Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: 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

[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit]

How to list pages for deletion

[edit]
Shortcut

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

[edit]
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 41 28 69
TfD 0 0 1 0 1
MfD 0 0 1 1 2
FfD 0 0 7 4 11
RfD 0 0 30 28 58
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

Archived discussions

[edit]

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

Current discussions

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

March 12, 2025

[edit]

User:TSJSwimmer/sandbox

[edit]
User:TSJSwimmer/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Abandoned draft that was copy-pasted to AfC and G13ed in 2014. Paradoctor (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cahpcc/sandbox2

[edit]
User:Cahpcc/sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Violation of WP:COPIES from FM transmitter (personal device). Srf123 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cahpcc/sandbox3

[edit]
User:Cahpcc/sandbox3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Violation of WP:COPIES from Idli. Srf123 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 11, 2025

[edit]

User:Meco/Ascensionism

[edit]
User:Meco/Ascensionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I was going to G13 this page but then swiftly realized that there was history from 2006 so I decided to go through MfD just in case there's any attribution concerns. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason for deletion offered. It is not G13 eligible because it is not an AfC Userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old versions of own user profile page

[edit]

User:EMsmile (old versions): Is it possible to have some 10-year old versions of my user profile page deleted? The reason I am asking is that when I first created my user profile page in October 2014 I had revealed more information about myself than I would now like. In effect, because of the existence of that old user profile page it means I can no longer edit anonymously (e.g. someone brought it up during a recent AN/I discussion about me). This is the old version that I would like to see deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EMsmile&direction=prev&oldid=629028548, and also all the versions in the 12 months after that. The first version from when on I edited anonymously is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EMsmile&direction=next&oldid=685391662 . Is it possible to have all my user profile versions from October 2014 until 12 October 2015 deleted? - I hope this is the right place to ask for this. EMsmile (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can no longer edit anonymously because you violated COI and got a restriction for it. And not just "Prompted by the AN/I in January/February 2025, I've realised that I have violated some of the COI guidelines (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure) during my editing activities in 2024 and the beginning of 2025." as you declare on your user page now, but also much earlier, when you added your own research to Wikipedia articles, e.g. here in 2014. Trying to make it harder to discover your COI editing doesn't seem like a beneficial move for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2014 I didn't have a good grasp of COI editing. I was new then. Also, as per here, it is in fact allowed to cite one's own work: You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.. As far as I can see I followed that guide well.
Do those old versions of my user page really have to exist forever on? Am I not allowed to ask for their deletion? Where in the Wikipedia policies does it state that? Pinging User:S Marshall to get another opinion and because he knows the earlier AN/I discussion well. I didn't think it was overly controversial to ask for 11 year old versions of one's user page to be deleted. - Is it true that I can be forced to be non anonymous on Wikipedia forever on, as a kind of punishment for earlier COI editing violations? EMsmile (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But referencing your own work without disclosing that it is your own work is a dubious practice at the very least. The page you link to is about "how" to do this (attribution-wise), the relevant page about the COI involved is WP:SELFCITE which is a part of WP:COI, where you can't pick and choose the part about being allowed to cite yourself, but not the part about "How to disclose a COI". Furthermore, you have linked your real name and your wiki-handle onwiki at least as late as 2022, so deleting these user page versions won't stop anyone from claiming "emsmile = X, self-disclosed on Y" anyway. As for not using yourself as a source excessively, I think there are some 20 pages which use your publications as a reference, and so far all the ones I looked at were added by yourself. Already in 2015 I see complaints like "Also, 30 references are to the same article or a summary of that article. There's even more references involving the " von Muench, E" guy. It begins to seem POV. " You replied, but don't seem to have disclosed that you were "that guy" (not my sexist presumption, sorry). Making it even harder to find that connection, after you already had an acrimonious ANI debate which ended in an editing restriction for COI/Paid, seems like a very bad move and not something I would expect from someone who strives to be open and correct about their COI/POV/Paid issues. Fram (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, back in 2014/2015 I didn't disclose my COI properly. I am sorry about that and it's not something I can do anything about now. It was certainly not due to bad or malicious intentions. Later (I can't remember exactly when) I did improve my user profile page so that the COI was properly disclosed.
Anyway, I don't think this is the place to discuss my COI editing practices again, after I have just been through a long and gruelling AN/I process. All I wanted to know is if there was any Wikipedia policy that speaks against me deleting my user profile page versions from the first year of my editing. It's true, I did disclose my real name here not long ago, so I am not actually being overly secretive about my identity. I might even one day set up my user profile page in a non-anonymous way; I haven't decided yet if that might actually work better for me and reduce the risk of being suspected of wrong-doings on Wikipedia.
But either way, does it really go against policy to want to have one's old user profile page to be deleted? Please show me the relevant policy page? I am not so familiar with all the policy pages. - Can I use the {{db-userreq}} tag on my userpage as has been suggested on my talk page? EMsmile (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I choose to display my real name, date of birth and location on my userpage. I'm very lucky to be in a situation where I can afford to do that. I'm not vulnerable to bad actors doing some of the things that happen on Wikipedia: they can't do things like phone my employer, which has happened to others. And for example Asian News International are rather unlikely to sue me for my edits.
Other people are more vulnerable, and we need to be mindful of that. There's a balance to be struck between openness and transparency on the one hand, and safety and security on the other.
I do feel the force of Fram's arguments here, but in the particular circumstances of this case, I would place the balance in favour of deleting those old revisions of EMsmile's userpage, and I hope that this will be the consensus that the community reaches here.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this horse has bolted. As I understand it, what EMsmile seeks to have revision-deleted is their name. However, in examining their COI/for pay edits and whether they've adequately disclosed, and particularly after it became apparent that they had made several COI edits beyond those for which they were specifically paid, IMO the community laid bare enough info for their identity to be apparent. Fram's diff above serves as an example; rather a lot would need to be expunged to re-corral that horse. Moreover I agree with what I believe is the thrust of Fram's response: given the enactment of the topic ban after a community discussion (rather than via ArbCom, which provides for private evidence), the community has an overriding interest in being able to assess EMsmile's adherance to the topic ban and to COI best practices, and that keeping previously revealed information about their identity visible in page histories is necessary for this; otherwise only admins can monitor. In retrospect, IMO EMsmile would have been well advised to contact ArbCom in private for advice once they realised they'd not been following best practice. But we're here now. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Fram knows it, so this will be monitored by at least one very persistent and tenacious non-admin.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 10, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Ian Woodside (composer)

[edit]
Draft:Ian Woodside (composer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Advertorialized draft about a musician with no obvious claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was first created in a user sandbox, before being moved into articlespace by a different username than the creator -- but it was then draftified by a more established user on the grounds that it's referenced entirely to footnotes of the "music metaverifying its own presence on YouTube" variety rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-building coverage in reliable sources. Then the page mover copy-pasted the content into a different new page in their sandbox, and then immediately moved that duplicate copy into articlespace at the variant title Ian Woodside (musician) instead of composer, without making any effort to improve the sourcing at all.
And for added bonus, the usernames involved here were "frandustin" and "dustinentertainment", which obviously triggered the need for a WP:SPI check that's already blocked the Dustins for sockpuppetry. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheere

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

@Fram: raised the outing concerns both at this AfD and at the related Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#Incorrect_draftifications_by_User:NenChemist. There was no point in prolonging the AfD when no one was arguing for deletion, but I'm not sure whether the Outing concerns are sufficient to delete it even IAR, so bringing here for discussion. I'll also notify Liz on her Talk. Star Mississippi 14:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought outing (claiming editor X is real life person Y, without disclosure by X and irrespective of whether it is correct or not) was a bright line policy, requiring blocking and oversight or suppression. At least, that's what is done when "outing" even the most obvious case is done on e.g. ANI. But perhaps this only applies when someone with enough wikifriends is being outed? Anyway, that's a general ramble, thanks for starting the MfD, I just don't understand why it takes so much effort in this case. Fram (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Irrespective of whether or not the initiator of the AfD should be blocked or not (at the very least, even if OUTING doesn't apply - and it likely does here - WP:ASPERSIONS does), the AfD probably shouldn't stick around regardless of the accuracy of NenChemist's accusations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If NenChemist returns and follows a similar pattern, whether inappropriate drafts or UPE accusations, I will not hesitate to reblock Star Mississippi 01:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the WP:OUTING concern is justified we shouldn't be having this MfD. Oversight the original AfD and this MfD nomination because neither one should exist. Discussion should occur among oversighters. If the AfD isn't outing anyone, there isn't a point to deleting it in my view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the (supposedly) outed editor is concerned, WP:Courtesy blank the AfD. I don’t see this as being required, but defer to the editor.
In the very unlikely case that blanking is not good enough, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously, the MfD tag also appeared in the AFD log page. I've fixed it by using {{subst:mfd-inline}}. Nickps (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 6, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Antonio Riano Borges

[edit]
Draft:Antonio Riano Borges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Non notable entity....background information on editor

User:Havimii/Elnaz golrokh

[edit]
User:Havimii/Elnaz golrokh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Inappropriate unsourced BLP content. Elnaz Golrokh is salted.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 360#elnaz golrokh. —Alalch E. 16:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:John K/Causes of World War I

[edit]
User:John K/Causes of World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:COPIES violation of Causes of World War I. Srf123 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shine Private Basic School

[edit]
Draft:Shine Private Basic School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Too soon. A quick search found me absolutely no sources, only listings on Itch.io and YouTube. Fails the general notability guideline and video game notability guideline. ✶Antrotherkus✶✶talk✶ 21:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging @Armend XD. ✶Antrotherkus✶✶talk✶ 21:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because we're here and this is completely hopeless with no chance of ever being accepted, but generally there is no point in nominating drafts at MfD for notability concerns. That's why we have G13. Also see WP:NMFD SK2242 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, and it is not obvious that this draft is hopeless, or that it has no chance of improvement. If we delete this draft because we are here, we will send an unintended signal that we will review and delete useless drafts. See Leave useless drafts alone, because the review of drafts to delete them ahead of their expiration date will be an intensive use of volunteer time. Do we, the editors at MFD, really want to review 20 or 30 dead-end drafts every seven days? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its a brand new with no coverage. Now its on Mfd is should be gotten rid of. scope_creepTalk 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: “WP:TOOSOON” is a reason to put it in draftspace, not to remove it from draftspace. Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Existing AfC processes serve, let them play out. This draft has not been REJECTED, and it has not been tendentiously resubmitted, and no deletion reason from WP:NOT is suggested, so it is unworthy for listing at MfD. MfD is not for the curation of all of the worst drafts. nominating this here defeats one of the mains purposes of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a draft. If it's not abusive, created by a sock, tendentiously being resubmitted (more than twice as in this case), in violation of the BLP policy, or otherwise causing problems, then a draft is a draft regardless of notability. Rusalkii (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per SmokeyJoe, even though it seems unlikely this will turn into a mainspace article anytime soon. Martinp (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Initially wanted to vote full keep per above and because the whole situation was borderline WP:BITEy, as mentioned in WP:NDRAFT. I certainly wouldn't be happy if one of my drafts ended up at MfD when I didn't get a chance to demonstrate notability. That being said, ArmendXD has since moved the article to mainspace twice, which is starting to appear borderline tendatious. I'm giving them leeway since they're a young editor new to Wikipedia, which is why I'm not voting delete, but I certainly don't want to see this draft appear in MfD again after it's been potentially closed as keep. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 06:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

[edit]


March 2, 2025

[edit]

Historic places drafts

[edit]
Historic places drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

There are several large lists of drafts on the following subpages:

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Connecticut/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Schenectady County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts

These are all 14 years old, and mostly contain entries that have already been created, although some are redirects. The drafts that don't already exist as articles have little content, most of it automatically gathered as far as I can tell. These lists were created by a now-deceased editor and have not been maintained in many years. Wizmut (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Deletion doesn't save hard drive space. I don't see what is gained by deletion. I don't perceive a meaningful attribution hazard coming from this content, or any other problem.—Alalch E. 13:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be offtopic but I'm curious if it should be treated as something to be maintained, or simply as archival content. Wizmut (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not as something to be maintained. Maybe as archival content. Most likely it should be treated as nothing. We don't need to delete it to be able not to treat it as anything, we can just ignore it. —Alalch E. 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to permit another examination of these pages. It appears on first examination that these are draft versions of articles that are now in article space. If that is correct, they should probably be deleted as copies of mainspace articles. It is not something to be maintained. It probably has no archival value, but another slightly more detailed, but not exhaustive, review, would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These stubs were generated in a semi-automated process by extracting information from public-domain official sources, and bear no significant human authorship. These pages if copied from, and no one is ever going to do that, would create a copy of something so generic, that attribution isn't really a topic. —Alalch E. 17:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 18, 2025

[edit]

MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote

[edit]
MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new formatting of the user rights log entries is better than the old formatting. So, this page should be deleted so that the log entries automatically adding "extended confirmed" rights follow the new formatting instead of the old one. GTrang (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1280181236"