Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

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

A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
• Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	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

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
• Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. 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. 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 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

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	3	97	0	100
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	1	2	0	3
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	38	0	38
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

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.

October 2, 2023

User:Webstrike/Frosteam

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

Should be deleted as G11 or U5 or per WP:FAKEARTICLE, for U5 it was said "creator has made edits outside userspace" but not really exactly true, all of their edits are "promotion only", all but one article created by them were already deleted as promo or non-notable and I nominated the last one which will most likely be deleted as well, this is a spam page of something that was deleted as non-notable already: [1], WP:FAKEARTICLE says: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content", "Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted", "Blatant promotional content may qualify for db-g11 tagging. Clearly inappropriate content created by non-genuine contributors should be tagged with db-u5.", WP:STALEDRAFT was pointed to say "let it be" for this reason but WP:STALEDRAFT says: "if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues)" (this is problematic with "promotional issues"), "if the draft has no potential and is problematic even if blanked, seek deletion.", "User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely", anyway, the bottom line, I think it's clearly a G11 deletion. Tehonk (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete No purpose, not a feasible draft, no reason to host it here. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:A17 Bionic

Draft:A17 Bionic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not 6 months old yet, but stale draft that contains purely speculation, nothing that isn't present in the Apple A17 article that has been created in the meantime. alexiaa (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Why are some editors in a hurry to delete stale drafts? What harm do they do? Why spend additional time by the volunteers at MFD?
• Redirect to Apple A17. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • This is not your average everyday stale draft. It's a speculative draft that basically never really served a purpose, though I don't know if there's a policy against such. Technically it wouldn't really hurt anyone to leave it there for two more months, but I asked what to do about it in #wikipedia-en and received no response so I thought I'd ask here.
  • (I'm fine with a redirect outcome, but it's worth noting that the title isn't even correct – "Bionic" was a good prediction but it's actually "Pro", and either way it doesn't follow the naming convention of the existing chip articles.) alexiaa (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

September 30, 2023

Wikipedia:WikiProject Six Idiots

Wikipedia:WikiProject Six Idiots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Stillborn Wikiproject. The Wikiproject was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, nor would it likely have been accepted if it had. The creator has seemingly not ever edited the topic's main page (Horrible Histories troupe), nor proposed the Wikiproject on the talk page, nor edited the talk page at all other than to add the new WikiProject template (Talk:Horrible Histories troupe), nor does there appear to be much existing collaboration going on at that talk page that would need to spread into a separate WikiProject. The "Build it and they will come" approach to WikiProjects has routinely not worked in the past, and is unlikely to work now. Despite the downer tone, I do encourage the creator to help out if desired, just to start with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/British television task force or the article talk page first. In the unlikely situation of WikiProject British TV regulars complaining about too much Six Idiots content glomming up their talk page, only then spin out a separate WikiProject or task force - but this is realistically very unlikely to happen.

Note: If there is consensus for deletion, these should also be deleted: Category:Six Idiots articles by quality, Category:FA-Class Six Idiots articles, and Template:WikiProject Six Idiots. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is the creator. I made this partially by mistake then kinda stuck to it. I would suggest it is moved to WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Six Idiots. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete abortive Wikiproject, which is a non-controversial matter considering the above comment by the creator, and then the creator can create the proposal himself.—Alalch E. 11:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete or the creator may cut and paste into the space of their choice, then tag for speedy deletion as U1. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E., @BusterD, @SnowFire: The article has been moved to User:JacobTheRox/WikiProject Six Idiots. I will tag U1 there in a second. Thanks for your help, JacobTheRox (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close as speedily userfied: This has been a non-controversial discussion. The creator who is the author of the only substantial content on the page, which they made "partially by mistake", becoming aware that it "was not created properly", moved it to their userspace in the course of the discussion. G6 was applied to the redirect which remained. The page is now a userspace draft for a WikiProject, and if the creator wants that deleted they can tag it. As reasons to delete a projectspace page and a userspace page are different, this MfD's nomination and comments are misaligned with a hypothetical case of deleting the resulting userspace page, and so the MfD has run its usefulness.
  Do not close as "speedily deleted" (not what happened).—Alalch E. 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the related categories and templates should still be deleted. SnowFire (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

    Can already do that with G6. —Alalch E. 17:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable

Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I think this policy should be deleted. It's being used and thrown around way too much with the purpose of indirectly insulting many good-faith editors. I see it happening in a lot of talk pages and I think its negatives outweigh its positives — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatmanBw (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Meh.... This essay isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline and we have WP:EM that acts as a counter viewpoint. Personally, I don't think editors who specialize in certain topics can be replaced. There are ares of Wikipedia within an interest area that have not received any major updates for 10+ years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is..... it is becoming a tool to discredit or dismiss editors who question another editor or a process. I also saw it being used out of context way too many times when it's completely uncalled for. It is also demoralizing for editors who have a passion for a certain topic who might in fact be irreplaceable, as you mentioned. CatmanBw (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. This is the single best Wikipedia essay.—Alalch E. 14:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Care to tell us the reasons? I personally think that even if it is partially true, not everything that is true or partially true needs to be said out loud due to its demoralizing effect. Imagine if your boss at work gave you a link to this essay....how would you feel about going to work everyday now? Well Wikipedia editors are volunteers, so they don't get any pay for their work. You expect them to continue to keep editing when they are constantly being reminded that they can be easily replaced? CatmanBw (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - The essay provides a reasonable perspective as well as advice. If it is being misused by some editors to attack or belittle others, then that is a behavioural issue for that specific editor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The content of the essay itself is partially to blame though since it gives people the ability to misuse it. CatmanBw (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment could you post diffs or conversations were the essay has been misused? NotAGenious (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't keep note of the all the incidences but I posted an example below. It's not really being misused in this example; I just don't think it was needed here. The editor clearly had good intentions when starting the discussion. There was no need to to tell them that they are irreplaceable and demoralize them. CatmanBw (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing wrong with this essay. It is not a policy. If you disagree with it, don't link to it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#CatmanBw_(talk_·_contribs)_edit_warring_/_deleting_deletion_proposal_(1rr_violation)_+_personal_attacks_on_identity. seems like a perfect spot to remind you that you are not irreplaceable. Bbb23 probably should've blocked you for WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT. I see you are also BLUDGEONing this MfD. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what triggered my request for deletion. I see it being used all the time when it's not really needed. | This is the latest example that I've seen
  My point is that: Users are not really irreplaceable, a lot of areas stop getting edited when certain users leave. And even if it is partially true, the content of the essay is demoralizing. These are my reasonings on why it should be deleted. But as I see from the comments, the consensus will most likely be to keep. I am not trying to win any debates, I am just having a normal discussion where I present my point of view. CatmanBw (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are right, each individual editor with a high level of competency is actually very important to Wikipedia. I do not agree with this essay's meaning. That doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. An essay is an essay. It represents a perspective some editors hold. Keeping it is not an endorsement. If there's a persistent problem with people referencing it, one can always address it through editing. Something like the banner at the top of WP:CIR or the caveat in WP:POINT may be a good idea. Nardog (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the input. I also think the banner is a good idea since the essay will most likely stay. CatmanBw (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

September 29, 2023

Portal:Video games

Portal:Video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This MfD is being submitted after a strawpoll at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Portal:Video_games. The purpose there was to judge whether any members of the project had interest in actually maintaining this Portal. The overwhelming consensus was no, and so I'm bringing the portal to MFD.

This portal has a staggering 110,000 incoming links, which leads to a mere 200 views a day. The content on the portal itself however is largely out of date and unmaintained, ranging from last update being from 7 years ago to 14 years ago. The talk page hasn't had a meaningful discussion since 2022, and 2020 before that. The FA and GA sections are the only thing up-to-date, because they feed directly from WP:VG's FA and GA lists, which are maintained. The "Selected Pictures" have not been updated since ~2008-2009. The DKY lists has not been updated since it was created in 2016. The "this month in video gaming" section has not been updated since ~2008-2009. The "Selected Topics" have not been updated since ~2012-2014. The "General Images" carousel feeds off five very broad articles without any changes or maintenance in a decade.

This portal is unmaintained and unwanted by the editors who would be most knowledgeable for maintaining it. It's views are driven entirely by sheer amount of links. There was a suggestion to remove any unmaintained sections, but that almost makes it simply a mirror of WP:VG. Providing readers with 10 year out of date content is a disservice. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - not useful to readers, not read by readers, not maintained, not going to be maintained. --PresN 20:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per both above. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think that a portal not being manually updated and curated merits its deletion - it's perfectly feasible for a portal to be automated and just be there as a landing page for users interested in learning more about the topic. WP:VG is more of a Wikipedia editor page than a landing page for readers. Furthermore, the strawpoll was entirely made up of highly engaged editors who would have less than zero reason to visit the Portal in the first place, making for a skewed view of its usefulness or lack thereof. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  If a strong majority of engaged, experienced, knowledgeable editors have no intention on maintaining it, who can you realistically count on to maintain this? It's not the sort of thing that passerby/casual editors would want to, or even be capable of, maintaining. I'm not sure I see the realistic path forward here. Even the few people not supportive of deletion in the straw poll didn't show any actual personal interest in helping (yourself included.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  All of these points have already been discussed and argued. Why push forward with the same talking points if nothing new has happened since the last RfC? WP:MfD isn't cleanup for a job that can be automated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  We just had a new discussion at WT:VG this week and what I'm talking about was the general sentiment. I'm literally talking about new developments. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Since we are only talking about this one portal then its fine. I just remember how long and drawn out it was last time is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Are we seriously going to have another round when it comes to ending portals? (See: WP:ENDPORTALS) There is no policy or guideline based rationales given in this MfD nomination, but there is a prior consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  No argument for ending portals is being presented or made. A specific portal is being proposed as unmaintained, out of date, and not useful. There's no policy or guideline based rationales to express, other than to lay out these details, because we have no "Portal deletion policy". WP:DEL doesn't even mention portals once. Are you saying that because of WP:ENDPORTALS, not a single portal can ever be evaluated? -- ferret (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, you made a good point, but I still see automation as an alternative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep and automate. There is no reason why this portal needs to be manually updated. "This month in gaming history" is a nice addition but can be deleted if its dated. - - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree with this. I fully admit I don't have interest in manually maintaining a portal, but I don't think that's a "gotcha" that makes the argument fall apart. I do not believe a fully automated portal page that pulls from recent developments in the video game space would be detrimental to readers. It would still highlight "behind the scenes" information that readers may not normally bother checking, and lay out information in an easily navigable format. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's a fix that has since been done for other portals with the same issues Ferret has here. "Out of date and unmaintained" issues fall under WP:CLEANUP, which deletion isn't meant for. That being said, the biggest issue here isn't the nomination here but the prior discussion which indicates almost no support within the VG project to keep the portal page. Why force a Wikiproject to keep a project page that they don't want? This has me more towards a "weak delete" lately regarding this debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's arguable the poll was affected by how the question was posed: with the sole choices being to manually maintain it or delete it altogether. I wonder if the possibility of full automation was brought up how it would have affected consensus, since all the "delete" votes were along the lines of "we shouldn't have to maintain this". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per ferret, who is preaching the Wiki-gospel here. Panini! • 🥪 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per comments in the previous WT:VG thread. It's one thing if a portal is rarely used but at least mildly useful for the readers who do click on it; if it's useless and disappointing even for readers who try it anyway, it's better just deleted. So there is a stronger reason to delete here than just general distaste for portals. (But, at risk of rehashing old arguments, to be clear we probably should delete many more portals - this one is at least part of a WikiProject with some activity. Old, abandoned portals that don't even have WikiProjects that notice should probably be even more deletable. But this gets back into the age-old "why do we still even have Portals" debate, see old arguments there.) SnowFire (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: I don't think anyone would object to deleting Portals with no Wikiprojects attached to them. The whole idea of Portals is to highlight the achievements of a Wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comments - Not yet !voting.
  • • This is a very popular portal, with 243 daily page views in 2022, and 228 daily page views in 2021. By contrast, the lead article, Video games, had 3834 daily page views in 2022.
    • The portal is very popular because it is well advertised, with an astonishing 110,000 backlinks.
    • This was a very extensively developed portal when it was last maintained in 2016, with 128 articles and 187 DYKs. The subject area of video games is one in which change and progress are rapid and frequent, and the selection of articles is probably obsolete.
    • The architecture of this portal is an old-style architecture with partial page copies of selected articles. Therefore any article on a video game for which the article has been modified in the past seven years is now obsolete. Any article on a video game that was developed in the past seven years simply is not included in the portal.
    • A five-year-old RFC against ending portals is hardly a useful argument against deleting one portal.
    • Although the community decided five years ago not to delete portals, the community decided four years ago that there are no portal guidelines
    • There is no consensus as to what the purpose of portals is.
    • In the absence of comprehensible reasons for portals, it appears that there are mystical reasons for portals. No editor is required to accept another editor's mystical reasons.
    • Consensus Can Change, and there does not appear to be a consensus about any aspect of portals.
    • Is User:Knowledgekid87 offering to automate the maintenance of the portal, or are they only saying that we should find someone to automate the maintenance of the portal?
    • The combination of the high popularity of this portal and the absence of any maintenance in seven years illustrates that portals not only do not maintain themselves but do not find portal maintainers, even when the portals find users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Question @Knowledgekid87: I've made some changes to the portal, what do you think?—Alalch E. 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  This certainly LOOKS better, with many redundant sections removed or shifted. It's a much cleaner layout, which was a problem I didn't highlight before. DYK seems automated, but the new biography section is a manually curated list. The rest remains hand curated as well. All of the non-automated content needs a deep review by topic knowledgeable individuals, which loops back to the fact the WP:VG project does not have a desire to do so. -- ferret (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  It looks much better to me, thanks for your work! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  The featured topics have replaced "selected topic", and it's actually automated in the sense that it's a transclusion of the current list of featured topics. I hear what you're saying about biographies, but the manually curated list of biographies is from relatively stable wikiproject classifications and ratings of articles as essential and vital. I don't really think that the list needs to be complete, and if there are a few suboptimal entires, it isn't a major problem. That is something that can be reviewed on a five-year basis.

  The "This month in gaming history" box can't be automated and I agree that it's the biggest problem. Should probably just remove it (edit: Done; replaced with something that is automated). The images are non-automated too. —Alalch E. 15:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think that portals are actually good for featuring content and that they can truly be sub-main pages, despite that being the original idea. My view on portals is that they should be seen as pages with the primary function of collating links from disparate namespaces / navigational methods and links to sister projects and even outside resources:
  1. primary article
  2. primary outline
  3. primary index
  4. primary timeline
  5. primary list of lists
  6. category tree
  7. primary navbox and other important navboxes
  8. glossary
  9. WikiProject
  10. related portals
  11. relevant content on other Wikimedia projects
  12. relevant resources outside of Wikimedia (if appropriate; for example thew link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in Portal:Philosophy is appropriate)

I think that if a portal can fulfill this function (meaning: if most of the listed things actually exist), there's no need to ever delete that portal, and what should happen instead is just removing non-policy compliant boxes that have always been all about featuring this or that, and are not necessary for this link collating function as I've described it. I don't think that a hypothetical portal that doesn't feature any content (no need for it not to feature featured articles however) and just contains navigation would have a net negative effect on a reader's experience. Such a portal would not require maintenance. Based on this, there's no need to delete the majority of portals about broad topics (which, for example, have an outline, a navbox, a WikiProject, which are meaningfully represented on the sister projects etc), and this is one of the portals that don't need to be deleted. Some much more niche portals about topics that are not so high-level as video games could probably use deleting. My mystical 2c.—Alalch E. 16:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Viewers who want to see a video game portal probably want to see a portal that is mostly about video games of the last seven years, which this portal is not. It does not appear that new articles have been selected in place of the previous articles that were selected in 2016, and the obsolescence of the selected articles is the main drawback of this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation if the new portal has an architecture that does not involve partial copies of pages, which are content forks, or has other automation such as was suggested by User:Knowledgekid87. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

September 28, 2023

User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane?

User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This looks to me like a classic fake article in user space. It is not an essay about Wikipedia at all, it is about politics. While we do give users some lattitude in user space, this seems like using Wikipedia as a web host for your own thoughts and observation not related to WP editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I see it as a content-draft or FAQ-draft. Andre🚐 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's clearly, deliberately, marked as a userspace essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's an essay, to be sure, but I always interpreted it as something that was being cultivated, curated, and adapted for eventual prime-time production use, when the political hot-button-ness of the topic has faded and such things could be adapted to mainspace with suitable non-recentist space. Perhaps that is naive to say, but I am inclined to assume that the intention would always be to move as much of the information as possible in such essays or articles in userspace into mainspace, with WP:NODEADLINE. I can't speak for Valjean and I may be reading too much into it or taking it into a different direction than he would, but that is my rationale for opining. Andre🚐 22:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Andrevan is right. Also, this isn't an ordinary essay as it takes its inspiration from one very RS (with supplemental RS backing): "Interview of Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" It is open for discussion and development.

It was, like the other nominated subpage, written in response to the conspiracy theory nonsense from an unnamed fringe editor (who is inspired by clearly unreliable sources), one of those "Russiagate" people who deny or minimize Russian interference and the clear role the Trump campaign played in cooperating with it. They try to place all the blame for the Russia investigation on the Steele dossier, which played no role in the opening of the investigation. This essay lays out all the preliminary factors that raised suspicions in the international intelligence community and led to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That is a clearly notable and mainstream subject covered by myriad RS. Deleting this only serves the agenda of fringe editors.

If it being an essay is a problem, I can userfy it again and bury it as one of my other non-essay user subpages. I can also make it a real article. What would you advise? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. This essay is a work of political advocacy, based largely on original research/synthesis, and not something that should be hosted on Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia article that could be created from Valjean's essay, since it would immediately be a WP:POVFORK of the main Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) article, advancing the thesis that the FBI's investigation was properly predicated and that the investigative steps taken were appropriate, in contrast to the issues identified by the Inspector General report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the Durham special counsel investigation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• You do realize that you are pushing a fringe POV, don't you? You are expressing doubt about the legitimacy of the original investigation into Russian interference and how that properly morphed into the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into whether the Trump campaign was cooperating with those efforts. Mueller found that they did just that. Never cast doubt on the legitimacy of those investigations, as that would be forbidden advocacy of a fringe POV. (People who use the term Russiagate are usually pushing such views.) Those investigations were fully justified, as documented by multiple Congressional investigations, Mueller's investigation, the Horowitz investigation, and the FBI's own findings. Any problems with the seeking of the FISA warrants on Carter Page do not detract from that and had no impact on the full investigations. That was a minor sideshow that Horowitz identified and the FBI took measures to prevent in the future.
• Another point. OR is allowed on both user and article talk pages, as well as in essays. It is often a necessary part of discussing various POV, the process of examining issues and figuring out how to properly interpret sources, the relations between events, etc.
• This writing is how I figure out what's happening and what RS have said. Some of what I have on my subpages is useful in article talk page discussions and has ended up, after discussion, as content in articles. That's why I do it. The ultimate goal is article improvement. To censor private subpages is problematic. If I was working with unreliable sources and pushing fringe POV, that would be a different matter, but I am not doing that. The editors who disagree with me are often doing that, and I'm working with content that makes our articles clearer in their presentation in what RS say, thus creating more content that undermines the fringe POV. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and favors RS. I'm as mainstream an editor as you'll find around here. It may not be the intended effect, but efforts to prevent me from working on my own subpages just aids those with a pro-fringe agenda.
• How about telling me a better way to do this? I'm open to learn. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the Durham special counsel investigation "identified issues" that were pertinent is itself a political advocacy POV being advocated for, here on this page. Andre🚐 02:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's a fringe POV. Durham is a political hack who tried to provide cover for Trump's misdeeds and failed. His "investigation" was an abject failure that found nothing new and just pushed more fringe POV. The Horowitz report, by contrast, was very professional, identified real problems, and didn't push any fringe denialism or engage in any cover-ups for Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - As stated by the nominator, this is a fake article, a page in user space masquerading as an article. The presence of a side navbox, which contains links to articles in article space, is another indication that this is a fake article. (Simple removal of the navbox will not change the fact that the page is masquerading as an article and so will still be improper.) The author says that they are developing these pages in order to oppose fringe editors. That appears to be an argument that they need to fight fire with fire. If fringe editors are trying to impose a non-neutral point of view on encyclopedic articles, the author has at least three options that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
  • 1. Report the fringe editors to WP:ANI.
  • 2. Report the fringe editors to Arbitration Enforcement under the American politics case.
  • 3. Request ArbCom to open a re-review of the American politics case as the third American politics case.

The author may take one of those three actions, or more than one of them in reasonable sequence. For now, this page is a soapbox and a content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Robert, you need to AGF. An essay cannot be a content fork. Only a real article can be labeled a content fork. Also, read my comment immediately above yours. I am a mainstream editor, and when I see fringe editors casting doubt on whether Russia interfered in the election, I am concerned about their influence and their CIR. Sometimes there is a hole in our coverage where they hang their doubts, and finding better sources and content closes the hole. That's one of the types of things I often develop on my subpages. They may well include OR and SYNTH, but that is allowed on user and article talk pages, as well as in essays.
• We are supposed to document what RS say, and if that's "meeting fire with fire", then that's what we are supposed to do, but maybe you don't mean that. I don't see it that way. Instead, I believe we are supposed to oppose the forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. We do that by creating better content based on more and better RS. We do that by using that knowledge on talk pages to enlighten those fringe editors. That is proper editorial behavior, and hopefully, we can do it without engaging in battlefield behavior. (Note that advocacy of mainstream POV based on RS is allowed and not battlefield behavior. It is advocacy of fringe POV from unreliable sources that is not allowed. Defending fringe POV is battlefield behavior.) In egregious and persistent cases, we use your three suggestions. I usually try to defuse the matter on the talk page as I find that drama boards are usually disruptive and time-consuming processes. Enlightening fringe editors sometimes prevents more problems and visits to drama boards. If the work I'm doing on my subpage helps with that, it's a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• User:Valjean - You say that I need to Assume Good Faith. Where have I questioned your good faith? What are you asking me to assume good faith about? I know that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, which is what good faith is about, but writing argumentative essays is not an effective way to improve the encyclopedia. What do you mean by telling me to assume good faith (which I have already done)? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I explained how it is not possible for an essay to be a content fork. Essays are a special class of content that are not part of the encyclopedia and cannot, without bad faith, be mistaken for part of the encyclopedia. "Masquerading" is a word that is an aspersion and a clear failure to AGF.
• The creation of an improper content fork is not good, and that is not what this is. In that sense, I want you to AGF by believing me. I'm sorry if you got lumped into the group (very small at present) who erroneously assert that OR and SYNTH are improper here, or that this is a content fork, or some other accusation. User essays contain an editor's opinions. That is legitimate. It would not be legitimate if those opinions were contrary to our PAG or RS. That is not what I am doing here. In that sense, I want you to AGF. I am very mainstream. I ask for help because I am not perfect. Deletion is not help, but censorship of an editor's efforts to develop content and sourcing that can be used in the encyclopedia. This MfD is misguided, but has inspired me to finish my work toward making this into article content. See this as a beginning draft. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed content that can work as a distraction, thus keeping the essay focused on the main topic. A reading now gives a very different impression and is fully in harmony with the RS and narratives found in our well-sourced articles, from which much of what is not sourced now comes. The sources are already in use elsewhere. With some work, this essay could be focused even more and become a section in one of our articles, or maybe a separate article. As it is now, there is no question that it is an essay and does not pretend to be an article. No one would ever make that mistake, so accusations to the contrary are not in good faith. I have never seen a mainstream essay in userspace attacked in this way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Most user space essays are about Wikipedia. This is not. That's the point, and I don't know why you can't or won't see that. This is duplicate content in user space which you clearly wish to control. That simply is not what user space is for. That's not just my opinion, that's site policy. If this were, as you claim, a "mainstream essay" I would not have nominated it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  See my response below. It has been changed significantly and is no longer an essay. It is now quickly moving towards its original goal as article content, a fully legitimate use of user space. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• NO LONGER AN ESSAY. Beeblebrox, I have removed all mention of "essay", since that is not being accepted. Now I am continuing development for use in article(s) or as its own article. This is a fully legitimate use of userspace. This MfD has inspired me to finish my work toward making this into article content. Please AGF in my intentions and stop this process. Do not delete the page as I need the history. See this as a beginning draft and help me get it right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, it was an essay in your last comment from yesterday, and you'd never seen such an unwarranted attack on a "mainstream essay", and today it is not an essay at all and I need to assume good faith and volunteer my time to help you develop what is now suddenly a draft of an article on a topic we already have an article on? This is getting surreal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Slow down. Notice the words "no longer". (I have significantly altered the content, and all framing as an essay is gone.) It was an essay but is no longer an essay.

  NOTE that improvement of content during an AfD or MfD to resolve objections is allowed, so see your initial effort as a success in that regard. Now it's time to drop the stick because the target has significantly changed. It was always aimed at becoming, at least some parts of it, article content, and I am now spurred to move more quickly toward that end.

  Are you really suggesting that the preparation of article content (much not found elsewhere here) is suddenly not a legitimate use of userspace? No one will now even mistake it for an essay and of course it cannot possibly be a content fork as it's in userspace. Let me develop this for article content. YOU don't have to help me, since, at least in this instance, you don't think helping another editor is a legitimate use of your time. Fine. Others who might be interested are welcome to offer suggestions and corrections. Some have done so, and I thank them for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Question - If this is no longer an essay, what is it? Is it a draft? Drafts are permitted in user space, and are reviewed, and compared against existing articles. If it is a draft, please tag it with {{AFC submission}} and we will review it. If it is still an essay, it is subject to the rules about essays. If it is something else, what is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Is it intended to engage in an article content dispute with POV-pushers or falsifiers? If so, that is done in a conduct forum, as I explained above.
• What is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that drafts are permitted to be incubated in userspace before submission. Obviously, we're already at MFD, so it will be deleted if there is a consensus to do so, but assuming it hadn't been MFD'd, wouldn't any user be permitted to have a userspace draft for a while and then just move it into mainspace when/if it's done. Valjean is an experienced user and not a newbie creating spam articles. These pieces of content, in my view, aren't essays about Wikipedia but material about the content itself that would ultimately be encyclopedic. Andre🚐 14:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Robert, I have never used the draft article process, used an {{AFC submission}} tag, nor submitted my draft work for "review". That's not how I work. Is there some law that says I have to follow the process you mention? No, there isn't. I've been here since 2003, and my first few article submissions suffered from the newbie/ignorant problems and were promptly deleted, but since then I have never been hunted down in this way, except by fringe editors. Some search all my subpages and archives to find some way to find fault with me. Their aims are nefarious. Editors have usually left my userspace in peace if they weren't interested or didn't like the POV found there. They didn't MfD them and draw more attention to them. Note that the public is clueless about this, and other editors don't even know these exist unless they seek them out.

Editors have lots of latitude in this area, and the way this is being done really brings into question the whole essay process. Are there really editors who want to curtail that process and censor how other editors think? I have written a number of articles, as well as created lots of content, and I always do it in my userspace, not some officially announced draft space.

I'm somewhat autistic (it runs in the family, including my son's Asperger syndrome) and messy in my thinking, with huge amounts of info whirling around in a disorganized pattern in my mind, and it often takes me a long time to deliberately or randomly get around to organizing some of it into coherent and useful content. Therefore, I tend to begin work and let it percolate on the back burner, working on it a bit at a time, sometimes for months or years, before finally using it. I may get an idea that "this hole in our information needs to be filled, so I'll start aiming toward fixing it". Then I'll start collecting sources, as that is the basis for all my thinking and work. I don't have any independent points of view that are not from RS. Then I'll start choosing how to paraphrase or quote the relevant parts from the sources, then work on wording, framing, arrangement, etc. This may take years. In some cases, I have marked such a page as an essay to draw more attention to it so I'll get more input and corrections from other editors. Most editors either ignore me or offer constructive criticism and help. They don't do what is being done here and try to force me into action that is not at my own pace.

Maybe my method sounds like a nefarious, evil, and wrong process to you (I'm being treated like a criminal here), but I'm a volunteer here and no rule forbids me from using my own process of getting from A to Z, as long as I am not pushing fringe theories or using unreliable sources. Advocacy of them is forbidden, while advocacy of mainstream POV based on RS is fully allowed and expected. While I'm in my own userspace, discussion and experimentation with ideas is allowed much latitude, even more than on article talk pages, where OR and SYNTH are allowed. Userspace is not part of the encyclopedia. No essay can ever be mistaken for an article. Essays do not have to be "about Wikipedia", they just have to be about our work here, and that is largely about various topics, including trying how to frame potential content. If I have crossed some red line, then that line needs to be described much better. PLEASE point me to an explanation about that line and how to not cross it.

Because I can see the writing on the wall, and know that this effort only plays into the hands of fringe editors who don't like where this info might be going, I expect more of them will now find this MfD, !vote here, and the content will then be deleted, history and all. Therefore, I have started focusing on it, rather than let it percolate in my usual way. It is no longer an essay. You won't find it listed in the essay category. It is now even further hidden on a backburner, out of sight from all but those who want to harass me. Because of that fact, bringing more attention to this is counterproductive.

I'll try to more quickly (not pleasant for me) work on using the content in articles or make a full article since there really is a hole in our coverage of this matter. I find this use of force to monitor and control my method stressful. I'm just a volunteer with good intentions. I am not pushing fringe POV. I'm trying to improve our coverage of topics, yet now someone is trying to force and control my process. It's just wrong. I always try to extend more latitude toward other autistic editors as they don't use normal thinking processes and need more elbow room. Maybe we should not be allowed to write essays. I'll have to think about the consequences of that path. It looks dark and authoritarian to me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think this is personal and I am out to get you. I don't know why you would think that or why you would equate a userspace essay being nominated for deletion as equivalent to someone "hunting you down" but that feels like a kind of ugly accusation to be making in what should be a mundane deletion discussion. Why you are acting this way is not my problem as, again, this is not personal. It's also somewhat outlandish that you seem to be responding to arguments that nobody has actually made, i.e. that anyone has even come close to suggesting that you should not be allowed to write essays at all. I think you need some persective here. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Valjean/Trump–Russia crime scene

User:Valjean/Trump–Russia crime scene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This looks to me like a classic fake article in user space. It is not an essay about Wikipedia at all, it is about politics. While we do give users some lattitude in user space, this seems like using Wikipedia as a web host for your own thoughts and observation not realted to WP editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I consider it as a content-draft and not just "free web hosting." Andre🚐 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  You may consider it that, but Valjean marked it as a userspace essay, so I don't think you are correct in that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it's a reasonable inference that this is an essay, although, unless I am mistaken, unlike the other one, this one is not so-marked with an essay template, and I think it's possibly a better argument that this one is a kind of FAQ or content draft in the works. Valjean can weigh in when he sees this. Andre🚐 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Unlike a real essay, although it was initially written in response to an unnamed fringe editor who denies Russian interference (hence the words "essay", "help you", and "ask"), this workspace still contains all the things designed to hide it from most editors, such as the "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes."

This is how I develop formulations, content, and sources, etc., as part of my own work for use in various articles. It comes in handy as part of legitimate editorial work preparation, and some has been used in discussions and is actual article content now. It's my own editorial workshop, so interference is unwelcome. I have lots of subpages that should be left alone. Some of them, especially these, are obviously hated by our fringe editors, although most probably don't know about them, which is fine with me.

Please close both AfDs as deleting these subpages will severely handicap me and serve to aid NOTHERE fringe agendas at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - As stated by the nominator, this is a fake article, a page in user space masquerading as an article. The presence of a side navbox, which contains links to articles in article space, is another indication that this is a fake article. (Simple removal of the navbox will not change the fact that the page is masquerading as an article and so will still be improper.) The author says that they are developing these pages in order to oppose fringe editors. That appears to be an argument that they need to fight fire with fire. If fringe editors are trying to impose a non-neutral point of view on encyclopedic articles, the author has at least three options that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
  • 1. Report the fringe editors to WP:ANI.
  • 2. Report the fringe editors to Arbitration Enforcement under the American politics case.
  • 3. Request ArbCom to open a re-review of the American politics case as the third American politics case.

The author may take one of those three actions, or more than one of them in reasonable sequence. For now, this page is a soapbox and a content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Since Robert's comment is a repeat of what he wrote elsewhere, I'll repeat my response. Robert, you need to AGF. An essay cannot be a content fork. Only a real article can be labeled a content fork. Also, read my comment immediately above yours. I am a mainstream editor, and when I see fringe editors casting doubt on whether Russia interfered in the election, I am concerned about their influence and their CIR. Sometimes there is a hole in our coverage where they hang their doubts, and finding better sources and content closes the hole. That's one of the types of things I often develop on my subpages. They may well include OR and SYNTH, but that is allowed on user and article talk pages, as well as in essays.
• We are supposed to document what RS say, and if that's "meeting fire with fire", then that's what we are supposed to do, but maybe you don't mean that. I don't see it that way. Instead, I believe we are supposed to oppose the forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. We do that by creating better content based on more and better RS. We do that by using that knowledge on talk pages to enlighten those fringe editors. That is proper editorial behavior, and hopefully, we can do it without engaging in battlefield behavior. (Note that advocacy of mainstream POV based on RS is allowed and not battlefield behavior. It is advocacy of fringe POV from unreliable sources that is not allowed. Defending fringe POV is battlefield behavior.) In egregious and persistent cases, we use your three suggestions. I usually try to defuse the matter on the talk page as I find that drama boards are usually disruptive and time-consuming processes. Enlightening fringe editors sometimes prevents more problems and visits to drama boards. If the work I'm doing on my subpage helps with that, it's a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per Robert McClenon as "a soapbox and a content fork" of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related articles.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately, I have to agree that this is a fake article. Hopefully, it was never indexed on Google. That would be inappropriate to say the least. I say this in reference to the top comment that says: "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes." Also, I agree that this essay is an example of Soapboxing. It is also POV forking even if it is not in the main space ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC).

Old business

September 24, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Righ Knight

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: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 02:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Draft:Righ Knight Draft:Righ Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Page that was rejected twice in 2022 and then deleted as a stale draft. In July of this year, the creator of this draft tried to bypass the AFC process by creating more or less the same article in mainspace without significantly improving it, but that was llsted for AFD within days. Once it became painfully clear that it was headed for the deletion bucket, the creator requested undeletion of the draft at RFU so they could "work on it", but has since failed to make even one further edit to the page in the entire two months since. Multiple people in the AFD discussion failed to find any evidence that the kind of sourcing needed to salvage the article actually exists anywhere, so I don't know what kind of improvement is even really possible -- so I suspect that the real intention behind the undeletion request wasn't to actually work on it, but simply to "bypass" the AFD discussion by ensuring that the information stayed visible somewhere in Wikipedia. Creator is also a virtual WP:SPA, whose edit history has always revolved exclusively around trying to get Righ Knight into Wikipedia, so some form of conflict of interest is highly likely. I just don't see the point in holding on to this any further if it's not getting worked on and the type of sourcing that would be needed to fix it with just isn't even in existence. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Weak Keep - There is no harm in keeping a draft of a non-notable person for six months in the empty hope that it will be worked on. Getting rid of abandoned drafts is what G13 is for. The nominator has restarted the calendar, which is a consequence of trying to get rid of semi-abandoned drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC) The harm is when it becomes obvious that the real intention was to game the system by requesting undeletion only to effectively bypass AFD. As noted, the kind of sourcing needed to actually get him over WP:GNG doesn't even exist out there, so no significant improvement is even possible here. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Delete: While I considered 'keep' since this was only declined, not rejected, the SPA and COI aspect along with gaming the system has changed my mind. I was the RFU admin who restored it, and, though it was right to do so, I still support deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host and the behaviour of the editor makes it clear that the intent is to host this article somehow on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Delete Creator is trying to game the system and has no intention to properly make the page. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Delete. Without adding much to more than sufticient explanation of the nominator, this surely is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:COI. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 00:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 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.

September 22, 2023

User:Marine 69-71/sandbox

User:Marine 69-71/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTWEBHOST and probably WP:BADSAND. Appears to be fanfiction to me. I am actually surprised that an administrator has been editing this page almost exclusively for the past few years. #prodraxis ^connect 14:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. The page view statistics definitely seem to indicate misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I am using my sandbox, which is not open to the public, for creative purposes. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

THat's a reason to delete content, not to keep it, per WP:UP#GOALS: Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article..... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - Sandboxes are open to the public, which is why this one has been seen to be nominated. Wikipedia is not a creative exercise. Maybe that should be added to the policy rather than inferred from other guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. It's open to the public. The content is not something that should be appearing on Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 18:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: User_talk:Marine_69-71/archive_52_sial appears to be a copy of the sandbox's contents that this user just made. #prodraxis ^connect 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete or blank as inappropriate use of a sandbox, and I would recommend the user either get a hold of Google Docs or even set up their own WordPress site with the Wikology theme if they want a Wikipedia-style interface. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Sigh. Why don't people have better things to do than to trawl through other people's user space looking for silliness to waste community time on? Who cares if there's some fluff in there? Nobody will ever see it if they're not looking for makework. Fun fact: this user has about as many edits to mainspace as all of the delete !voters combined. (Yes, there are lots of ways to contribute to a better Wikipedia experience for readers/users that don't involve mainspace. ...But this right here is not one of them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Another fun fact: WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy. A policy that an admin should be fully aware of, and comply with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - Regardless of how it got here, it's here at MFD and is a using a sandbox for webhosting. -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete the creator could easily use a website other than wikipedia as this is a misuse of the sandbox. Ao3, wattpad, fanfiction.com all could just as easily host this.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Snow delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 16:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete both versions. We rightly give experienced users quite a bit of leeway when it comes to NOTWEBHOST, but this is just so unequivocally "excessive unrelated content" that no amount of leeway can save it. The author is of course welcome to use any number of other applications or websites designed for storing this sort of material. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

August 18, 2023

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

A rare .js script that isn't in userspace or mediawiki space. Has been blanked since 2020 with the edit summary Blank ancient script: reported not working (User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool) for nearly a decade. As long as importScript()-ing a deleted file doesn't throw any errors, seems like this should be deleted. Searching reveals use in 231 other files. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete defunct script per nom.—Alalch E. 15:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is hardly of any use. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a coprolite at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to what seems to be the working replacement, User:Tris Wilson/delsort.js. WaggersTALK 13:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Please Redirect to User:Tris Wilson/delsort.js , or move to my userspace. Thanks, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, why not? I think userfying would be a reasonable ATD here, since it seems like the original maintainer wants the edit history. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comments - I don't know if we can redirect .js - but I think moving them may require an interface admin. Pinging User:Xaosflux, who I think knows more about these things than I : ) - jc37 04:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  There is a special way to redirect .js files; going from a public area to someone's userspace is a security risk. No issue moving it without a redirect if someone wants it. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Presumably one could make a wikitext-content-model redirect, which would redirect people who view the page but not users who import it, and thus not be a security risk (if I understand the issue correctly). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as historical. Allow User:John_Vandenberg to do with it whatever he likes. People with no involvement with old things should not get equal say in keeping vs archiving. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: There are three scripts in MW space that redirect to user scripts, see here. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 04:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates