Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to current discussions · Skip to old business · Purge this page

WP:MFD

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

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Files in the File namespace that have a local description pages 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 personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

Click to view 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 steps II and III. 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}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}

If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formating for the userbox.

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.

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 add a line to the top of the list:

{{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:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

to their talk page, 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 and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
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]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered 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.

Purge server cache

June 30, 2016[edit]

June 29, 2016[edit]

Curise[edit]

Those are just misspellings, no basis for disambiguation. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary. (Note that disambiguation pages are in mainspace, so generally, would be discussed at AfD rather than MfD, which also has the advantage of placing them on the subject-matter lists that interested editors can follow. But there's no point in moving this discussion since frankly there's nothing to discuss.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. "Curise" does not, as this page states, refer to either "cruise" or "curse"; it refers to poor spelling, which is not an acceptable rationale for a disambiguation page. While variant spellings are okay, this does not qualify per WP:DISAMBIG. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong forum but delete as obvious not a suitable DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Filipino architects[edit]

Also nominating Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Canadian architects.

Yes, they're in template space, but they're just template subpages, and this is really not what we normally take to TFD. Andy M. Wang and I have been working on improving the editnotice template so that it automatically nominates an editnotice page for G8 speedy when the related page doesn't exist; in virtually all cases, this is the result of someone deleting the page without deleting the editnotice. See Template talk:Editnotice#Auto-tag G8 for what we're doing. Andy discovered these two editnotices, both of which were created four years ago, apparently in anticipation of lists being created at these titles. He and I agree that they ought not get routine G8 deletions, since they've been around for this long, but I still don't think we need them; we can delete them, and then wait for articles to be created before recreating the editnotices. What do you think? Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. !voting Delete here. I'm currently doing a slow scrub through this space, and am expecting to find more here. We can probably just compile a list of candidates at the end and have another MfD or just make the editnotice notice go live and auto-G8 it. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I wonder if a separate discussion for these is actually necessary. As a parallel, when an ordinary page is deleted, its talkpage is automatically deleted also, without a separate XfD being needed. Is this analogous? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Yeah, talk pages would go per G8. These two cases (so far) are editnotices for pages that were never created in the first place (but were in anticipation), but I believe G8 still applies. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that these are probably speedyable, but in light of what Nyttend wrote in the nom, let's let this discussion go to full length, and then if no one disagrees there will be a precedent if more of these turn up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The precedent bit was in my mind (and Andy's words at the talk page made me wonder if he were thinking the same); if we delete these two here, anyone objecting to the idea of G8-ing these things can be shown this MFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably delete, but should be discussed at TfD, they are template related if not actual templates (they look like templates!), and there are special template issues requiring the expertise found at TfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 28, 2016[edit]

Draft:Mystic Keeper[edit]

--Another Believer _(Talk) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Delete also User:Mystic Keeper for the same reason and also per WP:CSD#U5. Beware of WP:BITE, but this is clearly not an intention to contribute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Medusa (artwork)[edit]

Draft from October 2013 of a non-notable work by a non-notable artist. Last edited a few months ago but it was not tagged under AFC so it wouldn't be subject to G13. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Transwiki to http://art.wikia.com/

This can be disheartening. This is a beautiful article, well worked, it should be published (maybe it is?), but WP:Alternative outlets applies. I have spent 15 minutes on this, it looks like something that should be sent to mainspace, but it is not. It has no independent sources, and it will have no chance of not being deleted. Beautiful well-intentioned draft though. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

- I'm good with that. I'm not sure how the transwiki licensing works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  - I think it means "delete and email on request", the original author has to re-upload and re-assert copyrights right to do so. Wikia.com is way more soft on copyrights compliance than Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Communism/Quotes[edit]

Came across this page when somebody incorrectly placed a PROD on it. Orphaned and not sure it is appropriate at all for Portal space anyhow. Additionally, I will nominate Portal:Communism/Quotes archive. Safiel (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Don't delete, but possibly archive. Nominator being "not sure" does not make for a persuasive nomination, it could have a purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment It might have a purpose. Or it might simply be there because somebody didn't know what they were doing. That is why I put this up for discussion. I said "not sure" because, maybe, just maybe, it does serve a useful purpose. But I doubt it. Looks like something more appropriate for article space than portal space. Safiel (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature)[edit]

Also the copy: User:JordanMicahBennett/Thought Curvature.

Incomprehensible. Will never be ready for mainspace if, as suggested, it has been written by a bot. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete - as discussed in mainspace. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CSD#G7: See this diff. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bagalaga[edit]

Nonexisting constructed language. Draft space or not, wikipedia is not for publication of original ideas. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears made up, "Bagalaga" is sometimes used with no association with the subject of this draft, I am guessing it is a slang word intentionally meaning nonsense. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 27, 2016[edit]

Draft:YugiohPro[edit]

The continuous stream of edits which have failed to raise this draft's ability to meet the WP:GNG leaves me feeling it actually qualifies for WP:NOTWEBHOST-based deletion. Right when it should have been nominated for G13, the article was edited by an IP making some edits which are trivial relative to the need for verifiability and notability. Izno (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Tag as low potential instead and let it be worked on per Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Tagging_drafts proposal. 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCreativeJuicer (talk • contribs)

WikiCreativeJuicer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lucas the Game[edit]

Not notable now per a search using the VG/S custom search. Previous AFD found a consensus to delete. Given the age of the game, this one is unlikely ever to be notable; user who created the draft stopped editing in September. Izno (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ognjen Topalovic[edit]

Stale draft about an unnotable person. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:History of Ormskirk Cricket Club.[edit]

Unnotable cricket club. Stale draft. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Abundant Life Academy[edit]

I'm aware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but this draft doesn't seem to have a future. Googling the school brings up little results and it's a stale draft, where the author hasn't edited for many months. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ccc[edit]

Unnotable company and stale draft. No need to keep this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kathyedits/Outline of Judaism[edit]

Old draft from 2009 that is already covered by Outline of Judaism. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep/Merge – make sure each item is covered in the more comprehensive outline mentioned above. The Transhumanist 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Martin Ross (Actor)[edit]

Userspace draft for a non-notable actor. Prior version was created and deleted at Draft:Martin Ross following Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Martin Ross, the G12 deletion and the G13 deletion. This version is a non-AFC draft so this isn't subject to G13. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology[edit]

Draft outline from 2009. The creator of this draft was last active over a year ago while the last edit was just under a year ago. This supposedly an outline for the proposed topic of forest hydrology, a page which does not exist. Given that the outline is largely blank and the topic seems like a neologism for something that does not actually exist, I do not see a purpose in keeping this draft further. There are some reliable sources that reference the topic but then I suggest a draft article be created rather than an outline. I'll note that this was *not* created by the editor who created a number of other outlines so, if people propose anything based on *that editor*'s conduct, it seems like a strange rationale. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I'm confused by a number of your assertions here. For one, forest hydrology is a field with a history and a solid literature, including several edited volumes from major academic publishers. As for the assertion that Minnecologies did not work on outlines, the Outline of forestry is mostly her work (though I think I prefer the state she left it in in 2009. I'd much rather see someone expand and improve this draft than delete it; even if it isn't, there's an awful lot of useful material that could go into writing a forest hydrology article. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, that commentary was obtuse. It referred to User:The Transhumanist who created most of these draft outlines and unlike Minnecologies, remains active today. And in terms of useful material, it's just a series of headers and six links (one of which is red). It's fine if you think it should be kept but if there's no article on the subject, no history for the subject, no category I can see, no category of scholars, what exactly is there to outline and what evidence is there that any outline isn't just pure WP:OR here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep - It's a marker and reminder that we need to create an outline on this subject -- think of it as more than an item on a wish list. It's an embryo! Being a draft in the outline project's draft space, it is in exactly the location it is supposed to be in. It can remain here indefinitely where it may inspire someone to work on outlining this subject. It was a small step forward, which may lead to more steps forward. Going backwards by deleting it is a step in the wrong direction. Heck, I might even work on it someday. But if you erase it, it won't be here to remind me (or prompt anyone else) to do so. The Transhumanist 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 26, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of fire safety[edit]

Old draft from 2007 that contains nothing in it. I'm not seeing what would be added here from Fire safety when Outline of firefighting already exists. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep - These are outlines created by an active editor who created them many years ago and edited them most recently last year. I'd encourage The Transhumanist to think about whether these are actually going to go anywhere, and to CSD if not, but I see no reason to delete a draft started by an active editor that isn't actively harmful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep – firefighting has to do with putting out fires. Fire safety is aimed at preventing them in the first place. They are related but different subjects. The draft is here because an outline is needed on the subject. I've never failed to make an outline more comprehensive than the root article -- there is almost always more coverage on Wikipedia for these subjects than what is in the root article. A quick glance at search results shows a number of articles on fire safety, and each of those articles leads to even more. These near-empty drafts are planning tools. So, it would be a good strategy to leave this skeleton as a place holder to remind me and others on what work needs to be done in the outline department. I hope to be back to daily editing in the next month or two. The Transhumanist 00:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 25, 2016[edit]

Draft:Bravo Storm[edit]

Not likely to be notable now or in the immediate future. A single RS using the VG/S reliable source search at [1] unveils a less-than GNG-worthy appearance. Given that it's a 2 year-old Facebook game, it's unlikely ever to be notable. Izno (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. A lack of notability is irrelevant for drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCreativeJuicer (talk • contribs) 09:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. If the article has no potential ever to leave the draft status, there's no reason to keep it around (and subsequently we meet WP:NOTWEBHOST). "server space is a problem" is an unrealistic threshold to delete something. You appear to be a SPA in this regard, given that you appear to be a new account. --Izno (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiCreativeJuicer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete; even if this game were to become notable at some future date, an article would have to be written from scratch based on what reliable third-party sources report. There's no purpose to keeping this draft around. Huon (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alamahad[edit]

Since the user Alamahad was created only a month ago, this RfA never got transcluded onto the main RfA page and has zero chance of passing. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete Looks like blatant trolling to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Secret Sculpture[edit]

This draft article is not about a notable work, or even a work by a notable artist. Searching online for "May Waker" + "Secret Sculpture" yields no returns, apart from a mirror site. This page should be deleted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. No basis for deletion provided. Notability is irrelevant for drafts. Instead, per Wikipedia_talk:Drafts, the page should be tagged as "low potential" and left alone for all time. Someone eventually could find this useful. WikiCreativeJuicer (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, it will just be deleted after a period of no editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
WikiCreativeJuicer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, this isn't notable and won't ever become notable. Even if it miraculously became notable, we'd have to write a new article from scratch based on what independent sources will report. We're neither a free webhost nor a junkyard. Huon (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Historical outline of France[edit]

This has been around since 2009 and until I moved it to draftspace, it was sitting somewhere in the Outlines Wikiproject since 2011. I don't see the purpose of a "historical outline" of France that isn't just a fork of History of France. The other historical outlines are all just redirects to their outline pages so this would similarly become a redirect to Outline of France in mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Move back to within WP:Wikiproject Outlines. The purpose and future of Wikiproject Outlines needs to be discussed yes, but not by ad hoc page by page gutting of their records. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- So we can't review any outline at all? It's been literally the same prose on the page since 2009 with no changes. Before I commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines this month, the project hadn't been active since November. Is this another case of "stop all activity until I get the 'right' people organized together and we decide what happens"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ (given comments below) - These are outlines created by an active editor who created them many years ago and edited them most recently last year. I'd encourage The Transhumanist to think about whether these are actually going to go anywhere, and to CSD if not, but I see no reason to delete a draft started by an active editor that isn't actively harmful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or merge into the History of France – this isn't an outline (short for "hierarchical outline"). It's prose. An outline is a type of list. Also, this one is misnamed. All outline articles start with "Outline of". Get rid of this non-outline please, or merge it into the History of France. The Transhumanist 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Since you started this and it's almost entirely your work, do you want to just G7 it? I can at least live with the other outlines but this is more of a fundamental issue of being against what looks more like content forking than anything else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  - That would be fine. It looks like it was split off from the Outline of France in order to remove it from there, as this is all prose, which is inappropriate for an outline which is intended to be entirely in list format. So yes, please speedy delete. The Transhumanist 00:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Boro 001[edit]

Another tendentious draft by the former IP-hopper well-known to the F1 project. This car is the Ensign N175 under a different name and the page appears to be a recreation of an earlier page deleted here. Issues remain from that discussion. Eagleash (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment/update The creator of the page removed the MfD notice whilst logged out. Then after logging in moved the draft to mainspace. In the circumstances it has been turned into a re-direct to the main team page and this discussion can probably be closed. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Randy in space[edit]

Not even trying to be an article Maproom (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as incomprehensible and hence of questionable utility. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Er...Maproom, it's an essay in Wikipedia-space, it's not supposed to be an article. That's not in itself a reason to delete it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, my mistake. It's a particularly uninstructive essay. I still favor deletion. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Weak delete - Of very poor quality as an essay. Not meant to be an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment as author. At the time of writing, there was a controversy on Wikipedia about the modern geocentric view. The argument broadly goes that space must be anisotropic, as evidenced by the Axis of Evil - a pattern in the cosmic background radiation. Therefore not all points in the universe are equivalent. Therefore the Geocentric model is just as likely as any other model and should be given equal prominence with other theories. The result of that line of argument was a classic piece of civil POV-pushing. It occurred to me that it was quite analogous to the "Randy in Boise" essay, where the modern NPOV view of the universe is personified by Galileo and the geocentric POV view by Urban VIII, his antagonist. It's clear that if I have to go to such lengths to explain the background and meaning, then the essay does not serve its purpose. --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete – incomprehensible and a pointless rehash of Randy in Boise.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Firstly, no valid grounds for deletion is included in this nomination, as the essay in WP space is not an article and so article criteria do not apply. Secondly, I do not see how any of the 14 deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy apply, and without such a policy-grounded argument, there is no basis for deletion. Thirdly, speaking as a scientist, I find the argument both clear and relevant. The problem of false equivalence, where accepted factual arguments are treated as equivalent to pseudoscience or other unsupported belief, is significant on Wikipedia. There was recently a block and argument over where the age of the Earth should be presented as determined by science or presented as just a possibility with the religious view of 6000 years as an equally valid alternative. This essay is drawing on a similar science v. religion argument over the model of the solar system. That some editors don't follow the argument is understandable but also illustrative of the problem, because outsiders helping to resolve such debates have good intentions but insufficient knowledge to be aware what is and is not fact. Scientists (in this case, but any experts in different circumstances) get annoyed having to discuss what they (we) know to be ridiculous and can get drawn into incivility and "lose" the game according to Wikipedia rules. Many years ago, I remember a discussion of the use of a known carcinogen in homeopathy, a preparation that would be extremely dangerous were it not diluted so that a typical dose contained none of the carcinogen. Including this "use" in the chemical's article went on for a while and wasted valuable editing time and frustrated a lot of knowledge editors fighting against advocates with an agenda, which has consequences for article quality and editor retention. This essay may not be sufficiently clear to a non-expert, but that is an argument for editing not deletion. I view the sword-wielding skeletons as a wonderfully clear illustration of the RANDY problem but sadly in the science areas the arguments may be just as obvious to experts but much less so to outsiders, and that is the important point that I see this essay making. RexxS, thank you for writing it, I think it has a useful place. EdChem (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I like your explanation very much: it truly does make it a lot clearer what the essay was trying to say. In fact, maybe it would be more comprehensible if examples like this were included. (If so, I'd definitely switch to keep.) Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep I found the analogy easy to understand and rather appropriate. The essay should probably be tagged as humor due to its tongue-in-cheek presentation, but no policy-based reasons to delete have been provided. Arguments that various people don't understand what it's getting at are (a) arguments for editing and clarifying the essay, not arguments for deletion, and (b) a classic example of I don't like it reasoning. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 24, 2016[edit]

Draft:Family Jr.[edit]

An article for this channel already exists, and there does not appear to be any page history to merge. (Much of the text also appears to be in violation of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia; see [2] for what seems to be the original source.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Heroes of 71[edit]

Unlikely to be notable per a review of the sources in the VG reliable sources search. The only two sources here can't be fed through Google Translate, so without someone with the requisite knowledge of the language, reliability cannot be assessed. Also whiffs of WP:COI for what was written, and is an abandoned draft. Izno (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Creatures (YouTube Group)[edit]

Not likely ever to be WP:N per a brief review of reliable sources, draft is stale from a year ago, and is written with lots of not-WP:NPOV language. Izno (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mohan Rathore[edit]

We already have Mohan Rathore, a draft is inappropriate Doug Weller talk 08:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohan Rathore, which was a clear "delete and redirect". I don't know why User:Randykitty failed to delete before redirecting. Mohan Rathore is now a redirect, but I am not sure it is justified as the subject is not mentioned at the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:User End the FED[edit]

I believe this userbox is inappropriate because it says the user wants the Federal Reserve to end. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep, there are a lot of people who think the Federal Reserve System should be ended (according to Criticism of the Federal Reserve, 16% of those polled in 2010). This is a political opinion userbox, no different than any other. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep. There are a few mildly political userboxes this week nominated at MfD. Possibly they should be userfied, but short of being offensive or divisive, political declarations by way of userboxes is well accepted for productive Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:User Against Obama[edit]

I believe this template is not appropriate for Wikipedia. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. There are a few mildly political userboxes this week nominated at MfD. Possibly they should be userfied, but short of being offensive or divisive, political declarations by way of userboxes is well accepted for productive Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete Unlike the other ones support/against a philosophy or an organization, this one is against a person and I see nothing gained by keeping it. It's divisive enough for me to suggest it be removed and people advocate another way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:User Against Canadian Crown[edit]

I believe this template is inappropriate because it states that the user is against the Canadian Crown. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. There are a few mildly political userboxes this week nominated at MfD. Possibly they should be userfied, but short of being offensive or divisive, political declarations by way of userboxes is well accepted for productive Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

June 23, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the LGBT community[edit]

A draft outline that hasn't been edited for almost a year now. Started in 2011 but it seems like it's already covered by Outline of LGBT topics. At best, it may be better as a sort of suboutline or an outline to LGBT culture but it seems like it's just a listification of the relevant categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

~~Keep~~Close in favour of wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines is an active WikiProject, and it is not helpful for someone to use MfD to externally attempt to manage the project. Concerns should first be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is literally no other project that has ever argued that drafts should or should be not kept because the project alone has decided that it uniltaterally WP:OWNs these drafts and thus no discussion about these drafts should take place without the project's direct involvement and vote. Vote keep if you think the draft is going somewhere but do not vote keep on the bizarre requirement that all draft outlines must be kept since the project is active. Besides, if I try to tag other WikiProjects on these drafts, you then remove them as "mischief" because the outlines projects wants to keep all these outlines secret. This is not the way this project works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

- - I may be wrong (note this search of deletion discussions of outline article pages, which shows a level of acceptance occurred), but in my view these pages are not properly considered articles, or article drafts, and that they don't belong in mainspace. I fear that if you move them to draftspace, well meaning editors with start to fork content into them. I think, from a long held interest in Wikipedia:Outlines, that the WikiProject needs a discussion, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines, on matters such as: (1) Do outlines belong in mainspace, and if so, to what level; (2) What is the minimum number of articles covered by an outline to justify having an outline; (3) as outlines are supposed to achieve comprehensive coverage of content, and as activity is clearly not on path to achieve that, could we look at automated writing / compilation of outlines? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    - We are on path to achieve that, albeit slowly, and it very well may take automation to speed us towards reaching comprehensiveness. In the meantime, we have an incomplete yet useful set of outlines. Concerning automation, see Automatic taxonomy construction (ATC), another way of saying "automatically building outlines". The interesting thing is that field is at the heart of AI research, as ATC is used to build the cores of ontologies, which form the basis of computer awareness. The Transhumanist 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewing this nomination again, it is not an unreasonable nomination per se. Straight off I think if deleted, it should be pseudo deleted by redirection, and so the discussion need not have been at MfD, but either in its talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

"it seems like it's just a listification of the relevant categories". YES, that is the major criticism of all outline articles generally. And to the extend that editors add material, they are either forking or adding unreferenced WP:OR. But this this discussion needs to be held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines (or WT:Outlines), not piecemeal starting from the worst at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing the deletion of all outlines here so I have no idea what you're going on about. This particular draft is literally just a listing of a number of years pages and a number of countries pages. It's literally quoting the category. If that's what these outlines are for, that seems worthless to me. The general LGBT outline is actually useful and not just a copy of categories. And no, we don't need a talk at a WikiProject about policies. Policies are created and the projects reflect and give advise but they don't create policy. I dealt with Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People which had similar kinds of ideas and it took two drags to ARBCOM and a decade of blocks and bans before it became clear that the WikiProject is a part of the whole project, not some walled garden that can make it up its own rules and force it on everyone else. The editors at the project are aware of this deletion now if not when I added the tag to the talk page and it went through the article alerts system. From there, that's it. Why should Outlines get to own this discussion? Doesn't Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies also have a right to discuss how the LGBT pages including indexes, outlines, categories and the like are structured? Either way, both projects have been tagged, both projects can get notified and editors at both projects can come to MFD and have MFD discuss what should happen with this draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is never clear what you are up to. Deleting the whole WikiProject page by page, or moving pages to DraftSpace where they will be deleted later. If the discussion were to be about policy, it should be held at Wikipedia talk:Outlines. If it is about moving forward with the drafts, then discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines. Using MfD to force cleanup of WikiProject Outlines old ideas doesn't seem very efficient or collegial. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you WP:AGF about me for once. I thought this MFD discussion was pretty clear on the exact page I'm proposing for deletion and why. If these drafts aren't being actively edited, I have no idea why whether or not the project itself is matters. The biography project is clearly active and yet we delete biography drafts daily without you arguing to drag all discussions there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you are being over-sensitive, and this following repeated "I have no idea why" introductions to your comments about me, after I have explained something to you over a dozen times.

WikiProject Outlines draft subpages are full of template generated outline concepts, it was not clear why you chose this one over the others, nor clear that you intend to stop with this one. Past behaviour is for you to steadily nominate a series of similar looking things.

I think there is a huge problem with these pages, unless ignored, and that the way forward is a discussion of them collectively, not individually. These is no question that you think deletion of this page is a step in the right direction, and I disagree on the point that there is a better path through the marshes. And on principle that WikiProjects should manage their own affairs (I am still trying to find the relevant history of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People that you refer me to). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity and you should see why the idea of deferring MFD to a WikiProject is a problem. If you think there's a collective issue, then it can be discussed but outlines overall should not be discussed at the WikiProject with some presumption that the project has some greater expertise or authority on the subject than anywhere else. As noted before, that creates problems. Otherwise, I am evaluating these as pages and based on my review of this page, I see no reason why there would need to be an outline on this topic when another outline on a similar topic already exists and when there's no indication that this draft is being improved upon. I see nothing from you about the actual content of this page, just some complaining and demands that all further discussion about things created within this project be carved out from MFD (and I assume AFD/CFD and otherwise) if it relates to an outline and left to the project and the project's editors rather than the wider community. I would say that the outlines project would have been better served if, from day one, there was an effort even a minimal one to inform people involved in the actual topics about those outlines rather than take on the approach that the Outlines project, and that project alone, should be concerned with outlines. That attitude is one large reason why I suspect the remaining outlines are stagnant and entirely dependent on a single editor's involvement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Copied and replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#The_future_of_Outlines._Discuss_here.2C_or_pull_apart_the_WikiProject_bit_by_bit.3F --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge what you can and then delete. Basic duplicate of Outline of LGBT topics. That page can use a little expansion so merge what you can from this draft to there and then delete as unnecessary. Pretty sure per WP:NOATT that page history doesn't need to be kept for attribution in a merge scenario since it is just wikilinks (although I could be wrong and someone should probably verify if this is what ends up happening). --Majora (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep - These are outlines created by an active editor who created them many years ago and edited them most recently last year. I'd encourage The Transhumanist to think about whether these are actually going to go anywhere, and to CSD if not, but I see no reason to delete a draft started by an active editor that isn't actively harmful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Does the only person that matter the one who created these drafts? This project has acted unilaterally for years and with serious opposition to anyone else being involved in discussing outlines. See this discussion from 2011. The RFC about eliminating outlines overall was self-closed by the nominator as no consensus. This draft is duplicative of another outline that wasn't created by the outlines project so do we allow duplicates of anything as long as the one editor there wants to create them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  - If there's a problem with outline articles in general, with The Transhumanist, with the WikiProject, etc. that's not really something for a bunch of separate MfDs to address, in my opinion. I just see a nomination of a draft outline (which, fraught though it may be, I understand to be a legitimate form of article), created by an active editor, nominated for deletion before that editor has commented on their intentions/opinions. Except when a draft is actively harmful, when it was created by an active editor, there should be a discussion with that editor, and go to MfD only if the editor becomes inactive or acts unreasonably/egregiously in some manner not keeping to the spirit of policies/guidelines on drafts, etc. (and really, if the latter, it seems like another venue would be more appropriate to deal with it rather than many separate MfD nominations). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep – it's a rough start on the subject, and that's why it is in draft space. It needs a lot of work before it should be moved to article space. Which brings us to the topics of work and stepping stones. What you see here is that some work has been done. This work was necessary for further work to be done. If you erase this work, it has to be done over in order to get to this point again and from here go beyond. So please don't delete it. Someone can pick up where I left off. Maybe even me. I intend to get back to this when I am able. So please don't make me start over from scratch when I do. The Transhumanist 01:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of civil law[edit]

Proposed outline for civil law with little to no actual content since 2007. It's not clear from the outline whether the outline refers to Civil law (common law) or Civil law (legal system) and it honestly could be either at the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep - These are outlines created by an active editor who created them many years ago and edited most recently last year. I'd encourage The Transhumanist to think about whether these are actually going to go anywhere, and to CSD if not, but I see no reason to delete a draft started by an active editor that isn't actively harmful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- While active, the editor hasn't edited any draft outline is close to a year. Transhumanist has been notified about these discussions so if there's no response, how long do we just keep waiting around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  - You say "how long do we just keep waiting around" like you left him a message, then waited a while for a response, and resorted to MfD when you got none. As far as I can tell, you notified him as you nominated, when he had not edited in a few weeks (which is not to say the timing was intentional -- just pointing out that this is very much an active editor who should've been talked to first and isn't even around to defend/explain what he worked on/his intentions). So in response to "how long do we just keep waiting around" [before nominating for deletion], I would start with "more than 0". The point of my repeating that he's an active editor is because there's no emergency necessitating these be deleted now, and an active editor will almost certainly be around to engage in discussion about them before going down the deletion road. If The Transhumanist resumes editing and doesn't discuss this or doesn't come back for [a year? 6 months? I don't know what precedent dictates makes someone "inactive" -- more than a few weeks, to be sure], then I'd support deleting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:User No Obama[edit]

I'm not sure if this userbox is appropriate, because it states that the user supports impeachment. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Unused (only used in a directory) and WP:POLEMIC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Steve Sinnicks[edit]

Advertorially toned WP:BLP draft which has been rejected nine times for not making or reliably sourcing a strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Although the last rejection was in December 2015, there has also been the more recent development that a user recently tried to bypass AFC by copying and pasting the draft directly into articlespace at Steven Sinnicks without actually making any significant new improvements to it. Notability, per our inclusion and sourcing rules, simply is not there, so there's no point in continuing to hang onto it any further. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleteper nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is not a concern for drafts. If AFC doesn't want to review it, then remove the AFC notices entirely. We need more content creators. WikiCreativeJuicer (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiCreativeJuicer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete, basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Sinnicks. When the article's topic simply isn't notable there's no need to keep a draft on the same topic. Huon (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Reg Parnell Racing[edit]

This is a draft template created by a former IP-hopping editor well known to the Wiki F1 project. It has little, if any, uses and probably should not have been created as the team was not a constructor. It has also been re-submitted without addressing issues and now seems to have been abandoned. Eagleash (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per usual with this IP-hopper. Maybe they'll get bored soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. As Eagleash indicates, it is WP:F1 convention to only create navbox templates for teams which constructed their own cars, which Parnell did not. DH85868993 (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per the others. No rationale for ~~creating~~ submitting this once, let alone twice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/catholicism and freemasonry[edit]

Unattributed copy of this version of Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry as far as I can tell. Doesn't appear to have been used since creation in 2009. If someone does find it useful and it is to be kept, the attribution problem needs to be fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The motivation was to keep a version prior to the cut-and-paste move for reference. Now that the page has been histmerged, it looks redundant. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nartopa[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Userspace that is essentially a draft from January 2007 that has been covered by Nartopa. There's been IP addresses editing it for the last few years but nothing there is sourced so I don't see a need to merge the content to the mainspace one. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Move to a subpage and Redirect to Nartopa. Ne need for this. The redirect informs the author on his very occasional returns. The mainspace article could use some attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- The issue isn't so much the user there but the various IP addresses that have been trying to get that unsourced content dumped at the mainspace one which got reverted as well. A subpage of the current page just seems to violate WP:FAKEARTICLE (it's not a copy from mainspace to me).
  - Agree it looks like a FAKEARTICLE, but redirection is the solution to that. Or are you wanting to use deletion to address a behavioural issue of re-posts from IP addresses (if so, I support deletion, and subsequent G4-ing). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:VenturianTale[edit]

no potential for an article -- apparent vanity page. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. There are hits in the VG/S reliable source search, though I'm not sure if any of them cover the topic in-depth for the WP:GNG, since I'm at work and I can't review. I will add a comment regarding this at WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I took a second look at the source search and I can't find any proper articles. Many lists and passing mentions but no in-depth articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:User teenager[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Again we have boundarys and this crosses that boundary, –Davey2010^Talk 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:A User Non Adult[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - I'm not sure what's worse - The fact it's been created or the fact actual editors have stuck it on their userpage, There's alot of leniency when it comes to userpages but there's also a boundary and this userbox crosses that boundary. –Davey2010^Talk 02:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Speedy delete" is a reference to WP:CSD. Which criterion are your referring to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Identifying as a child, but without revealing personally identifying information, is probably a good thing. It means that the community can readily see that the editor is a child, and respond immediately if another is interacting inappropriately with a child. The nom is mistating policy, Wikipedia:Child protection makes no such prohibition, not even close. The CfD cited is not particularly relevant, it is not a precedent for this. It is part of a suite of CfDs that established that networking by birth year is not a valid basis for collaboration. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection#Disclosing_as_a_minor.2C_but_no_identifying_information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Based on WP:CHILD and the fact that Category:Child Wikipedians was deleted almost a decade ago, I think the 'more trouble than it's worth' summary is sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 22, 2016[edit]

User:Gokul009/Sandbox21[edit]

Seems to be using wikipedia as a webhost to host standings of some sort of Formula 1 game. Note, the user Gokul009 is indef blocked (since 2010). IPs continue to edit the page. Gricehead (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete - User's been blocked for the past 5/6 years so unless they're back under a new account I'd imagine they've long gone and thus forgotten about this, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article incubator/Template:Infobox WorldScouting uniform[edit]

Orphaned, unused template. We currently have Template:Scouting uniform which I believe does the same thing as this template does. It's also a template stored in Wikipedia space so I think MFD is more appropriate than TFD for this page. It's better if there's a single uniform template used in templatespace than for a project to create its own templates system calling to subpages in Wikipedia space. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge features, as not overlapping but should be.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge features and documentation. There are no instructions on how to use {{Scouting uniform}}. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC) ended today on 30 June 2016. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

June 22, 2016[edit]

User:Theornamentalist/Shinese[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Old draft userified here after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (3rd nomination) with no serious improvements after five years. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. AfD found that it does not warrant a stand alone article (WP:N / WP:GNG), but the content is real, verifiable, and should be merged somewhere. There are a few dog breed potential targets. There are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Does the fact that the prior AFD closed in delete and not merge count for anything? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  - I reviewed the entire AfD, yes, of course it counts, for what it is worth, in detail. The AfD demonstrates a consensus that the content does not warrant a stand alone article, but it completely failed to address the WP:BEFORE issue of a merge. Nothing in the AfD to my reading speaks strongly against merging to some article that lists dog crossbreeds. The AfD was not closed "not merge". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Dog crossbreed. No good reason to delete, do not blank or redirect before merging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The three AfDs and DRV collectively are all a mess of process, and in the end the deletion came with some mention of merge and redirect to the crossbreed article (then called List of dog hybrids), but people were focuses an the fairly complex cases establishing that the sources, which unquestionable satisfy WP:V, didn't satisfy WP:N. Note that WP:N is not a deletion reason if there is a merge target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection.See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Does not. The CfD is irrelevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no prohibition or even discouragement of open declaration of being a child in the policy, nor anywhere else I can see. Indeed, the notion is probably flawed. Children are easy to spot if you are looking for them, this userbox probably helps protect the child by letting more people know. A better fix might be to add a link to the essay Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

*Keep - I'm not seeing any child issues here?... –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I was born in this generation however I'm well over 20 which is why I'm kinda confused on it, Anywho I'm assuming this is used by kids more than people of my age (which yes is over 5! ). –Davey2010^Talk 11:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. @Davey2010: See Generation Z, also known as the iGeneration. It contains birth years roughly from 1996 onward. In other words, they're almost all underaged. Similar to the other MfDs, we should not be encouraging children to self-identify as such. ~ Rob^Talk 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's true, shouldn't Wikipedia:Child protection state it? It doesn't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Scepia/teen[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection.See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Again we have boundarys and this crosses that boundary, –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing wrong with declaring you approximate age, as long as you are not a child revealing personally identifying information. Nominator misrepresents policy and refers to an irrelevant CfD (networking by year of birth was found to be not a basis for collaborating). For general discussion see Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection#Disclosing_as_a_minor.2C_but_no_identifying_information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Scepia/teen2[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6#Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced. Wikipedia:Child protection does not seem to say that teenagers may not disclose that they are teenagers.

The CfD is no precedent for this. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/August_2007#August_15#Category:Wikipedians by year of birth is precedent setting for these categories having no collaborative value. Generally, user-categories are very restricted. The same does not apply to userboxen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. We should not have userboxes encouraging children to self-identify. Strongest possible delete. ~ Rob^Talk 22:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Again we have boundarys and this crosses that boundary, –Davey2010^Talk 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 21, 2016[edit]

June 20, 2016[edit]

Draft:GameOrchtad[edit]

Nothing in the WP:VG/S reliable source search to indicate notability, and not likely ever to have notability. Izno (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Not an unreasonable draft, WP:N doesn't apply to draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Zero Google hits to even confirm this is a real thing, and that's even using the regular Google search, not the reliable sources one. I would probably vote keep if this subject's existence was confirmed, but if this game development company hasn't even set up a website in the year since this draft was created, this is a no-hope draft. WP:GNG doesn't apply to draftspace, but the April 2016 RfC found wide consensus that no-hope drafts shouldn't be retained indefinitely. ~ Rob^Talk 05:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Top of the ghits: http://www.indiedb.com/company/gameorchard It clearly exists. I don't claim it looks good, but I do claim to see plausible notability. Maybe at the low end of likelihood. The page view stats indicate no actual WEBHOST abuse. Investigating "possible notability" is a very tough job, and is simply not worth the work to determine. Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard existed for that purpose and failed for that reason. As mentioned elsewhere, if it is a no-hoper draft, why not blank&tag with {{Non-starter draft}}, and delete these things in groups (agree, they are not for retaining indefinitely). Deleting them one-by-one is terribly inefficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I was tricked by the misspelled title of "GameOrchtad". If this draft is kept, it should be moved to the appropriate draft title, at least. Their game has 18,000 views and is in the top 300 out of 35,000+ games on IndieDB, a major indie game site. [3] None of that suggests notability, but in my eyes, it suggests there could eventually be notability. That's my bar of choice for drafts, so this is a keep from me. Thanks for cluing me in on my typo mistake, SmokeyJoe. ~ Rob^Talk 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and SmokeyJoe: I reviewed the different name, also by plugging it into the WP:VG/S custom search. No results again. The custom search is culled from a list of sites that WikiProject Video games has already found to be reliable. Most video game publishing, if a topic is going to be notable, will at least be findable via this online search (books on video games are usually reserved to the more notable titles, so it's not worth it to even consider Google Books much less Google News, which has false positives and unreliable sources). Indie gaming rarely crosses the bar for notability. Smokey, the articles I nominated today were very selectively picked from a set of very old articles noted at WT:VG#Old draft notification (21 June 2016), so if it makes you feel better, know that I was neither simply nominating old drafts nor being indiscriminate in my selection of MFDd drafts. --Izno (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the mainspace article took an A7 at GameOrchard. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Izno, it does make me feel better if you say something about how you discriminated this draft from others that you did not nominate. Also, I would appreciate an explanation of what a WP:VG/S custom search is, and why its use is important. I consider "not likely ever to have notability" a weak statement. "not likely" leaves a big margin of possibility. However, if you were to say "A thorough search of all usual sources reveals that this is not notable", I would be receptive to that. The problem with deleting per notability tests is that testing notability is onerous, and many assert "non-notable" on a gut feel. Mentioning that the nomination of a video game draft is done following an open review process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games will instill confidence and trust in the nomination. If I understand you correctly, I agree to support your nomination to delete. A WikiProject assessing drafts within their scope of interest is to be applauded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Basically, WP:VG put together a list of reliable, sometimes reliable, and never reliable sources, most of which are specific to the video game domain. The custom search linked above only searches the reliable sources for content about video games. The video game industry is one of the industries where any possibility of notability is indicated by a topic's online presence (exception: games published before the World Wide Web existed), so this search is basically a good triage for "is this topic notable?" If there are no results, it's almost always the case the article would not be notable. So from this point of view, "not likely to be notable" and "a thorough search were made of the usual sources" are basically the same statement. I only MFDd the articles after they were brought to attention at the WikiProject after subjecting them to the VG/S search. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Beyond mere existence, it created one game in May 2015 and three weeks later this single-sentence draft was born. It's been a year with no sources and no further sources. While I understand the idea of tagging it as a non-starter, I presume there's a point where deletion of this page is intended to be discussed so I don't see what need is there to wait. Also note that while WP:N doesn't apply, there needs to be some potential for notability to be established in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Totally agree with User:Ricky81682. Sure, WP:N doesn't apply, but it does show that this page will never can become a mainspace article. No need to keep indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Colinp386/sunfreeware[edit]

September 2012 unsourced userspace draft. The mainspace version at Sunfreeware has been a redirect since 2014 and there's no evidence that this is independently notable enough for a separate article. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Notability concerns don't apply to drafts. The redirect shows that there is a merge target.

Merge and redirect to Solaris_(operating_system)#Installation_and_usage_options. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you want it kept as is or merged into the mainspace one? There's nothing here that's sourced so I don't see the point of a merger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleteas per nom, nothing here to merge. "Notability concerns don't apply to drafts" but it does mean that this page will never amount to anything. No reason to keep indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 18, 2016[edit]

User:Random89/supergroup[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Abandoned userspace draft of an unsourced article, not edited since 2008. Two Moons Rising (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Supergroup (music). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Why would we want to hang onto it? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Consider commenting at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Accidental_content_forks_in_Draftspace. Userspace drafts are quite similar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It is someone's userspace. No one goes there but the user. Userspace subpages are the workspace for Wikipedians. Interfering with others' workspaces is needlessly rude. There is no benefit to the project in having people manage others' workspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. It's been almost eight years since this was last edited and two since the editor was here. Again WP:OWN does apply to user workspaces and especially after eight years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the user doesn't OWN it, the community, as represented here, has the right to delete, move, redirect, archive, protect, SALT, etc.

The page is unsourced, the nom was correct, but the mainspace article Supergroup (music) is sourced, so the sourcing is not an issue. Beyond what is in the mainspace version, this userpage contains lists/tables of examples of supergroups. If intended for mainspace, it seems random/incomplete and not based on sources, but alternatively, it could be considered the users notes on his editing intentions. As such, it is appropriate to keep the history available to him. Sure, if deleted, he could get it immediately undeleted at WP:REFUND, but that is pointless admin-heavy bureaucracy. He is clearly not working to put it into mainspace against consensus, and if he doesn't return, it makes no difference to anything if the history is behind a redirect or behind a deleted page.

It has been almost two years since the editor last edited, but he previously took a three-year break. This shows that a couple of years of inactivity doesn't imply gone for good, and in any case, we don't disappear old editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, how about a soft delete? If he returns in a year or later, he can request a refund for the page at WP:REFUND. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's delete now that we are here; the user will see the MfD notice, and this discussion mentions WP:REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to Supergroup (music) and List of musical supergroups. No need to keep super old stuff around indefinitely. If by any chance (very slim chance) the editor returns, he should be encouraged to edit mainspace article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:List of entry dates for foreign retailers into Canada[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Over two year likely inactive draft. I can't find any other lists of any type like this. We have a category for Category:Lists of retailers and for Category:Retail companies by country but none breaking it further down by country *entered into* and none creating a list for entry dates or what could be List of foreign retailers into Canada in 1929 or however this could be split. As such, I don't see any point in keeping this. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The author, Zanimum (talk · contribs), is active. Ask the user first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The author moved the page to User:Zanimum/List of entry dates for foreign retailers into Canada and removed the MFD notice. It could be considered moot but I still say there's no other lists of this type so I don't see the gains with having this draft around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 17, 2016[edit]

User:Bilishti95/sandbox/sangb[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the same promotional text that was rejected at (and deleted following the MFD) at Draft:Sang Bleu and is also now at Sang Bleu (tattoo). I'm not sure if deletion is so much needed as a history merge for the individual versions. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Apocryphicity/Tony Burke (Canadian Biblical Scholar)[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Old userspace draft for what seems to be an associate professor. I don't think he'd pass a WP:PROF test but this version has no source. It's so detailed it's possible but it's also possibly a WP:TNT situation so I don't know if it should be kept or deleted as excessively promotional. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of ghits leading to sources, this person has a very good chance of being found to be suitable for an article, with or without WP:PROF. Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- But this version is entirely a BLP with no sources. A new version would literally be a creation from scratch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  - Here (http://www.tonyburke.ca/ & http://www.tonyburke.ca/about/) are two pages that more than source it all. They are not independent, but that do provide a strong case for meeting WP:PROF. NB. WP:PROF is probably the easiest of notability subguidelines to meet, and also note that RfCs have emphatically affirmed that notability tests are not for userspace. As everything is reliably sources, and it is all academic, I don't that it is excessively promotional. Sure, some independent third party would help with the tone, and with getting it to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    - The editor hasn't been here since 2009. Even if there's potential here, what is the point is keeping it in that userspace? Moving to draftspace at least makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      - That may well be a good thing to do editorially. A couple of independent sources will easily justify a move to mainspace. Disagree with WP:TNT, this draft could easily be worked with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Once again, literally nothing here can be retained; there's nothing to do editorially, unless you write an entirely new page, and that's the whole idea of TNT. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and User:Nyttend. Moreover, this page is more like a résumé-style promotion, possibly COI as well. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Estemi/Seijin shiki[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Userspace draft from May 2008. I think this is already covered by Coming of Age Day which has been around since 2004. I don't see any indication that this was merged into the mainspace one but there's almost nothing sourced so I don't know if it's needed or it's just a fork of the mainspace one from years ago. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect is the best solution to every imagined problem, especially considering the uncertainty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, redundant to Coming of Age Day, no need to keep super old stuff around indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Timeline of conservatism[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Old incubator draft. Seems to have been missed during this MFD. Nothing is really sourced and it's clear about its usage anymore. Further Template:Conservatism footer template has a link for "Timeline" to Conservatism#Historic_conservatism_in_different_countries. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a very good reason to delete. 'Delete IF an AfD consensus to delete is found,Keep otherwise. Old unneeded WikiProject pages are archived unless deletion requests come from the WikiProject. Partial deletion of subpages of inactive WikiProjects is prone to leave a very confusing picture of its history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, unsourced and mostly WP:POV. No meaningful project pages link here, so no need to keep this around indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Zpoet/Caravan to Catch a killer[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Five year old userspace draft for a series of non-notable tours. There are citations for the individual murders but the only source I could find as this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, no need to keep old stuff around indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Dina Rae[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Userspace draft from January 2015. The mainspace page at Dina Rae was salted in December 2014 after numerous deletions and following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Another AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer). My discussion with JamesBWatson and Diannaa may be of interest: User talk:Diannaa/Archive 37#Reworking a salted article. I have no further comment about this MfD. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you still think there's a chance it's notable? If so, I'll withdraw the nomination. You moved it here for evaluation in January 2015 but there's no actual method of evaluation (AFC doesn't handle prior deleted content). I'd guess WP:DRV is the only solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bramalea Limited[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Old draft from 2011 that I think is currently covered by Bramalea, Ontario (and not by Bramalea (company) oddly enough). I'm not sure but if so, then merger makes sense given the sources here. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

June 12, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fabio Golombek[edit]

Unnecessary draft because Fabio Golombek exists. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect. A completely sufficient solution, see WP:ATD. Accidental content forks are almost always fixed by converting one to a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. There is zero gained by additional redirects when there is no need for them. Category:Redirects to the main namespace does not need to be clogged up between cross-namespace redirects that are actually necessary to preserve the GFDL and other redirects created for, I'm not sure what, to keep around the edits of editor who didn't have anything to do with an article and hasn't been here in three years for personal curiosity? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Absurd. The category which "maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself" would be better deleted itself. It is hopelessly inaccurate, and even if not, "clogged up" issues are WP:PERFORMANCE issues, and obviously facile. There is nothing undesirable about redirects to mainspace.

Every draft moved to mainspace should leave behind a redirect. The redirect serves purposes supporting editor's memories, computer bookmarks, etc. There is nothing undesirable about redirects to mainspace.

One thing gained is avoiding the negative of an MfD for every redundant draft. Accidental content forks are almost always fixed by converting one to a redirect. Any editor should do that, no need for the fanfare of a community discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't moved to mainspace. That's different. This page was created in 2013 and sat around through AFC extensions until someone else entirely created the page in mainspace in 2015. If these were related, a history merge would be appropriate to get the 2013 versions added but these aren't. This tends to happen when there's so much crap floating around that no one can find or work on the marginally useful stuff because other people oppose deleting that kind of stuff for reasons that are baffling to most people. Take the category for CFD if it bothers you so much or else realize that the category exists for a limited purpose because redirects to mainspace are supposed to be for a limited purpose not just because it can be done for literally anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fabio Golombek exists, This shows that the AfC decline was in error. You want to delete all record of that error?

This sort of careless deletion is not the wiki way. There is no benefit in deleting, and there is harm in deleting. So don't.

This page is not "crap". Even if it were, converting it to a redirect would be a neat packaging, and so it would not be "floating around".

The category is a near worthless but harmless tracking category of a superfluous template, but that doesn't mean it is worth the effort to be absolutely sure about that opinion and have it deleted.

I think you have a huge misconception about redirects to mainspace. WP:CNR was clearly written without anticipation of your enthusiasm to read without a wider perspective. There is no problem with having redirects into mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no harm in deleting. There is nothing gained from redirecting, unless you ignore the other categories that exist and ignore point X and Y and so one, and there is no policy reason why we should redirect. You have yet to express one other than your "it's less admin work" argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is repetitive. It is like you have blinkers on. Like you are selectively deaf. The harm is in the overburdening of MfD with harmless things, aka busywork. The good from redirecting is so that the author is given the message, quite usefully, and his bookmarks will still work, and also for any similarly minded drafter. Policy reason for redirecting is in WP:ATD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's already at MFD. Is your argument that you are voting redirect so that other people don't come to MFD because you've ensured that they can't get stuff deleted that they want deleted and thus in that sense you've "protecting" MFD from a burden? Otherwise, now that we're here, we should discuss what to do based on what should be done in this situation, not based on whether deleting things of a certain type would lead to more deletions of that type. It's not like you've obtained a consensus via the various RFCs to redirect these kinds of pages that you can point to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly some of the first, but also, and necessarily, that a redirect is a good idea.

I guess, we could have an RfC on what to do with accidental content forks in draftspace:

(1) Speedy delete them; or

(2) Take them individually to MfD; or

(3) Redirect the redundant to draft to the viable mainspace title.

(3a) Replace with a soft redirecting template that explains that the topic appears to be already covered in mainspace, with advice on what to do if that is not actualy true, such is if a spinout is being attempted, or title disambiguation is needed

(4) Ignore them, leave them as they are, or (4a) blank

I would !vote for (3), for various reasons, possibly harping on at length, possibly (3a) an idea to considered, followed by (1) (weak oppose) and strongly opposing (2). (4) is what most people do. (4a) probably confuses, making (3) or (3a) better.

Now that we are here? (and noticing that this is not draftspace we are talking about) OK, maybe the redirect is not really a good idea because drafts as subpages of WT:AfC is deprecated, all new drafting should be done in DraftSpace, so no new draft should ever be going to this location, so yes, delete now that we are here. Maybe all subpages of WT:AfC should be deleted, but please lets not do it one by one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Personally I see no actual point in redirecting ...., Anyway as the article exists there's no point keeping this around for the sake of it, If the creator wanted to do something with it then they wouldn't of abandoned it. –Davey2010^Talk 11:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that you have seen a few of these, consider that there are tens of thousands more, and they will be eternally created. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Accidental_content_forks_in_Draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Fabio Golombek. In this instance, it would be a harmless redirect that is WP:CHEAP. If the user who created the page ever comes along again to work on the submission, they will then be redirected to the main namespace article that already exists. Of note is that other users have performed edits to the submission, such as DGG who added a G13 postpone template and Anne Delong, who added a G13 postpone template and a source. If these users were to revisit the page, they would also be redirected to the main namespace article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge When I postponed the G13,I was not aware of the mainspace article--I certainly should have checked, but we need some way to make that automatic at the time of review, just as it is at the time of moving to mainspace. But the way I would handle this to preserve the work done, is to see if there is not perhaps something that could be merged from he inadvertently created draft. And it seems there is: the early films of his mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the AfD have not been incorporated into the main article, and seem appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm also for the notion of merging content. I have updated my !vote above from redirect to "Merge/Redirect". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete - DGG, at the time you postponed the draft, the mainspace article did not exist, so you were in no way negligent. It's too bad that the editor didn't notice the draft. I notice that there is now an improvement to the article creation screen which notifies an editor about drafts; this is a good reason for now moving all of the remaining old AfC drafts out of "Wikipedia talk" and into Draft space. I usually prefer merging to preserve content, but in this case there is almost no information in the draft that's not already in the article. The draft was created by a COI editor, and very similar text has been posted at http://showmethefkingmoney.tv/fabio-golombek/ (not sure which came first). The draft has not been improved for well over six months, so could have been speedy deleted under db-g13 before this discussion started.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to Fabio Golombek. Nothing substantial to be merged here and no benefit in keeping it, as per users Ricky81682 and DGG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete - If the author wants to merge something, they are welcome to do edit the mainspace. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

May 21, 2016[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Centralized discussion

Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
There is currently a request for adminship open for discussion. Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions? Should the criteria for "recent deaths" listings on "In the news" be changed? How safe are GMOs? (Note: Active ArbCom remedies) April Fools' Day on Wikipedia Former names in lead of bios of transgender/non-binary people Repeal WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES? Allow non-admins to close RfDs to "delete"? IP block exemptions to users in good standing? Confirm on save when adding links to disambiguation pages For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.
archive talk edit history watch purge

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Information on the process[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Administrator instructions[edit]

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

June 30, 2016[edit]

June 29, 2016[edit]

User:Meagankfrench[edit]

Curise[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Filipino architects[edit]

June 28, 2016[edit]

Draft:Mystic Keeper[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Medusa (artwork)[edit]

Portal:Communism/Quotes[edit]

Draft:Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature)[edit]

Draft:Bagalaga[edit]

June 27, 2016[edit]

Draft:YugiohPro[edit]

Draft:Lucas the Game[edit]

Draft:Ognjen Topalovic[edit]

Draft:History of Ormskirk Cricket Club.[edit]

Draft:Abundant Life Academy[edit]

Draft:Ccc[edit]

User:Kathyedits/Outline of Judaism[edit]

Draft:Martin Ross (Actor)[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology[edit]

June 26, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of fire safety[edit]

June 25, 2016[edit]

Draft:Bravo Storm[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alamahad[edit]

Draft:Secret Sculpture[edit]

Draft:Historical outline of France[edit]

Draft:Boro 001[edit]

Wikipedia:Randy in space[edit]

June 24, 2016[edit]

Draft:Family Jr.[edit]

Draft:Heroes of 71[edit]

Draft:The Creatures (YouTube Group)[edit]

Draft:Mohan Rathore[edit]

Template:User End the FED[edit]

Template:User Against Obama[edit]

Template:User Against Canadian Crown[edit]

June 23, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the LGBT community[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of civil law[edit]

Template:User No Obama[edit]

Draft:Steve Sinnicks[edit]

Draft:Template:Reg Parnell Racing[edit]

Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/catholicism and freemasonry[edit]

User:Nartopa[edit]

Draft:VenturianTale[edit]

Template:User teenager[edit]

Template:A User Non Adult[edit]

June 22, 2016[edit]

User:Gokul009/Sandbox21[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article incubator/Template:Infobox WorldScouting uniform[edit]

Old business[edit]

June 22, 2016[edit]

User:Theornamentalist/Shinese[edit]

User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration[edit]

User:Scepia/teen[edit]

User:Scepia/teen2[edit]

June 21, 2016[edit]

Draft:Agents of Time (BlockMan Films Series)[edit]

June 20, 2016[edit]

Draft:GameOrchtad[edit]

User:Colinp386/sunfreeware[edit]

June 18, 2016[edit]

User:Random89/supergroup[edit]

Draft:List of entry dates for foreign retailers into Canada[edit]

June 17, 2016[edit]

User:Bilishti95/sandbox/sangb[edit]

User:Apocryphicity/Tony Burke (Canadian Biblical Scholar)[edit]

User:Estemi/Seijin shiki[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Timeline of conservatism[edit]

User:Zpoet/Caravan to Catch a killer[edit]