Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
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. |
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.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
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: 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[edit]
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[edit]
- 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[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.
|
Administrator instructions[edit]
V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 18 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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.
March 17, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound[edit]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
New "WikiProject", arbitrarily created by one user within the past few days with absolutely no discernible evidence of any consensus that there was any need for it. As always, WikiProjects are not free for just one user to create on a whim, and need some kind of broad consensus for their creation and use -- but although it was technically "proposed" by the creator per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Southern African Music and Sound, its proposal generated absolutely no discussion whatsoever, and then the creator just proceeded to create it themselves anyway despite the lack of any discussion, and there's no evidence of any actual participation beyond the creator. They've also created a bunch of empty project categories without filing anything in any of them, which is not standard process either -- and even if such a project were warranted, "music & sound" isn't the name that would be expected for it anyway, since it would be a subproject of "WikiProject Music", not "WikiProject Music & Sound". A WikiProject is a group of editors, not a group of articles, so there would need to be evidence that numerous editors are participating in it, which I can't find. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are relevant discussions about the proposals process at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council; I invite any interested editors to join them. The bottom line is that we are in the process of re-writing the proposals system. This was the last proposal made under the "old" rules.
- I do not suggest deleting these pages. Userification would be preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy. Deletion is overkill, especially if they were following the instructions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination seems unnecesarilly cantankerous, especially as creator made an effort to follow the established process at the time. Agree with userfy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
March 15, 2024[edit]
Draft:One Piece: Part I[edit]
Wikipedia is not a place for storing your tv watching history. Nothing in the content, or edit history resembles anything that could be considered suitable for an encyclopedia. Q T C 22:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now there's Draft:One_Piece:_Part_I_(fanfic) too. Q T C 22:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as web hosting by non-contributors. Review of the history shows that the edits to the page have all been made by Brazilian IPs, sometimes IPv4, sometimes IPv6, that have apparently only used Wikipedia to maintain these pages. Since IP addresses are assigned dynamically by ISPs, these pages are probably the diddling of one human. If these pages were in user space, they would be U5. It would be silly to keep similar pages in draft space that are the diddling of an unregistered editor. There are also a few other pages that are more of the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft:One Piece (fanfic)[edit]
Wikipedia is not a fanfic repository. Page has never had anything that could be considered encyclopedic in nature. Q T C 22:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as web hosting by non-contributors. Review of the history shows that the edits to the page have all been made by Brazilian IPs, sometimes IPv4, sometimes IPv6, that have apparently only used Wikipedia to maintain these pages. Since IP addresses are assigned dynamically by ISPs, these pages are probably the diddling of one human. If these pages were in user space, they would be U5. It would be silly to keep similar pages in draft space that are the diddling of an unregistered editor. There are also a few other pages that are more of the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Apple S9[edit]
Redirect with same name already exists on Wikipedia. No point in keeping this one as the one in the mainspace redirects correctly while this one doesn't. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Apple silicon. Redirects are cheap and useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon I think you misunderstood. There is already a redirect in the mainspace with this exact name that redirects correctly. However, this one that is a draft does not. What I am saying is that we delete the non-working "draft" redirect whilst keeping the one in the mainspace. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mseingth2133444 - No, I did not misunderstand. I am saying that the draft should be redirected to Apple silicon in the same way as the title is in article space. I am saying that the title in draft space should redirect correctly, in the same way as the title in article space does. Redirects from draft space are cheap and useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 20:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mseingth2133444 - No, I did not misunderstand. I am saying that the draft should be redirected to Apple silicon in the same way as the title is in article space. I am saying that the title in draft space should redirect correctly, in the same way as the title in article space does. Redirects from draft space are cheap and useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon I think you misunderstood. There is already a redirect in the mainspace with this exact name that redirects correctly. However, this one that is a draft does not. What I am saying is that we delete the non-working "draft" redirect whilst keeping the one in the mainspace. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
March 13, 2024[edit]
Draft:Qayaamat Se Qayaamat Tak[edit]
Another editor created a page called Qayaamat Se Qayaamat Tak on 10 March 2024, so the draft is redundant. Maybe there should be a history merge before the draft is deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Constellation[edit]
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Constellation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I'm nominating this LTA report I've created in the past. I don't think this spam network is big enough to have it's own report, eventhough it spammed many xwikis for some time before gubernatorial elections in Russia and then stopped. I'll let the community decide on what to do with this now unactive LTA case. A09|(talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Assuming no one opposes, you could tag it for speedy deletion under G7 (author requests deletion). Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Even if there was no need for the LTA report, there is also no need to delete it if it is correct, and its correctness does not seem to be in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft:System Requirements for MS-DOS Based Windows Versions[edit]
- Draft:System Requirements for MS-DOS Based Windows Versions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Against the purpose of Wikipedia. Article consisting purely of Windows System Requirements and adds no encyclopedic value. No reliable sources cited. LLMs are not a reliable source. Deletion looks uncontroversial to me. Edit 1: Also add potential original research and weasel words to the issues. The fact that the draft might be going against WP:NOR just makes it more worthy of deleting. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bduke (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 09:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: how long will we have to wait until this discussion is closed? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a draft. See NDRAFT. Drafts are not checked for notability. Deletion is controversial because keeping the draft should be uncontroversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Robert McClenon, but I think you misunderstood. I am not nominating for notability, I am nominating for LLM misuse and because it goes against what Wikipedia is not. It is also unencyclopedic, going against the purpose of Wikipedia. Last time I checked, drafts are checked for the latter two criteria. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Mseingth2133444 - Seven days. What's the rush? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep average draft.—Alalch E. 11:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Old business[edit]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) ended today on 19 March 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. |
February 22, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews[edit]
Ancient junk from 2006 of no actual historical value. If kept rename to Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber interviews. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not junk. Historical and valuable. No issue with moving or renaming. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Delete. I finished the transcription at the subpage: Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006.—Alalch E. 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- @Pppery: Move the transcript to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006, add Vibber to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people#Notable contributors (see WP:BROOKEDAY for context), add the link to the transcript to that line, and delete the here nominated one-entry index?—Alalch E. 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I moved the subpage to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber.Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews can be deleted.—Alalch E. 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Move the transcript to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006, add Vibber to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people#Notable contributors (see WP:BROOKEDAY for context), add the link to the transcript to that line, and delete the here nominated one-entry index?—Alalch E. 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mark Historical if of little or no current value. There is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful. This is more likely to be useful than a lot of the historical cruft in Wikipedia space, but it should all be kept if there is no actual need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon The page nominated for deletion is just a page with a link to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. It has no content and no real incoming links. The content about Wikipedia history (which is not the same as historical content) is at the page containing the interview transcript. —Alalch E. 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As has been noted, this page just contains a link to a separate page. However, this on its own does not mean that it should be deleted, or that its existence is not helpful/valuable. Because it seems to be (in effect) a soft redirect page, I have assessed it based on the Redirect guideline.Similar to SmokeyJoe, I have no issue with moving or renaming. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- This page has existed since 2006. This strongly engages WP:R#K4, which states that
[l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone
. The interview transcript is indeed at a different page, but I can't see a reason to prevent this long-standing link from continuing to point to it, especially in the absence of reasons it may cause harm. - As far as I can tell, none of the reasons under WP:R#DELETE are engaged in this instance. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the continued existence of this page would be harmful. Per Robert McClenon,
[t]here is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful
.
- As was already pointed out by the nominator, the name of the nominated page MOS:DEADNAMEs. The current name must be a red link for this reason and this MfD can not have an outcome preventing this name from becoming a red link. In a hypothetical scenario that the page is moved without leaving a redirect, if construing the current page as a soft redirect, which it is not, because while any page with no content and only a single link superficially resembles a redirect, for that page to be a soft redirect it would need to be
a replacement for the usual "hard" redirect and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project), another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K)
. This is not a replacement for the usual, "hard", redirect, because there is no such ostensible hard redirect that could be seen as having been replaced, because what is indicated by "Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews" does not correspond to "Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber" to the degree where having such a redirect is not nonsense, because it speaks of multiple interviews and it links to one interview, and multiple interviews really do exist, making this putative redirection a confusing nonsense. Redirecting from plural denoting a set of different things to one of those things also resembles WP:XY. So this can not be seen as a plausible and appropriate redirect. Further, the destination is not a Wikimedia sister project, not an another language Wikimedia site, and not another website. The destination is a local target, but there is nothing to indicate that in this case the local target as the destination should be the destination, or that anything should be the "destination" as this page really does not function as a redirect, does not have the quality of a redirect, and so this is not a case where this page should be used as or understood to be a soft redirect to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. But if seeing it as a soft redirect after all, which I disagree with, moving it would mean "renaming a redirect" which barely makes any sense, and boils down to creating a new redirect. The page under the new name would have to be treated as a new redirect, and so (again, if seeing this as a soft redirect, which it is not) WP:R#K4 would no longer have any bearing. For example, that reason not to delete is about not "breaking incoming or internal links" and in the esoteric scenario of this page being kept, moved, and treated as a redirect, links would be broken, so from the vantage point of that outcome as the consequence of applying RKEEP #4, when RKEEP #4 is thus applied it negates itself. —Alalch E. 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- And when SmokeyJoe !voted to keep, circumstances were different, and surely his !vote was about the actual transcript which was at that time a subpage of the nominated page, and deleting the page would also automatically lead to deleting the subpage unless something was done in the meantime (something was indeed done). So it is understandable that he would want to preserve this historically valuable document, and, surely, what he referred to by "historical and valuable" is not the text "These are transcriptions of Brion Vibber's interviews" and a single link, but what is linked to, as the subpage. —Alalch E. 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- This page has existed since 2006. This strongly engages WP:R#K4, which states that
- Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Redirects are cheap. There isn't any other project or page that needs that title, it is a reasonable search term for a redirect. We can't say it will or won't have future importance. We can say it was during an important time, when there were less than a handful of employees and not a lot of interviews going on, but it doesn't matter, if anyone wants to find the information, that is a very likely search term. The main sniff test for me is, is the encyclopedia more or less useful with the redirect? It is ever so slightly useful with it. Also, the age of the redirect does influence the decision to keep as well, because we aren't sure how many outside links to that page exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)