Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). 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.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Total
CfD	34	34
TfD	11	11
MfD	3	3
FfD	1	1
RfD	58	58
AfD	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

November 22, 2024

Old and broken userscript from 2007. TheWikipede^talk 17:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the value of this page, there is little reason to go snooping around old Javascript pages from 2 decades ago. Scripts being old and broken is not one of the reasons. Please do something better with your time here. Izno (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we're here, but agree that this nomnation was counterproductive ragpicking * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Plainrock124

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Nomination withdrawn before any other delete assertions were made. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Plainrock124

Likely non-notable youtuber, with many attempts at recreation both under King Liang and Plainrock124. A recent WP:RM/TR request to move this draft to Draft:Plainrock124 brought this to my attention - it looks like this has been attempted enough times to have Draft:Plainrock124 salted, and as the most recent draft was denied for lack of evidence of notability, I find it highly unlikely this topic will pass muster anytime soon.

~~Normally I would just move this and let the draft expire, but~~ despite the many times this has been deleted or rejected, we haven't had an actual discussion on it. Since it will likely never see mainspace in its current state, this seems like a good way to seek consensus on the topic.

This was copied from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:King Liang, which I withdrew after noticing that the page was moved during my nomination, just to keep things clean. ASUKITE 17:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm working to establish notability. I do understand that Plainrock124 is a topic that many "inexperienced editors" create drafts on, however there's reason to believe that he meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. I did not submit my draft for review by the way. It's a draft that I'm still working on.

As for the most recent draft prior to mine, according to the fork on EverybodyWiki of said draft, this was a low effort attempt to write an article. There wasn't anything citied, full of grammar mistakes, less than two sentences. Given this context, I was initially hesitant to write an article under Draft/Plainrock124 for a while, since it's targeted by "biased editors". But as that has clearly made almost no difference, that's why I made the RM/TA request.

It's a challenge to find 3rd party notable sources, yes, but I think it's possible. I worked previously on the Norodom Ekcharin article, mainly finding sources to bring that article back up to notability. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. What I'm hoping for is that we can cement whether the topic is notable, ideally before any more of your time needs to be spent working the draft, so if you find any better sources, adding them here will help ensure this is kept, and possibly enable it to finally be published. I made an attempt already to comb what sources I have access to, unfortunately as with most Youtubers that has been unproductive. ASUKITE 18:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of independent sources unrelated to the subject, I have the following:

Plainrock's destruction of the Xbox Series X and Playstation 5 recieved media attention online, especially after a Facebook post took his video out of context:

https://www.purexbox.com/news/2020/11/yep_youtubers_are_already_smashing_up_the_xbox_series_x

https://tierragamer.com/noticias/xbox-series-x-la-destrozan-en-video-viral/

https://gaming.ebaumsworld.com/videos/smashing-an-xbox-series-x-turns-out-to-be-kinda-difficult/86448329/

https://tierragamer.com/noticias/xbox-series-x-destruido-a-martillazos/

(deprecated sources below)

https://www.explica.co/images-that-hurt-youtuber-see-how-much-damage-the-xbox-series-x-can-take-and-is-very-resistant/

https://www.explica.co/he-dies-of-courage-to-see-how-they-destroy-a-ps5-heartlessly/

https://www.explica.co/they-hit-a-ps5-with-a-modem-and-a-mini-cooler-and-withstands-various-impacts/

https://www.gamingbible.com/news/playstation-bored-youtuber-smashes-playstation-5-to-pieces-20201118

Plainrock's activity on X has also garnered attention:

https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-join-bluesky-face-abuse-censorship-1988883

https://nintendosoup.com/audience-members-are-mocking-the-sonic-movie-in-screenings-of-detective-pikachu/

https://fandomwire.com/geoff-keighley-announces-summer-game-fest-2025/

And here are some other miscellaneous sources:

https://mega993online.com/yakima-news-yakima-youtuber-smashes-nintendo-switch/

https://plainrock124website.my.canva.site/plainrock124-history (This is a random fan website, I am unsure on it's reliability) TansoShoshen (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a draft. See Drafts are not checked for notability.
- - It appears that the nominator is asking for a consensus that the subject of the draft is not biographically notable. This is a good-faith misunderstanding. Maybe the nominator wants to stop editors from future work on drafts on this person. However, the deletion of an article doesn't establish that the subject will not be notable in the future. Editors are permitted, and often encouraged, to develop drafts on individuals whose articles have already been deleted.
  - If we were to salt this title in draft space, fans would submit drafts using his other stage name, or changing the spelling of his stage name.
  - Wikipedia doesn't have a forum or procedure to "cement whether the topic is notable", because such a procedure would be a mistake.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Robert. Another misunderstanding on my part - as with my recent RfD I need to read up on the process and usual practices for XfD’s other than AfD. I’m confident enough to withdraw this, and if you believe that salting the title was a mistake, I’ll agree that it’s probably best to undo that as well, as it was salted, but that has no bearing on this conversation.

Sorry for wasting your time, TansoShosen, hopefully those sources help though! ASUKITE 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 20, 2024

Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise

WP:CFORK of lists at List of NHL players (specifically List of NHL players with 1,000 games played and individual team lists). In addition, Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise2 has also been created, but has recently been blanked by the creator of both drafts. Issues regarding these drafts were discussed at WT:NHL in May 2024 and June 2024 – sbaio 11:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as those proposals aren't going to be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - IMO it's been expanded beyond a CFORK enough, but there's no references. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just so you users who voted Delete are aware, Sbaio only nominated the page for deletion as a threat tactic on me just because I don't agree with his viewpoints. After all, this is a draft, therefore, a page still in progress. I would rethink your votes, Sbaio has ABSOLUTELY NO right to butt in on my work in progress like he did. Marino13 (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:XFD#CONDUCT and stop with constant personal attacks, accusations, hounding, etc. towards me. – sbaio 13:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Sbaio's conduct should be investigated. Llammakey (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llamakey, thank you for your vote. Please report sbaio, he has taken this way too far. I only wish to create articles to educate readers on the wiki. On the other hand, sbaio seems to care about neither of that. Marino13 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We generally give allowance to content creation in Draft space. There are different standards than if this article was in main space. Especially given that the draft is still being worked on and improved. But, please, the focus here is on this draft and not taking potshots at each other. Take that to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two messages were left on Marino13's talk page by other editors about this draft on 13 June 2024 and 14 November 2024 (this is the the duplicate draft, which has been blanked and I mentioned it in nomination). – sbaio 08:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't seem to have been disruptively attempted to be moved into article space; seems like a valid attempt to try to build a list article. It may not end up being enough different from our other article space lists about this general topic but that doesn't mean editors can't work on such things in draft space. (The {{AFI}} template should be removed, however.) Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex: Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise2 (also mentioned in the nomination) was moved twice – on 12 June 2014 and 13 June 2014. In fact, Draft #1 was created on 4 May 2024, while Draft #2 was created on 12 June 2024 (it was initially not in draft space as can be seen in revisions in prior sentence). – sbaio 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This MFD probably will be enough to stop it. Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise2 can probably be deleted via WP:G7 since it's stayed blank for this long if anyone cares. Still not sure what we gain by deleting this one? Skynxnex (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first 12 June 2024 move was a minor grammar fix in the title and left it in article space. The second was a draftication but that's only happened a single time between the two draft. The bigger issue is that Marino13 shouldn't have done a copy-and-paste move on June 11 to the article space because other people had contributed to the original draft and so there's attribution issues. I don't see a lot of disruption around these two drafts really. So, keep this. Probably would be wise to use the WP:AFC to move into the article space if it's ever ready. Delete the copy-and-paste history in the "2" draft. Skynxnex (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 19, 2024

User:Nick/ACE2024

Rude. Disruptive. ArbCom is an important function, and experienced editors guides are helpful, and this one is not a good faith guide. Write an essay, but this is not what it purports to be. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: couple of issues - (a) oh, are you the voting guide police, what's the fucking point in having a voting guide if it has to comply with SmokeyJoe's policing, (b) it has been an accepted voter guide for several years, it was fine with the one line statement for a couple of years, folk felt it was a wee bit POINTY and in the last couple of years I've expanded it with more rationale, and (c) you could have discussed this with me before wandering into my user space and nominating a page for deletion I could delete if you had asked nicely. Nick (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was sort of clever protest the first time. A bad joke repeated forever is not funny. I found it rude and I find it rude every time, so apologies if I don’t start a polite conversation. I am not seeking a polite putting it away, but a community consensus that it is not ok. It is highly prominent to every Wikipedian, and it is abrupt and hostile. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended to be humorous, but it's not a joke. I genuinely want people to not only rely on voter guides, but to do their own research and make up their own minds on candidates. That's because I, like you, think ArbCom is an important function. And because I think it's an important function, I think voters should be doing more than just reading a guide and voting based on what research or other criteria other editors have come up with in their voter guides. Nick (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this page serves as a helpful reminder not to depend on voter guides, but to read the candidate statements and Q&A and make decisions based on that information instead. It's a valid, and useful, point of view. – bradv 22:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only past objections I could find (after a few minutes of browsing; apologies if I missed anything) were with Nick's 2021 voter guide (see User_talk:Nick/Archive21#Vote_guide and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Guides). The second discussion linked to an RFC where it was decided that the community would not disallow satirical guides. The 2012 RFC that reintroduced voter guides had no strong opinion for or against humorous guides. From what I can tell, there is consensus that voter guides like Nick's are, while not completely endorsed, are at least acceptable and shouldn't be excluded. If there are problems with it, raise it directly with the user, flag it to the Electoral Commission, or start a new RFC to change the consensus around satirical guides. I don't see anything egregious with this guide that would warrant deletion, though. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I did miss something; Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination § Is this a guide?. The Electoral Commission has determined that it will allow User:Nick/ACE2021 to be included in Template:ACE2021. In light of WP:ACERFC2021#Exclude satiric and non-serious guides from template, the community has indicated that it allows relatively wide latitude for what material is acceptable on voter guides, and it specifically rejected a proposal to "exclude satiric and non-serious guide from the template". In our view, Nick's guide does not rise to the level of disruptiveness that would compel the Electoral Commission to take action. —Cyberpower678 23:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'd argue wrong venue. Technically speaking, the page itself contains no content that blatantly violates WP:UP. Its "disruptiveness", if any, as argued in the nomination, only stems from the fact that it is included in the ArbCom Election template as a voter guide. The place to address that issue would be to raise it with the coordinators or the Electoral Commission. There's no need to delete the page itself. Liu1126 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rude and disruptive page. People want a voter guide, they are disappointed when they don't get a voter guide and get a "fuck off" instead, end of story. This is a good-faith attempt at sharing one's critique of something on Wikipedia, but it's not a good attempt. The "fuck off" rhetoric is faux-edgy sententiousness. Not convincing. Someone who wants a voter guide and encounters this will only think: "Fantastic. Now let me fuck off onto the actual voter guides that I was looking for and not waste any more time on this." MfD is a fabulous venue for deletion of pages within it's scope and this is not a process page and is not given special status under PAG.—Alalch E. 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: previous consensus has allowed relatively wide latitude on what qualifies as a guide. I'm not sure it would be in the community's best interest to change this, and that would be a matter for an RFC anyway, probably as part of the election RFCs.
I'm unconvinced by the civility/personal attack angle about "fuck off" in this context, given that it's not directed towards a specific person, and it's mollified by the surrounding context (Barkeep49 and Mz7's posts in the discussion k6ka linked above also touch on this). Retro (talk | contribs) 03:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Nick is totally right. People should vote based on their own experiences, not be herded by others. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is rude but it is not disruptive, and the rudeness is within the bounds that we normally tolerate. It is probably true, as Alalch E. says, that many users want a voter guide, but that is their problem. They should not be looking for someone to do their research for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is pretty much a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not disruptive to speak plainly, or to have a blunt opinion. We encourage editors to treat personal voter guides as nothing more than a matter of someone's opinion. If anyone wants a better guide, there's always mine (joke). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no valid reason to delete this page. While I can see why some may find Nick's wording rude (not that my read of the page agrees with that viewpoint), I also don't think that the contents of the page rise anywhere close to what would normally be deletable; I can think of at least a few pages in userspace that were definitely more rude than this guide and yet were kept by a pretty strong consensus at MfD (and, in one case, at AN/I). Java Hurricane 16:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well considered advice about an aspect of The Project in User space. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page fails Wikipedia:Trifecta#2. Nick may be right, but consider the context. An edit notice invites a Wikipedian to look at the ArbCom elections. The most obvious link takes you on a path to the voting page, which is pretty poor (the link should read: I don’t want to read anything just let me vote). Going back and following the unfolded links, it’s quite an effort to find your way from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (“election” does not appear on that page) to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024. Then, there’s a lot to read. There’s an abundance of useless information. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Guide is heavy going. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates is what was wanted, but who are these people?? There’s an underlying assumption that everyone already knows everyone, and it’s far from true. So of course, personal voting guides are going to be helpful in contextualising people. Mostly they are, and they all come with warnings “don’t rely on this guide”, but Nick’s is plain rude. You thought you were going to find something helpful, hah, fuck off you idiot. Is this the culture of ArbCom? Every conscientious newcomer to ArbCom elections is going to get that slap in the face. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struggle to describe it as anything other than "good faith". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a projectspace page, I would be deleting this as unserious and likely to confuse. But userspace standards apply to this page, and the page clearly falls within the scope of userspace as an expression of personal opinion, albeit with a great deal of opinion and individual character. Relative to the standards for userspace, the page is still not offensive or gratuitous. All that remains to ask is whether an election guide deserves different treatment than any other userspace page. Election guides are always userspace pages, however, and not subject to any greater requirements. Depending on their content, they may be delisted from the election pages, but that is not a question for MFD. arcticocean ■ 18:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 17, 2024

User:TheRealJackMarshall

MfD1=WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheRealJackMarshall

This (and the user's sandbox) have been at MfD before (nominated by User:Bgsu98), but the user blanked both pages, and thus (?) the discussion ended in "Keep". It's pretty obvious though, what they're doing--play the imaginary game, and then blank it, but the thing still remains in the history for instant recall. Let's remove it please. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely should be deleted for real this time. Should also consider deleting User:TheRealJackMarshall/sandbox to wipe the history. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In MfD1 we gave the user a generous assumption of good faith. Consider WP:BLOCKing for disruption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after user page update to fit Wikipedia rules, showing significant non-userpage contributions to Wikipedia. Delete it if you want, but at this point this kind of surveillance on a page kept blank 99% of the time feels targeted and unnecessary. I have tried to move all this data to Wikia/FANDOM pages, but the features on such websites are lacking visually compared to Wikipedia. Me using this Wikipedia page temporarily to capture the visual I need and then instantly deleting it is not a disruption of the peace on Wikipedia, nor is it meant to be a disrespect to the rules. But if you want to delete it for your own peace of mind, delete it. TheRealJackMarshall (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve got some mainspace article contributions, but you are mostly here doing userspace edits. This makes it look like you are only here to use userspace as a free webhost. While the cost of that is pretty small, it is irritating to a lot of Wikipedians.

Most of your arguable WP:WEBHOSTing is to your main Userpage, which is supposed to be where you introduce yourself as a Wikipedian. WEBHOSTing on this page is particularly offensive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: originally recommended delete, after updating user page changed my mind and now encouraging moderators to keep my page. Edited my original statement to include the first sentence. All else was left the same. TheRealJackMarshall (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to this only if an administrator suppresses the edit history prior to this latest update. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me. TheRealJackMarshall (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We (and I) agreed once to assume good faith by this editor, who went back to the same game involving a fictional game show. MFD is a content forum, and what we can do is to delete the user page and the user sandbox page. Both content and conduct are involved, but we only deal with content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 16, 2024

Draft:Doctor Who series 17

Unnecessary boilerplate content that's getting farther ahead of the show than even the show's own cast and crew are.
As of today, season 15 hasn't even premiered yet, so we don't already need placeholder drafts about future seasons that might possibly never happen at all if the show gets cancelled. And as of right now, the current Doctor is #15, with absolutely no announcement having been made that Ncuti's leaving the show, so there isn't going to be a 16th or 17th Doctor anytime soon either — when 16th and 17th Doctors are actually announced, creating new articles about them will not be difficult enough that we would need placeholder drafts to already exist this far ahead of any verifiable casting announcements.
I know Doctor Who's internal universe is all timey-wimey and stuff, but Wikipedia operates on a real-world schedule, not a "flying around in a tardis" schedule. Obviously articles can be created when we have actual, sourceable information to add to them, but we don't need virtually empty scaffolds to exist this far in advance of the real world. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very unnecessary creations that aren't needed this early on, especially when the existence of these subjects are not officially confirmed yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom, but preferably invite WP:WikiProject Doctor Who to take ownership of things like this as WikiProject subpages, subject to WikiProject consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Weak delete”, not “keep” per Alalch below, because I don’t think draftspace should be used for structured WP:Walled gardens. Not without explicit consensus elsewhere, such as in a WikiProject. Usually, these things belong in a WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the WikiProject Doctor Who talk page about this discussion, per your suggestion. Mjks28 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article skeleton with no statements for them to be questionable. No hoax concerns. Deletion not needed. If caught by G13, fine.—Alalch E. 23:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about hoaxes. But boilerplate skeletons are never needed or warranted this far in advance of any possibility of adding any actual meat to the skeletons either. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Series 16 draft, delete the rest. Series 15 started filming before Series 14 premiered, that's not a basis for deletion. Further content on Series 16 can be found at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)#Series 16, where it is reliable source that the series is in development - I will copy this into the draft, hence nullifying the statement that there is no "actual, sourceable information". -- Alex_21_TALK 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep series 16: While it hasn't been officially renewed, Davies has already written the scripts for some episodes, and Gatwa has said he would consider returning. If the series gets cancelled altogether, and no series 16 goes ahead, the draft should then be deleted. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 15, 2024

Draft:Castianeira: Part Three: Castianeira's Role

Draft space is not suitable for user-submitted fictional stories Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not been rejected, only declined. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia is not for things made up. I am usually very tolerant of questionable drafts in draft space, but this is not a draft but user-written fiction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 November 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

November 2, 2024

Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It’s crucial that Wikipedia reflects a spectrum of viewpoints, especially on contentious topics. Secondly the existence of such userboxes is constructive, they allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions, which aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of providing a platform for diverse perspectives. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. This suggests that our community values the representation of diverse viewpoints. If the support template exists for a organization like RSS which is often regarded as terrorist organization or far right extremist, and often blamed for assassination Mahatma Gandhi, there is a need of the template which is in opposition to the ideology of RSS and PFI. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an ideology that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why there is a supporting template for this? ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, divisive.—Alalch E. 23:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RSS has been linked to hate-driven rhetoric and exclusionary practices that echo the characteristics of extremist and terrorist organizations.

The RSS should not be supported or glorified through these supporting templates below.

RSS This user is a supporter of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RSS is a far right paramilitary organisation that has been responsible for multiple riots and violence on minorities, there's nothing wrong with this userbox, when we have various userboxes such as those that oppose Nazism and Fascism. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Expressing a political allegiance is not in itself disruptive, but the RSS goes beyond simple national politics. They express extreme nationalist and conservative views and have had involvement in violence and riots. While most of us will sympathise with opposition to the RSS, the projectspace should not facilitate or encourage any involvement in RSS-related debates (WP:NOTFORUM) among Wikipedia users. arcticocean ■ 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose PFI

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 01:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 15:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 01:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why those userbox templates exists in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics_by_country/United_States? ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I may well support deletion of some of those two. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, divisive.—Alalch E. 09:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. arcticocean ■ 19:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article...

I originally just redirected this but it was contested. Contextless Guantanamo related page, part of a project to make a lot of pages on a lot of Guantanamo prisoner BLPs (many of which are being slowly deleted as given our current rules they are non-notable) by an indef banned user that never went anywhere masquerading as a WikiProject page. Also, WP Terrorism is no longer a wikiproject so these are attached to a project that no longer exists. Marking it as historical is negative for that reason. I see no harm in letting it exist as a redirect so the page history is accessible but I do see issues with letting it remain attached to nothing.

Also nominating:

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to know whether I understand. It appears that there was a WikiProject until 19 October 2024, and then it was moved to become a task force of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo was a subpage of the project, and it had its own subpages. So the issue is what to do with the subpages of something that no longer exists. Is that correct? My own thinking is that marking them historical is exactly what should be done, to record the historical link to the renamed project. Is my reading of the history correct? If so, why shouldn't we record the strange history? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon What's the point of keeping project pages that have no project? I find they tend, even if marked defunct or historical, to attract random edits, vandalism, and people for asking for help on the wrong pages to get no response. Redirecting it stops that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect because in all this time no substantive argument has been given against doing so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates