Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

Edit PageName:

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

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


if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transclued pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
Create its MfD subpage.

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 1 4 1 31 37
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 4 4
RfD 0 0 0 3 3
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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.

August 16, 2022[edit]

User:Eddy UwU/sandbox[edit]

User:Eddy UwU/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Test page includes borderline fictional content, and the user has no edits to any other page except for their own userpage. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Blank - I afford a lot of leeway to people to test/draft/experiment in their sandbox, but this user doesn't actually seem interested in contributing to Wikipedia. That said, there's nothing harmful here that needs deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blank. Harmless page... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Userpage blanked}} seems in order per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: My understanding is that the user is using that page as a one-stop self-reference documentation page for all templates they hope to be using in the future. When I was new, I'd frequently forget how to use tables, {{multiple image}}, nowiki, noinclude, onlyinclude, etc. tags, so I had kept all of them at my sandbox. Here, the user is using fictional content for such documentation is perfectly fine, I'd say. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 07:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep harmless personal nonsense; it’s a sandbox page, we only delete them in extremely extreme cases. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 15, 2022[edit]

Draft:Ios 16[edit]

Draft:Ios 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Likely editing text. UricdivineTalkToMe 19:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Original creator appears to have been attempting to work on this draft since 2019, it has been deleted and restored twice as a draft and at present is not notable enough of a company to be considered. The main reason for the deletion at XfD is because the creator of the article, MaryAFabro, appears to after a quick google, be the 'chief marketing officer' of the company in question - leading me to see this article as blatant advertising with a conflict of interest   Kadzi  (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 14, 2022[edit]

Template:User pro free speech[edit]

Template:User pro free speech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Its a bit too controversial, and undesirable, to defend the right to free speech with a userbox like this, containing a 1964 picture of KKK members. Sundostund (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Speedy close frivolous MfD Clearly not uncivil, inflammatory, or substantially divisive (WP:UBCR). No reasonable Wikipedia editor is going to be sent into a fit of rage by seeing that someone believes in the concept of freedom of speech. Be less fragile. MarshallKe (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't have any issue with the concept of freedom of speech, on the contrary. The question here is whether that concept should be defended by KKK members as poster boys, and that is what this userbox shows. —Sundostund (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, but this is not a frivolous MFD, only a good-faith mistake. The userbox is indeed saying that even hate groups like the KKK have the right to speech. The nominator is exercising the right of free speech by nominating the userbox, and Wikipedia should exercise the freedom of its servers (because freedom of the press applies to those who own a press) by keeping the userbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Anyone who dislikes the userbox has a right not to transclude it on their user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep this isn’t a pro-KKK box, it’s using the KKK as a deliberately extreme example to make a point. Note that it at least shows the Klansman peacefully holding a sign and not, like, lynching people. He’s not even expressing hate speech if you look at the sign— he’s just endorsing Barry Goldwater (or now do we have to ban pro-Goldwater boxen now because of this image?) Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - @Sundostund: if you want to go after political/potentially divisive userboxes, you'll have plenty of opportunity to when I set up an RfC for just that purpose. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @WaltCip: Please don't, while good intended there is no agreed upon definition of what is potentially divisive or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I actually worked on a rough observed consensus in my sandbox. I’ll post it if there is an RfC Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck, I think it will be a mess if not done properly. You have to somehow explain your points while keeping the explanation short and concise for it to have a maximum effect. The last thing you need is counterproposals to grind the chat to a standstill (dead chat). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the subject of an essay I'm working on right now, actually, called "Death by proposals". Not anywhere close to done yet, but still an interesting topic. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The ACLU defended free speech regardless of the opinions being espoused. For example, the reactionary, anti-Catholic, anti-black Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a frequent target of ACLU efforts, but the ACLU defended the KKK's right to hold meetings in 1923. I'm a bit sensitive right now about the sphere in which this discussion revolves, so I'm not going to weigh in beyond that quote. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 13, 2022[edit]

User:UBX/mental health perd[edit]

User:UBX/mental health perd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Another possible controversial promotion of anti-psychiatry and mental illness denial. Sundostund (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep not sufficiently controversial, to become a “banned” userbox topic something needs a rough consensus of universal condemnation (Nazis, obviously) or be trolling. This is neither. You should lay off the userbox purging a bit. Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User antipsychiatrysideeffect[edit]

Template:User antipsychiatrysideeffect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This userbox appears to be very controversial, as it promotes anti-psychiatry and mental illness denial, which could easily be counted among conspiracy theories. Sundostund (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep not sufficiently controversial, to become a “banned” userbox topic something needs a rough consensus of universal condemnation (Nazis, obviously) or be trolling. This is neither. You should lay off the userbox purging a bit. Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda institution. It is not necessary for us to monitor and suppress statements that express a distrust of authority, and it is definitely not necessary for us to monitor and suppress statements that "appear to" express things which "could easily be counted among" distrust of authority. jp×g 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Beaneater00/Sandbox/Dražin barjak[edit]

User:Beaneater00/Sandbox/Dražin barjak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This user page is an eyesore and has a quote in Serbian that Google translates as "If Draža's flag were flying, there would be no Albania - and there would be Ravne Gora on the three southern Serbian seas!" This apparently is a reference to Draža Mihailović, a military leader who was executed for treason and war crimes.

While I have a relaxed view on User pages, I think this one is non-neutral and serves no purpose, especially since the editor is a blocked sockmaster. Other userpages he has created have come through MFD and been deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete Completely inflammatory. Curbon7 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. This is 100% inflammatory and divisive, and serves only pro–Chetnik and Greater Serbian nationalistic POVs. This is just a typical "wise" creation of Beaneater00, nothing more. —Sundostund (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy delete pure troll page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete genocide. Super Ψ Dro 22:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: No reason to keep possibly inflammatory pages created by users who abuse Wikipedia via sockpuppetry. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 09:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - The Balkans are an extraordinarily contentious subject area on Wikipedia as it is, without this userpage adding yet more fuel to the inferno.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete for many reasons, including that it is incomprehensible and that it is troll coprolites. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. There is absolutely no way in hell that this page is going to be kept as pointed out above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 12, 2022[edit]


User:StevenBKrivit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Overly detailed WP:FAKEARTICLE, crossing the line from "limited autobiographical content" per that guideline and into WP:NOTCV territory. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several years ago, there was an actual Wikipedia page for me. It was deleted because I did not meet the notability requirement. I was told at the time that I could move it to my user page and I could do anything I wanted to it. Much as the nominator for deletion of my personal now says on his own page: "If a page you created has been deleted[1], it probably[2] will be moved to your user page upon request so you can improve it without risk of deletion." Without risk of deletion? Really?
So, while waiting for more citations for "notability" I have been continuing to build the page. I do NOT appreciate the accusation of attempting to make a fake article!
Maybe its time this page gets nominated not for deletion, but for a real page instead. I or my work has been cited in WHYY (PBS), Le Monde, The San Diego Union-Tribute, Science magazine, Boston Globe, Financial Times, Popular Mechanics, Le Canard Enchaine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Forbes...
StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Rutherford investigation has been cited by three scientists. See bottom of page here
and on the Web sites of the AIP and others...

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seven years ago, an article was drafted about me and my work on mainspace. It was deleted because there were insufficient references, per my recollection. One WP editor suggested that I move the article into my user space to "be allowed to mature in draft or user space so that good sources can be added." I did that. Now, paradoxically, three of you don't like it because you think it looks too good! You accuse it as being a fake article yet there is nothing fake in it. You accuse it of being fake despite the VERY clear flag that says "This is not an encyclopedia article." Rather than discuss moving it into mainspace, you now want to trash the draft entirely. Amazing.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - Thank you to User:CX Zoom for linking to the AFD. While the page in question is not a G4, the close should be considered. I had been going to say to move it from user space to draft space, but the AFD makes the case for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment to User:StevenBKrivit - MFD does not make a decision to promote a draft or user page to article space. If you or we were to move this page to article space, it would be nominated for AFD a second time, and, in my opinion, would be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow author to move to mainspace and face AFD or Delete - Let the author decide. (I think we know how this will play out.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving it back to mainspace for another AfD strikes me as process for the sake of process, and I don't agree this should be left up to the subject. VQuakr (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree, WP:NOTBURO Dronebogus (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - We can't have a userpage, as a bio page. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a fake article, it's a userspace draft. Just move it to /sandbox and voila! Transformation! It's not a copy of a deleted article because it's still undergoing improvement. Yeah, it appears to be an autobiography, which Wikipedians (me included) consider... undesirable, but as long as it's sitting in userspace, nobody's going to see it apart from people digging around in other people's userspace looking for work to do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: to be clear, it's spent the last 5 years as a user page not a userspace draft, and was still labeled as a user page not a draft at the time I nominated it for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough regarding the nomination. But we shouldn't delete things just because they were userfied to the wrong location. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Per Rhododendrites, this doesn't appear to fall under FAKEARTICLE as the user is working on this with a view to eventually returning it to mainspace. Should be a subpage or sandbox really but no reason to delete.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 11, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not an AfD discussion, causes more problems than it solves. I tagged this page for speedy deletion under G2, but the speedy deletion template was removed. The notice was created by user Geniac and has not been edited substantially since then. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep no good reason to delete this, it's possible for someone to end up at a "page name" AFD and this gives them directions to get where they need to be. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There are 35 talkpages linking to this, and having those links be red would make clear to people that {{Old AfD multi}} has been misconfigured. Salting—perhaps with a log summary that mirrors the message currently on the page—will solve the problem of people navigating here by accident. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support this solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I support this solution. Geniac (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as described by Tamzin. Better to have it be a red link. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, as the only reason this page exists is to stop people from accidentally creating it -- which salting would fix anyway. (Is it possible to make custom editnotices or something like that for salted titles?) However, this 2008 revision of the page by Topology Expert ought to be memorialized:
Extended content
I am writing a report on why this article should be deleted. First of all, this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so. Just delete the article. If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic. No one does. Also, see the following five small reasons:

. Paracompactness and compactness ARE IMPORTANT topics and that is why no one has challenged them. However, supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one. . This page has hardly anything. It has just stated facts. There are only a few points written on this page. It is a useless stub. . There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem. It has hardly any information. . There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this. Could an administrator please see that he stops?

Is supercompactness worthy of study? Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined? The "Nagata-Smirnov Theorem" article is a good example of an article which shouldn't be deleted since it is extremely important. Is supercompactness even as important as the definition of a point? I may seem to be exaggerating but I am strong on my word. I understand that some people (such as "Oded"), have not been against me just for the sake of it. Others have said that this article shouldn't be deleted and given no reason to back this up. I am going to report this article to an administrator. Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this.

In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective. It provides no applications in other elements of point-set topology and has only a few facts. This article is like wasting one whole piece of paper just for writing a single word. Someone should delete it. If not, I will.

Topology Expert (talk) 2:47 am, 8 May 2008, Thursday (14 years, 3 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−7)

(Yes, they wrote the username and (talk) as plain text. What was going on here??) jp×g 11:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It fits. It’s what happens when removing wikimarkup, as happens if you compose in a simple edit program. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 10, 2022[edit]

Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory[edit]

Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This subpage was created as a result of Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3 § Subpage creation. It is intended as a forum exclusively for discussing whether love jihad is a conspiracy theory (thus de facto for complaints from people who disagree with the article's characterization of it as such). I've raised my objections to this at Talk:Love jihad § Please refer conspiracy theory comments to discussion subpage (permalink), and been told that expressing concerns is disruptive, so I bring this here for review instead. A subpage like this is a bad idea for three reasons:

  1. If content is too disruptive to be included on the main talk page, it is too disruptive to be included on a subpage. Wikipedia does not have holding pens for disruptive editing.
  2. This subpage has nine watchers. The parent talkpage has 218. This is problematic both because vandalism and disruption is much more likely to go unnoticed here—see Special:PageHistory/Talk:Maryland/North (Mid-Atlantic State) vs South (Southern State) for what this page's future may hold—and because it removes most stakeholders from discussion: People who watchlist an article expect to get watchlist updates for discussions about it. They will not be aware of discussions on the subpage, and no "consensus" on the subpage could ever be binding.
  3. Editors here to push a love jihad POV are not in fact the kind of people who tend to listen to banner notices saying they need to do that POV-pushing on a different page. So this page largely goes ignored by the people it's intended to corral.

As I've explained at the parent talkpage, there are a variety of remedies available to handle disruptive edit requests on talkpages for controversial articles, and plenty of talkpages, such as Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and (of late) Talk:Recession, are able to handle things using those remedies without resorting to this non-solution. This subpage should be deleted. (It could be first archived to the parent page's current archive if desired, but there's not much to preserve.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I know, there are no policies or guidelines on how to use talk-space subpages. This one was created via talk page consensus, and I'd rather see talk page consensus develop to stop using it. If we're looking for project-wide consensus, I'd prefer to see a guideline on subpages in general. On Tamzin's reasons #1 and 2: I would support deletion if there were more of a problem with disruptive or vandalistic editing of the subpage, which I have not seen so far. Yes, there's the potential, but I don't favor deletion of pages based on the potential for disruption. Reason #3: newer editors are likely not reading the banner, but it's useful as a statement of consensus on how to deal with the repetitive posts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Firefangledfeathers, can you please link to the talk page consensus you mention? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi SmokeyJoe. Discussion started at Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3#Recommendation and continued at Talk:Love jihad/Archive 3#Subpage creation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. The discussion leading to the creation of this page was carried out in good faith, but I find its conclusions erroneous. If a talk page post is a generic discussion of whether Love Jihad is a conspiracy, it violates WP:NOTFORUM, and should be removed, not placed in a holding cell to languish indefinitely. If it includes constructive critique of page content, then it needs to be discussed on the main talk page: consensus-building on a poorly-watched sub-page is difficult if not impossible. The FAQ section in the talk page banner is sufficient for informational purposes. As such I can see no valid use case for the sub-page. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I took a look at WP:NOTFORUM. I think you have misconstrued this. WP:NOTFORUM states please do not take discussion into articles. Admittedly, it hedges a bit and says it's not a place for "general discussion" about the subject of the article... but that is referring to the standard article talk page.
    If there's some content that would tend to detract or interfere with the operation of one page, that is best pushed off to another page. While WP:NOTFORUM prohibits discussions which are counter-productive to the purpose of a page, the actual guidance it provides is that discussions should be consistent with the goal of maintaining an encyclopedia. Not only is the Conspiracy theory subpage not inconsistent with that, it actually serves that purpose. Fabrickator (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. What seems to be missing is the recognition that there can be two overlapping yet distinct definitions of what constitutes "love jihad", and that neither group can claim exclusive ownership of the definition. Definitions are not true or false, they just are! The existence of "love jihad" may by one definition be quite implausible, while by the other definition, its existence may be virtually unassailable. This separate discussion area will eliminate the efforts to crush the other side and perhaps enable each side to more easily recognize the point that the other side is making. Fabrickator (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    None of that argument addresses why such discussion cannot happen on the main talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My recollection is that attempts at such discussion on the main talk page have been generally met with a harsh response and were typically reverted. The situation is quite polarized with conflict to be expected.
    A separate page can be expected to help keep the peace. Perhaps people will identify sources that you find objectionable because they suggest that love jihad is real, but it's not in the article, so there's no real cause for objection, helping to keep the main talk page free of claims that "love jihad" is real. What are you afraid of anyway, that an angry mob could form? Fabrickator (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The reason not to have a separate page is the same reason posts on the main talk page are removed; because we are not a forum for general discussion. Discussions that are not discussing specific issues with the page just do not belong on here, regardless of whether they're on a sub-page or not. I'm not afraid of mobs, I'm interested in enforcing a fairly basic policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would suggest that this basic policy (at least, as you are interpreting it) is counter-productive. The goal should not be to inhibit reasonable discussion, but to avoid having a discussion which, by its nature, tends to interfere with other discussions. Restricting that discussion to a subpage makes it easy for those who aren't interested in it to ignore it. The restrictive policy that applies to normal article talk pages sensibly attempts to avoid ongoing (and perhaps lengthy and repetitive) discussions that frustrate day-to-day usage of the article talk page. Such discussions can occur on an issue-specific subpage without causing any disruption of the ordinary article-specific talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you take issue with WP:NOTFORUM, this isn't the place to raise it. If there's discussions that are not in violation of NOTFORUM, then to be useful to anybody they must occur on the main talk page; parallel discussions on a subpage cannot reach meaningful consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ... to be useful to anybody they must occur on the main talk page; parallel discussions on a subpage cannot reach meaningful consensus ...
    It's good to have your assurance that you would tolerate such discussions on the main talk page, but others might not be so tolerant. A subpage could be used to develop something that would be suitable for presentation on the main talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete such pages are very hard to keep up to date and aren't always noticed. Fabrickator's argument is that we need parallel talk pages, and that can't be done. Vanamonde is correct and I point to Talk:Adam's Bridge where we consistently have editors wanting us to rename the page and handle this through the usual means. They work well and don't cause confusion. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questions - The main talk page says that whether Love jihad is a conspiracy theory must be discussed only on the sub-page. So deleting the sub-page would either leave a link to nowhere, or would also require that the link be deleted. I don't think that MFD is the right forum to delete the link or to reverse the consensus (if there was one) to use a sub-page. So this would seem to be a request to reverse a decision that was made somewhere else. Is it proposed to leave the link, or to delete the link? When was the link ordered? Are we using MFD to reverse an Arbitration Enforcement decision? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not believe there has been any admin involvement under the aegis of arbitration enforcement on this page. Updating the link is easy; better yet, removing that message altogether, and just leaving the FAQ. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is precedent for using a talk subpage to help manage discussion content, starting in 2007. I don't see any indication that there have been any particular difficulties in managing that talk subpage, and I can only theorize that it has been maintained because it serves a useful purpose.
    The talk subpage is at Talk:Muhammad/images. Over 25 archives have been created over this time, and I presume some useful activity has occurred while generally helping to make things work more smoothly on the main article talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect to Talk:Love jihad: Deletion is not required to solve this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Redirect as a method to archive. Remove the talk page header to the subpage, but do not de-link it from the talk page posts or the talk page archive.
    Agree that consensus is against this subpage, contrary to the article talk page implying a consensus for. If I’ve missed the consensus for setting up this subpage, it should be linked from the talk page header pointing to the subpage.
    This is not a proper use of MfD as an appeal against a stubborn single editor on a talk page. The claimed need for deletion is contrived to make it fit MfD. An RfC should have been used, or maybe a simple appeal at ANI against the stubborn single editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question for User:SmokeyJoe - You say to redirect the subpage to the main talk page. Does that also imply deleting the link? If not, the link will be a looping link. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: I'm not following your hang-up about the link. If the subpage is deleted or redirected, any links directing people to it will be removed per standard practice, no? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Tamzin - Now that you have said that the link should be removed if the subpage is deleted, the link should be removed if the subpage is deleted. My basic concern is that there are a number of MFD's which seem to be attempted end runs around a decision made somewhere else. If a decision was made to divert those discussions to the subpage, is MFD the way to appeal that decision, or a way to run around it? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was my intention in creating this MfD to subject a local decision to review by a broader audience, much as a WikiProject's decision to create an article might be reviewed at an AfD. So yes, an appeal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - Tamzin's points sums it up for me. I had thought about raising this issue back when the first discussion for its creation had appeared but never got to it. But anyways it has been tried now and as it stands the page has no utility; no one uses it as the FORUMy comments just appear on the main talk page which are sometimes removed and sometimes moved to the subpage. We should just monitor the talk page as any other talk page of articles on conspiracy theories and the related disruption they get, none of which use this kind of awkward management through subpages. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I understand correctly, you suggest that instead of moving the comments from the main talk page to the subpage, the repudiated comments would either be responded to on the main talk page or would be addressed and removed or would just be removed. Whereas if the subpage existed, then hopefully, the comments would have been posted to the subpage to begin with (it seems like this happened for a brief period, but for some reason, after a couple of weeks, there was some kind of "sublimation" of the subpage and the objectionable comments were back to being posted on the main talk page.
    So I am perplexed as to how it is that encouraging the objectionable posts to be posted on the main talk page (since there's nowhere else for them to be directed), then responding to such posts each time with the explanation that such communications are banned, how is that preferable to just explaining to them that these communications should be directed to the subpage, and hopefully, we won't need to do that because we'll somehow make this page-specific policy more conspicuous. Fabrickator (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    if the subpage existed, then hopefully, the comments would have been posted to the subpage to begin with (it seems like this happened for a brief period ... Where are you seeing this? It appears to have no basis in reality- it certainly doesn't match up with the page history or how this page is actually used. From its creation last august until June of this year the only edits made to this page were copying discussion threads from the main talk page to this subpage, where not a single one received a response or any further comment. The remaining 4 edits consist of you asking what the page is for, Tamzin nominating it for deletion, and an IP reposting a rant that was deleted from the main talk page. (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmmmmm? If you look at the activity on the main talk page since the subpage was added, and you exclude the recent content discussing the use of the subpage (or lack thereof) along with talk page maintenance activity (e.g. messages moved to archive), that leaves something like 20 edits. Virtually all of those posts are claims that love jihad is not a conspiracy theory and the deletions of those posts.
    Why wouldn't you want to just get all of this activity off of the main talk page, leaving it free for pertinent discussions, which is what we should reasonably expect to happen, providing that posters are effectively alerted that disputes about conspiracy theory belong on the conspiracy theory subpage? Fabrickator (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Agree completely with Tamzin here, this page is just not useful. I don't see the value in a redirect or archive here - the entire history of this page consists of content that was deleted from one page for being inappropriate being dumped on another page. The content is already available in the history of the main talk page. (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - But only because it's generally a bad idea to delete talk pages. That doesn't mean anyone should use this talk page, but that deleting it isn't the right approach. Similar to Firefangledfeathers, I guess. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Gorilla Tag[edit]

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

declined numerous times; no evidence of improvement. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Has not just been declined, but rejected, but continues to be submitted in a completely unsuitable form and no attempt to address the issues. Greenman (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Due to the large number of WP:SPA accounts editing it, seems like an attempt at promotion that is heedless of any actual encyclopedia policies. WP:NOTPROMO applies and non-notable articles should not be allowed simply to advertise a product. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - Declined 4 times, then rejected, then resubmitted on 9 August after the rejection. My own opinion is that resubmission after rejection should be ground either for deletion, or for sanctions against the submitter, or both, so the resubmission after rejection is reason enough to delete. As Zxcvbnm says, the work of successive single-purpose accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment to User:DGG - When nominating a draft that has been resubmitted after rejection, please say that it has been resubmitted after rejection. Some editors think that is a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is certainly my position. My preferred explanation is that resubmission after rejection is an excellent trigger allowing for resolution at MfD. It (resubmission after rejection) is analogous to WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which leads to an AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Not per nom, User:DGG that is a poor nomination because most “ declined numerous times; no evidence of improvement” cases are best ignored, or processed, noting that every DECLINE is evidence that every reviewer finds the topic plausibly notable. MfD does not examine notability unless there has been tendentious resubmission after DECLINE, or resubmission after REJECT.
This draft should be deleted for the following combined reasons:
(1) Resubmitted after REJECT; and
(2) not notable, and reference bombed with WP:RSPSS “generally unreliable” sources and zero “generally reliable” sources.
SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete euthanize this gorilla. Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The last two special-purpose accounts to work on this draft have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. The earlier accounts may have also been socks, but the CU data had expired. Not G5 because there was no pre-existing block at the time that they messed with this draft, but a further indication that the editors working on this draft are bad-faith accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is an attempt to circumvent article consensus and doesn't belong in article talk space. I moved it to user space but was reverted. I could merge it, but that would just spark another edit-war. Please either delete or move to an appropriate location.

[Edit: Per the 1st para in WP:COPYARTICLE, it seems this should simply be deleted.]

This is FRINGE material that the author (User:Bigdan201) has been edit-warring for years to include in Decipherment of rongorongo against unanimous opposition. Although Bigdan201 continues to sporadically restore it to article space, they placed a backup copy at this location, so that readers would continue to have access to it, out of frustration at not being able to get it to stick in Article space. Because this page is an individual project, essentially a sandbox section WP:DRAFT, and not a discussion on improving the article as required for Talk space (where a simple link to the page history would suffice), I moved it to their personal user space. They recently moved it back, with the edit-summary that "it's directly relevant to the article".

The normal way of preserving a version of an article in Talk space would be to link to the page history, which Bigdan201 has also done. (See the top of Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo.) They created this pseudo-article to house their deleted content after adding it to Article space – and being reverted – scores of times. They linked to it from a dedicated section in the Article Talk with the explanation,

my edits on April 1 [the latest restoration of the deleted content] were a prank, which ended up confusing another editor (though at least I got content to stick for several hours). secondly, since kwami has finally archived the talk page, I'd like to link my content again for easy reference (Dietrich & De Laat).

Backup section on Dietrich: Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich
[along with several links to the page history]

Pinging @Doug Weller, Austronesier, Eiríkr Útlendi, Mary de Laat, and Sumanuil:.

— kwami (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, health problems and too many other articles means I am not getting involved here. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a topic ban is justified. Trying to force one's pet theory in is one thing. Being unresponsive to argumented objections is worse. Removing important content (Kudrjavtsev et al) is the limit. Three strikes: out. Mary de Laat (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has gone on long enough. A topic ban sounds like a good idea. Sumanuil. 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's barely a consensus. It's mostly just a dispute between myself & kwami, with Austronesier siding with kwami.
It's not FRINGE, for the simple reason that rongorongo is an unsolved mystery. Therefore, any guess with the RS to back it up is as good as any other, and I have the RS. If you consider a theory you don't like to be FRINGE, then by that logic, the entire article could be nominated for deletion as FRINGE.
As for the section, I just thought a talk subpage would be a more appropriate location for disputed content. And that's what it is, a disputed means to improve the article, not a draft (or previous version). That same content stayed up in mainspace for quite awhile. If you really insist that it go in my userspace, I'd be willing to accept that, but I don't see the need.
The issue is blatant gatekeeping and OWNERSHIP. As I said on the talk page, there is no consistent, coherent objection to my content. FRINGE makes no sense in this context. As for DUEWEIGHT, that's why I chopped the section down to about 1/4 of its original length (I need illustrations and a few paragraphs to properly explain the ideas, less than that is insufficient). Another objection was NOTABILITY, which doesn't even apply! They argued that my sources were insufficient, so I took a look at the article, and found that existing sections have even less sourcing than my own. When I pointed this out, the article's gatekeepers shifted goalposts to cites in literature. Fine, but then I found a section lacking both sources & cites, yet it's kept in, and my content is kept out. It's completely contradictory.
So, that's the summary for anyone who hasn't been following the whole thing. Most of the voluminous discussion on Talk was an academic discussion on the ideas, which is actually irrelevant -- it's about policies on here, and I see no coherent policy-based objections. Again, I'm willing to compromise and work with others, within reason.
Pinging relevant editors you missed: @Skyerise, Mkim1963, JohndanR, and Hairy Dude: see above. Xcalibur (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been a week without much activity, can this be closed and my content kept? Having read up on this, it seems I had the right idea after all: WP:WORP WP:COPIES Xcalibur (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, I should've tagged it as {{db-g4}} speedy deletion. It does not qualify for WP:SP as it is Writing a content fork to avoid NPOV. It doesn't qualify as WP:WORP because it isn't material being developed for inclusion in the article, but rather material that has been rejected from the article. You can have Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, but it's already been years and you evidently intend this as a permanent pseudo-article, and Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia is disallowed, so that's out too.
But user space isn't appropriate either. Per COPYARTICLE, 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, or your preferred version of disputed content. So yeah, it looks like this page should simply be deleted. You can always link to the article history, as you already have. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete doesn't apply here, because it was never deleted or rejected, rather it's disputed material. It's not a content fork either, and NPOV doesn't even apply (because rongorongo is undeciphered)! It's intended for inclusion, and it's stored there temporarily so long as it's disputed. It seems prudent to keep it in a convenient location, because you might change your mind any day, and then it could go up; it's just waiting for your assent, that's all. Thus, the nonsense about a "permanent pseudo-article" doesn't apply here. I figured a talk subpage would be appropriate, and I have no idea why you're so vociferously opposed. Do you think this is a war, and I'm capturing your territory? Honestly, I'm willing to work with you, within reason. Also, it's already been years keep in mind, I took a long wikibreak in the middle. Xcalibur (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can this be closed as keep/no consensus? It's been 2 weeks, and discussions on misc. for deletion are supposed to be 1 week. Xcalibur (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
btw, you may want to look up FRINGE (and other policies) and realize what they actually mean, and why they're irrelevant here. Xcalibur (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was never properly transcluded to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - This appears to be actually a sub-page of an article, that has been made into a sub-page of the talk page because sub-pages of articles are not allowed. Sub-pages of articles are not allowed because they are usually content forks, and this is indeed a content fork. If this was in the article and was moved, it is still in the article history, where it should be. Whether it should be in the article should be decided either by normal discussion or by RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questions - Is there a question about whether this should be in the article? Who created this subpage, and why do they think that they created it? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: There is unanimous consent, apart from the creator Xcalibur, that this is pseudoscholarship and does not belong in the article. (I was the only other person to support its inclusion, but I changed my mind five years ago.) Xcalibur created this sub-article because their chronic edit-war to retain the material wasn't succeeding, and they wanted to keep the rejected material available for readers. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would hardly call this unanimous consent, more like a severe case of OWNERSHIP. And no, you personally disagreeing with the material doesn't make it pseudo-scholarship. As I've said many times, it's published & positively reviewed in academic literature, which means it's not pseudo, because WP follows the RS (which you don't have). In other words, for WP's purposes, my sources disprove your claim. More importantly, it doesn't actually matter whether it's right or wrong! It can be wrong and still be documented in the article. As for the talk subpage, I just thought it would be convenient, I don't see what the big deal is. Xcalibur (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - This is not actually a subpage of the talk page, but a content fork of the article, in talk space, which is appropriate neither in article space nor in talk space. There is also slow-motion edit-warring to include this in the article and to exclude it from the article. Since normal discussion is not resolving whether to have this in the article, the RFC option should be used to establish negative consensus, but that is beyond the scope of this MFD. The scope of this MFD is whether this page should exist, and it is a content fork and should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 9, 2022[edit]


Wikipedia:Wikitime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Negligible page views. Created in 2003, but the page says the term was first used on February 4, 2007. Will probably be better in userspace, but the page has been edited by more than one user. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: The user who created this page has been banned from editing Wikipedia. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete The history is an ugly amalgam of three different pages:
    1. A 2003 proposal for a standardized time system. (last version: Special:PermaLink/16198151).
    2. A 2006 essay on the amount of time people spend editing Wikipedia (Special:PermaLink/43004690).
    3. A 2007 claim that "Wikitime can also be used as an announcement of the near future use of Wikipedia" which seems bizarre and likely a hoax.
  • The 2006 essay is the highest-quality version of the three, but I still see no good reason to keep even it, and there is no point in userfying any version since all three creators are long gone. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. A perfectly reasonable half-proposal essay. It is historical, and history should not be deleted. The histories of old users, even departed or banned, do not and should not be disappeared. There may be merit in classifying old projectpages like this, and even moving them to a subfolder format, if that's how you wish to help, but do not delete things that were reasonable at the time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and tag as historical, per SmokeyJoe. (historiasn are likely to have a hard time with the early 21st century because we update information on digital media, instead of appending new one as was forcibly done with paper) - Nabla (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep in some form per those above. Harmless and historical. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BaylorMBA/Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 by Ponyo. plicit 00:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:BaylorMBA/Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University[edit]

User:BaylorMBA/Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

COI, written in a promotional tone. Some copied from school's website as well --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


User:Tam109/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale draft on a non-notable journal published by a likely predatory outfit. The draft's author made only ever edits to this draft on one day over 2 years ago and hasn't edited since. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It is indexed in Scopus though... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - No reason given for deletion. WP:STALE defines when userspace drafts are stale. It needs to be problematic for reasons other than just notability, and problematic even if blanked to delete if it hasn't gone through AfC. Submitting other people's drafts for AfC when they're likely to fail as an end-run around deletion process been explicitly forbidden by RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator complained of being edit-conflicted while I was closing...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old business[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates