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.

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

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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 transclued pages.

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	1	15	16
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	0	34	34
AfD	0	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.

February 3, 2023

Draft:JEON JUNG-HYUN

Fails WP:BIO just because they have a famous brother does not make it notable. Furthermore, it is written from a fan point of view not a neutral point of view. Lightoil (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Normally I would say we should keep this as drafts don't have to meet notability standards, but this reads as fancruft. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NDRAFT, let G13 handle it. Zerbu ^💬 16:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2, 2023

User:Od Mishehu and BWilson Suck Dick

Speedy deletion nomination was declined. Both the user and user talk pages are a violation of WP:NPA and WP:G10 and have no content aside from notices that the user has been blocked. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. In the edit history of this user page and the talk page, I cannot see any of the attacks that this user has made. It is not clear what about this page, or any previous revision of it (that I am able to see) violates WP:NPA. There's just that this user has been blocked, and why, and also a declined unblock request, all of which seem like reasonable things to keep as public record, and none of which should be deleted. Even if a previous revision was a personal attack, the current revision, declaring that the user is blocked and for what reason, does not violate any policy that I'm aware of. If any previous revision was in violation, the solution would be revision deletion, and if that was necessary, it seems to have already happened. I may change my mind if it is further elaborated as to what specific content is in violation. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the username itself (and by extension the title of the page) that is a personal attack. There is also already a rough consensus to delete these sorts of pages, because they sometimes show up when you search for the user. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious harassment and trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the page being searchable and the title showing is already a personal attack, so G10 and do not bring to MfD. —Alalch E. 10:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

possibly helpful if @Bbb23 explains the decline. If not for that by a respected editor, I might have speedied. Star Mississippi 20:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this here?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete obviously - this should have been speedied and I'm tempted to do it myself. Hut 8.5 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already explained my reasoning on my Talk page if anyone wants to look, but, really, I don't care if someone wants to delete it without waiting for a consensus in this discussion. Silly if you ask me, but whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Ivana Knöll

Submission declined on 30 December 2022. No edits since December 2022 decline. Fails WP:GNG. User who created draft now banned due to multiple drafts that do not meet WP guidelines to move to article space. AldezD (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Discussion not needed, will be deleted anyway in due course. —Alalch E. 08:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. With the user now banned, there's no need to manually delete the draft. Speedy delete will take care of it.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I would say leave to G13, but this person clearly isn't notable and I really don't think there is any benefit in retaining a draft that has nothing to say but "some people were mad about her breasts once." It might not be a BLP issue per se, but I personally think it's kinda rude to the subject to keep this draft around which only dubiously meets NPOV. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 05:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]

The content is generally factual and the subject is a famous social media influencer with the most instagram followers in Croatia, recently gaining more than Severina, who is the number one regional celebrity. Nothing rude. As a bit of interwiki trivia, this (by "this" I mean an article about this, and it was a reasonably well-written and sourced article) was AfDd (sh:Wikipedia:Članci za brisanje/Arhiva 1#Ivana Knöll) on a language version of Wikipedia that geographically and culturally relates to this subject much more closely than the English Wikipedia. The result was delete due to lack of notability; I !voted to delete. But I still don't see this as a reason to delete a draft here. —Alalch E. 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Hiroshi Naigai

Fails WP:GNG. User who created draft now banned due to multiple drafts that do not meet WP guidelines to move to article space. AldezD (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. —Alalch E. 08:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit about the subject: Draft talk:Hiroshi Naigai#Links —Alalch E. 09:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewing everything later in the day, this draft is totally fine and the subject seems notable. —Alalch E. 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Alalch E. "Totally fine"/"seems notable"? There are no sources in this draft and subject fails WP:GNG. Also, what is the link to NIAGARA SONG BOOK? AldezD (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some sources, and it doesn't even matter whether the subject is notable; drafts aren't deleted for this reason. jp:NIAGARA SONG BOOK. —Alalch E. 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Alalch E. there are no sources that meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a completely unsourced biography, no inherently contentious claims, no reason to delete. —Alalch E. 00:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 1, 2023

Portal:Oli2000s/User drinks Bomba

Not a portal, and no useful content: just an empty page with a user box in it. JBW (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 22:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete literally just wasting space.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userfy it looks like the creator was trying to create a userbox, but accidentally created it in the wrong namespace. Zerbu ^💬 17:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 31, 2023

Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki"

This essay is uncivil and unwelcoming. It goes against long standing policy that 'anyone can edit'. If it stays it should be in user space, not wiki space. JeffUK 16:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I disagree that it's uncivil. Unwelcoming is a more feasible accusation, but I don't think it's too problematic for publication as an essay. I wouldn't advocate for including it in a welcome template, but it's fine in WP space as an editor's perspective on diction related to Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"New editors who say stuff like "Wiki should do this" and "I'm trying to improve Wiki" always seem to know nothing about Wikipedia" is explicitly biting newcomers, I thought that essays that went against wiki policy should live in user space, not in the WP space? JeffUK 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point I'd say there's at least one newcomer who needs to look up explicitly in a dictionary. And don't call it "wiki". E Eng 15:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Adding that I think the merge/userfy suggestion below is fine.~~ _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh, I'll stick to keep given that there's no Highlander rule for essays. Obviously if there's disputed changes made by other editors EEng can choose to userfy, but we don't need to decide that in this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not clear why the nominator thinks it's either uncivil or unwelcoming; it's advising editors on a possibly non-obvious community social norm, using an anecdote by way of simile, and at no point says "not everyone can edit". --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article says, " no one who actually edits calls it that," i.e., you're not welcome here if you call it 'wiki'. and "When someone tells you they're "here to improve Wiki", watch out!" i.e. that if someone says they're here to improve the encyclopedia, we should care more about the terminology they use than the fact they're here to improve the place. I suppose my main issue with this is that I discovered it when it was thrown at a new user with 'Don't call it wiki', which probably coloured my opinion of the essay itself, but I still think it seems cliquey, elitist, and doesn't have any place here. JeffUK 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going out on a limb to guess that it was thrown at a new user refers to this diff at the ANI about MrsSnoozyTurtle? If so, I think it's very much appropriate to advise a new editor jumping on an ANI bandwagon and improperly tossing around phrases like "NOTHERE" that they're in over their head. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see the point Jeff is making. Hopefully the hostility can be reduced. Better? As GabberFlasted writes below, it is true that pointing out any kind of jargon cements a kind of divisiveness between new and experienced editors, and if we didn't have any jargon whatsoever, that would be better. However, we do. There are 159 users with {{user notwiki}} on their user page, proudly declaring they feel physical pain when someone uses Wiki to refer to Wikipedia. There isn't an industry, or group, or profession, or organization of more than a few years of existence that doesn't develop jargon, it seems to be the nature of humans. So as long as we do, we should explain that jargon, and help new users not offend at least those 159 people, not to mention the many who feel that way and just don't mark it with a userbox. --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Userfy or Merge Addendum: The essay's wording has been tweaked/softened since original writing GabberFlasted (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)TL;DR: It's otherizing, unwelcoming, and if true: entirely unnecessary. I don't understand what good is meant to come out of this essay, and think it's more likely readers will walk away with a new way to categorically disregard their fellow editors.Reply[reply]
Like Rosguill above me, I don't think it's necessarily not everyone can edit-level but I do think it's unwelcoming and bears hallmarks of that nebulous bundle of lite elitism or exclusivity that hangs around any community (particularly online ones) like a bad smell. I believe the essay does not actually convey any constructive or helpful meaning, and that it's rather trying to push some kind of (although very minor in magnitude) badge-of-shame, or generally give editors an excuse to categorically disregard another editor. I strongly disagree with the categorization made above by @GRuban: This essay is not alerting new editors to a non-obvious social norm, it is (intentionally or not) encouraging existing editors/readers to look unfavorably on editors just because they use the term Wiki to refer to the project. I myself am not terribly veteran but I'm not new either and I don't think I've ever come across this No-True-Editor sentiment before, and I would never have thought twice about someone who referred to the project as the Wiki. And ultimately, if this IS something every veteran editor knows about, do we need an essay telling them that?
We obviously don't want an essay telling users to Look out for editors that call it the Wiki, they're probably clueless/CIR boogeymen but that's how this essay currently reads. It's divisive, it's frankly currently mean-spirited, and it's not biting newcomers, but it is somewhat otherizing them. I think if it were worded to be more along the lines of "Hey I know you're new, but don't call Wikipedia the Wiki because some veteran users get prickly about that" it would be somewhat better, but I think ultimately this essay in any form just further cements a certain kind of divisiveness that isn't constructive or productive. Sorry for the long read -GabberFlasted (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Userfy as highly duplicative to the older Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. Merge if someone is interested in actually perfroming the merger (such as EEng possibly).~~ Keep. I never thought that the essay is uncivil; even though I really prefer essays not being redundant, it is not a reason to do anything here —Alalch E. 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge polish, shorten, and add to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! as possibly useful advice - not only in wiki but in life in general. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! per WP:REDUNDANTESSAY, or userfy if EEng prefers.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, it has no purpose. Sahaib (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (or userfy). Whadya know, I went from the ANI thread to EEng's talk page and immediately saw why this was nominated. Anyway, we keep all kinds of essays that some editors disagree with. That's why they are essays, not guidelines or policies. No one has demonstrated that this particular essay actually violates any policies, just that it can be interpreted as having a negative tone and it can be pointed to in a way that isn't particularly sweet. Not sufficient to delete as a matter of anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And there is no policy basis for saying that we cannot have two essays on the same thing. (Oh, the horror! We must tidy that up!) Here's an idea: edit the essay page to change the tone of it. And if EEng objects to such edits, then move it to user space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, obviously. As Tfish points out, it's OK to have multiple essays on the same topic. "Otherizing" -- you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here. And anyway, GRuban's taken the trouble of putting the iron fist into a more velvet glove [1] so the !votes above are ! !voting on the essay as it currently stands. E Eng 01:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you really think "you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here" is appropriate and civil? If that's an indication of what you think is acceptable behaviour, it's no wonder that you can't see why people might find your essay undesirable. JeffUK 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, actually, I think it's perfectly appropriate. And I assure you that I'm not the one who's failing to see something. Go nanny something else, O Protector of Fragile Egos. E Eng 16:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly not constructive, but I couldn't resist
In the same post, he's also mentioned fisting and banging. I, for one, am shocked, shocked, and recommend the bastinadoes. Who would ever have expected such a response from EEng? Well, OK, anyone who has ever read anything he has written outside article space. But other than those people? --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slightly more serious: Jeff, dude (or whatever the UK equivalent is - guv'nor?), you're nominating his essay for deletion, and calling it, let me see, "uncivil", "unwelcoming", "cliquey", and "elitist", and you're not expecting him to react unfavorably to this? This is basically his child here. (Yes, he has lots of children - which goes back to the !ing...) Give the man a bit of rope. Now, these things you're saying have, or had, a point, which is what I wrote above, and I tried to adjust the essay to make it less of each of those things. Still, you've now moved from attacking the essay, which there is no way around, really, when you're nominating it for deletion, to attacking him personally. Do you,by chance, know what they say about glass houses and stones, or pots, kettles, and blackness? --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, frankly, I'd be pissed off too, especially if there's any thought in my mind that the essay was not only interpreted incorrectly, but that it was a gross misinterpretation at that. I can't begrudge EEng whatsoever for being frustrated. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep there are better things to argue about. Ye old “it’s political correctness gone mad, oy vey” Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Perfectly good example of a Wikipedia essay. If you find it too incivil, Wikipedia might not be a good place for you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There you go otherizing again. Oh, the otherizing! ~~<<
Keep - Ho-hum. Maybe mark it as humorous if it's particularly incisive for people's tastes. At the same time, it makes valid points, which I think people are missing. Nowhere is it indicated that new users are unwelcome to Wikipedia if they call it "Wiki"; on the other hand, it might in fact indicate a user who could benefit from help learning the ropes if it appears that they're in over their head in certain subject areas. It's no worse than how some admins bring up the fact that new users whose names include "Truth", "Patriot", or "Fact-Finder" are usually BATTLEGROUND trolls. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and Sahaib. This clearly fails WP:PURPOSE. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you cite the clause in WP:PURPOSE that explicitly pertains to removing essays of this sort? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the clause that says that everything has to have a purpose on Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there goes Wikipedia:Please do not murder the newcomers. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tag with {{Humor}} and move on. Also, I would encourage the nominator to explore the wonderful world of counter-essays. Here are some possibilities: Wikipedia:Did you know we don't need more ways to make newbies feel like newbies?, or perhaps Wikipedia:Don't be the Comic Book Guy of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Call it wiki if you freaking feel like it, because nobody actually cares, and then link to them from the see also of this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It's fine in the Wikipedia space. It's a funny little story, it's a good way of letting people know that Wikipedia isn't abbreviated "Wiki", it's a nice compliment to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! Nothing wrong with it, it reflects existing practice, no reason to delete or userfy in my mind. --Jayron 32 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this essay. Those who dislike it can simply refrain from linking to it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, must we? — Trey Maturin™ 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites and Jayron. I find it hard to believe this has been causing problems, and a good example for illustrating the concept. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: "It goes against long standing policy that 'anyone can edit'." Seriously? Advising people that they shouldn't use a particular turn of phrase tells people they can't edit? Quite aside from this startling bit of nonsense, there are dozens upon dozens of policies and guidelines telling editors what they are and are not allowed to edit, and with a great deal more force than a mere essay. I doubt the OP is going to seek to MfD them any time soon. Ravenswing 21:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jafet/Watchlist

Last edit Dec. 31 2008. Still in Category:Wikipedia watchlist. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. Category problems are category problems. The categorisation can be changed. Or removed. Indeed, the whole page could be blanked, and the nominator should address obvious alternatives to deletion before advocating deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Pronalee

Declined the G11 because I don't think it's advertising, and I can't find a different CSD category it falls into. We really need a speedy delete category for "WP:NOT violations in draftspace that are not possibly salvageable into an article", but we don't have it, so sending this here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - draft space is not a web host for your personal diary. Leaving this for G13 is not appropriate as this writing appears to be about a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is about the verifiable world, not a contributor's crushes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Inappropriate use of Wikipedia, and unsourced BLP. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 11:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per all above. —Alalch E. 12:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:BLPUNSOURCED; also WP:NOTBLOG. SN54129 14:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: As an unsourced BLP. The “new” CSD needed is the pseudo CSD of WP:BLPPROD being made applicable to draftspace. See WT:CSD for active discussion on this. To help make it happen, keep sending unsourced BLP drafts to MfD. “Unsourced BLP” covers a wide range of sins, from innocuous child writing to unclear G10s, and all of them should be quietly deleted, and BLPPROD would suffice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 30, 2023

Draft:Celebrities who became politicians

Draft of content moved to article space that was then deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who became politicians. AldezD (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per the consensus of the past AfD. Would not be opposed to keeping if this were significantly edited into something acceptable. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete recreating deleted content without meaningful improvement Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, but allow userfication. The AfD made it clear that it will never be a suitable article. Draftspace is for drafting articles. Userspace pages can have other purposes, or no purpose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and the consensus of the past AfD. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 29, 2023

User:Techworld12/sandbox

The only purpose of this sandbox article is to promote himself. Advertising and WP:SNOWBALL Gbawden (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: as unambiguous self-promotion. (Though I'm not sure what you meant by citing WP:SNOWBALL, but I suppose there's always the possibility that any deletion discussion can turn into one.) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 09:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST. —Alalch E. 20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - It's a draft, but it's also an unsourced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 27, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Social Security in the United States of America (USA)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Social Security in the United States of America (USA)

This draft is a hoax. References were generated by a LLM (see WP:LLM and current ANI discussion): none of them are real.

""Characteristics of the Population by Sex and Age" is not a real title. Sylvester J. Scheiber never wrote such a paper. This phrase appears nowhere online.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/1956amend.html is a fake URL which returns a 404 error (this draft was written ten days ago). This URL has never existed.

The access dates are fake as well; they say the pages were accessed in 2018, but the draft was created on January 17, 2023. jp×g 12:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Given that the title implies a real subject which does exist, there is a chance that someone will come along and rework this draft into a valid article. If no one does, it does not matter, we have no need to police draftspace. WP:NDRAFT. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 12:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Neutral: I question the necessity of bringing this to MfD, as if it's a hoax due to falsified sources, it should qualify for G3 and thus be speedily deleted. If it doesn't qualify as such, then I don't see any copyvios or BLP violations, so my instinct is to say that this should be left alone per WP:NDRAFT, as that's what I'd say if it were written by a human. But on the other hand, maybe we should delete it on principle, to discourage people submitting AI-generated texts such as this. I'm not really sure. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: We already have an article on this topic. That, and it's still a hoax. Even according to the essay that was linked. I truly doubt there's anything to salvage from this. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it qualifies for G3, then there's no need to nominate it for discussion here. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:LLM deletion section, it qualifies for G3 because of mostly fabricated sources. Per WP:LLM suggested policy, LLM should have been declared somewhere, and the editor who ran the LLM should have gone through and cleaned up the article, but none of that was done, and it was submitted anyway. Per WP:NDRAFT It does not qualify for G2 since it's been done on a draft space. If kept because of testing purposes, it should not be resubmitted for AFC review or moved to mainspace since the topic already exists. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tagged it as G3, but it was declined by Bbb23 as they did not feel it to be an obvious hoax. As is made clear here it is only not apparent as a blatant hoax when not closely scrutinized.

I agree it's likely not a useful draft, but I feel that the MfD isn't really necessary. My "keep" vote was the same as what I'd have said if this was fabricated by a human, as for the purposes of draftspace, I'm not sure the difference matters. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
G3 Speedy delete - The fake sources mean that this is a hoax, even if the topic is real and the content sounds plausible. There are several problems with leaving this in draft space: A) Someone could come along and unknowingly move/copy false information to mainspace; B) Cleaning it up is likely to take just as much time and effort as starting from scratch; C) Writing unsourced content and then searching for sources to support it is exactly the opposite of how an article should be written. I can understand why the G3 was declined, however we should set a precedent that this type of material is indeed a blatant hoax. –dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:LLM. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Social Security (United States) - It isn't important whether this would be a valid draft if we didn't have an article. We do have an article, and this draft is inferior to the article (in various ways). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
except the title contains redundancy United States of America (USA) so it's not really a suitable redirect AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:LLM.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. As discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia should not contain information created in this manner. Although the article concerns a genuine subject, and some of its contents are accurate, several aspects are incorrect or incomplete, in ways that are not readily detectible without cross-checking or subject-matter expertise, and therefore are dangerous. The bogus list of sources is an especially serious problem, both because they are inaccurate in themselves and because they give the article a false appearance of legitimacy. I consider this type of draft or article to be speedy-able under CSD G3 as blatant and obvious misinformation, but since another admin declined a G3 request I will simply comment here and leave the discussion open. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete but not speedy under G3. I still feel like something needs to happen with CSD to enable speedy deletion of a page like this under the usually strict construction of the criteria; I know many disagree, but as long as there are admins declining, it points to a need for more objective clarity. There's a discussion at WT:CSD#New "G" variety for articles totally consisting of LLM text. In the meantime it's the best that MfD handles this. By deleting; agree with AngusWOOF about not redirecting. Maybe these types of cases could be expedited a bit by making it snow a little harder in the meantime. —Alalch E. 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia policy hasn't caught up with this wave of AI generated text but common sense says we should not be keeping text made with faked sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete the sources are fake and the topic article obviously already exists. (PS is “obviously redundant to existing article” a speedy deletion criterion? Because if not it should be) Dronebogus (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can probably WP:SRE to Social Security (United States). Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "(USA)" part kind of eliminates that option. —Alalch E. 19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USA redirects to United States. Them being different disambiguations doesn’t mean we can’t redirect. Plus redirects are cheap. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 20:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USA is a useful redirect, and not at all analogous to the current draft title. We do not have a redirect "United State of America (USA)" because that is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 22:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC) ended today on 3 February 2023. 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates