above by @GRuban: This essay is not alerting new editors to a non-obvious social norm, it is (intentionally or not) encouraging existing editors/readers to look unfavorably on editors just because they use the term Wiki to refer to the project. I myself am not terribly veteran but I'm not new either and I don't think I've ever come across this No-True-Editor sentiment before, and I would never have thought twice about someone who referred to the project as the Wiki. And ultimately, if this IS something every veteran editor knows about, do we need an essay telling them that?
    We obviously don't want an essay telling users to Look out for editors that call it the Wiki, they're probably clueless/CIR boogeymen but that's how this essay currently reads. It's divisive, it's frankly currently mean-spirited, and it's not biting newcomers, but it is somewhat otherizing them. I think if it were worded to be more along the lines of "Hey I know you're new, but don't call Wikipedia the Wiki because some veteran users get prickly about that" it would be somewhat better, but I think ultimately this essay in any form just further cements a certain kind of divisiveness that isn't constructive or productive. Sorry for the long read -GabberFlasted (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Userfy as highly duplicative to the older Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. Merge if someone is interested in actually perfroming the merger (such as EEng possibly). Keep. I never thought that the essay is uncivil; even though I really prefer essays not being redundant, it is not a reason to do anything here —Alalch E. 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge polish, shorten, and add to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! as possibly useful advice - not only in wiki but in life in general.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! per WP:REDUNDANTESSAY, or userfy if EEng prefers.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, it has no purpose. Sahaib (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep (or userfy). Whadya know, I went from the ANI thread to EEng's talk page and immediately saw why this was nominated. Anyway, we keep all kinds of essays that some editors disagree with. That's why they are essays, not guidelines or policies. No one has demonstrated that this particular essay actually violates any policies, just that it can be interpreted as having a negative tone and it can be pointed to in a way that isn't particularly sweet. Not sufficient to delete as a matter of anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And there is no policy basis for saying that we cannot have two essays on the same thing. (Oh, the horror! We must tidy that up!) Here's an idea: edit the essay page to change the tone of it. And if EEng objects to such edits, then move it to user space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. As Tfish points out, it's OK to have multiple essays on the same topic. "Otherizing" -- you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here. And anyway, GRuban's taken the trouble of putting the iron fist into a more velvet glove [1] so the !votes above are ! !voting on the essay as it currently stands. EEng 01:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you really think "you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here" is appropriate and civil? If that's an indication of what you think is acceptable behaviour, it's no wonder that you can't see why people might find your essay undesirable. JeffUK 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, actually, I think it's perfectly appropriate. And I assure you that I'm not the one who's failing to see something. Go nanny something else, O Protector of Fragile Egos. EEng 16:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly not constructive, but I couldn't resist
In the same post, he's also mentioned fisting and banging. I, for one, am shocked, shocked, and recommend the bastinadoes. Who would ever have expected such a response from EEng? Well, OK, anyone who has ever read anything he has written outside article space. But other than those people? --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Slightly more serious: Jeff, dude (or whatever the UK equivalent is - guv'nor?), you're nominating his essay for deletion, and calling it, let me see, "uncivil", "unwelcoming", "cliquey", and "elitist", and you're not expecting him to react unfavorably to this? This is basically his child here. (Yes, he has lots of children - which goes back to the !ing...) Give the man a bit of rope. Now, these things you're saying have, or had, a point, which is what I wrote above, and I tried to adjust the essay to make it less of each of those things. Still, you've now moved from attacking the essay, which there is no way around, really, when you're nominating it for deletion, to attacking him personally. Do you,by chance, know what they say about glass houses and stones, or pots, kettles, and blackness? --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, frankly, I'd be pissed off too, especially if there's any thought in my mind that the essay was not only interpreted incorrectly, but that it was a gross misinterpretation at that. I can't begrudge EEng whatsoever for being frustrated. WaltClipper -(talk) 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep there are better things to argue about. Ye old “it’s political correctness gone mad, oy vey” Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly good example of a Wikipedia essay. If you find it too incivil, Wikipedia might not be a good place for you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There you go otherizing again. Oh, the otherizing! ~~<<
  • Keep - Ho-hum. Maybe mark it as humorous if it's particularly incisive for people's tastes. At the same time, it makes valid points, which I think people are missing. Nowhere is it indicated that new users are unwelcome to Wikipedia if they call it "Wiki"; on the other hand, it might in fact indicate a user who could benefit from help learning the ropes if it appears that they're in over their head in certain subject areas. It's no worse than how some admins bring up the fact that new users whose names include "Truth", "Patriot", or "Fact-Finder" are usually BATTLEGROUND trolls. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sahaib. This clearly fails WP:PURPOSE. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you cite the clause in WP:PURPOSE that explicitly pertains to removing essays of this sort? WaltClipper -(talk) 15:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's the clause that says that everything has to have a purpose on Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, there goes Wikipedia:Please do not murder the newcomers. WaltClipper -(talk) 13:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tag with {{Humor}} and move on. Also, I would encourage the nominator to explore the wonderful world of counter-essays. Here are some possibilities: Wikipedia:Did you know we don't need more ways to make newbies feel like newbies?, or perhaps Wikipedia:Don't be the Comic Book Guy of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Call it wiki if you freaking feel like it, because nobody actually cares, and then link to them from the see also of this page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep It's fine in the Wikipedia space. It's a funny little story, it's a good way of letting people know that Wikipedia isn't abbreviated "Wiki", it's a nice compliment to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! Nothing wrong with it, it reflects existing practice, no reason to delete or userfy in my mind. --Jayron32 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with this essay. Those who dislike it can simply refrain from linking to it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Really, must we? — Trey Maturin 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UT))
    Well, that's optional. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites and Jayron. I find it hard to believe this has been causing problems, and a good example for illustrating the concept. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: "It goes against long standing policy that 'anyone can edit'." Seriously? Advising people that they shouldn't use a particular turn of phrase tells people they can't edit? Quite aside from this startling bit of nonsense, there are dozens upon dozens of policies and guidelines telling editors what they are and are not allowed to edit, and with a great deal more force than a mere essay. I doubt the OP is going to seek to MfD them any time soon. Ravenswing 21:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wanna bet? EEng 23:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The argument that it tells anyone they can't edit is hardly a serious one. This doesn't violate any policies or guidelines I'm aware of, and is harmless. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: It's an essay, not policy, it's fine. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep A good essay, useful and friendly to newbies, well-written, funny. Someone needs to write an essay about not manufacturing offense. Thparkth (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's WP:MALVOLIO, and I'm pretty sure there are others. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The page contains good advice and the opinions of multiple good contributors. That means it's fine as an essay. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy keep: No reason to delete this essay. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep No policy-based deletion rationale has been advanced. Wikipedia is not policed to remove all instances of language that someone, somewhere might find abrasive. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per the many sound reasons above. Disclaimer-- came here from ANI where I was reading about a more serious matter.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. We already have an essay on that topic (that one) which is already clearly marked as humor, and this essay is redundant to that one. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep for a lot of reasons, but mainly because the reasons for userfying by the OP are unsupportable and frankly absurd. It’s a funny essay, and I just don’t get where the OP is coming from. Then again, some people like the smell of durian, so it takes all kinds. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - Well within the norms for wiki essays here on Wiki. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You'll pay for that. EEng 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User:Jafet/Watchlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Last edit Dec. 31 2008. Still in Category:Wikipedia watchlist. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. Category problems are category problems. The categorisation can be changed. Or removed. Indeed, the whole page could be blanked, and the nominator should address obvious alternatives to deletion before advocating deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. I thought about blanking it but thought that might be too unilateral. I can't blank it of course until we close the discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Unless userspace contains clear violations of policy, userspace should remain constructed as if the user was still around to support it. Courtesy blanking is fine with me. Page attribution and transparency should trump expedience and any imagined reader discomfort. BusterD (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Draft:Pronalee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Declined the G11 because I don't think it's advertising, and I can't find a different CSD category it falls into. We really need a speedy delete category for "WP:NOT violations in draftspace that are not possibly salvageable into an article", but we don't have it, so sending this here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - draft space is not a web host for your personal diary. Leaving this for G13 is not appropriate as this writing appears to be about a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 30, 2023[edit]

Draft:Celebrities who became politicians[edit]

Draft:Celebrities who became politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft of content moved to article space that was then deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who became politicians. AldezD (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete recreating deleted content without meaningful improvement Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, but allow userfication. The AfD made it clear that it will never be a suitable article. Draftspace is for drafting articles. Userspace pages can have other purposes, or no purpose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the consensus of the past AfD. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old business[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates