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 5 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

[edit]

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit]

How to list pages for deletion

[edit]
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 Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 34 34
TfD 0 0 0 5 5
MfD 0 0 0 5 5
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 3 57 60
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.

November 20, 2024

[edit]
[edit]
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Gateway Mall (Quezon City) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

TFA request that isn't an FA and is therefore out of process SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 19, 2024

[edit]

User:Nick/ACE2024

[edit]
User:Nick/ACE2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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]

User:UBX/Zionist

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

Potentially divisive due to recent events surrounding Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - neutrally-worded statements professing support for political movements and ideologies with significant followings are not disruptive. This is a well-established general status quo for political userboxes and I recommend withdrawing this discussion rather than having it become flamebait. signed, Rosguill talk 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is less divisive than other userboxes that are kept as being reasonable expressions of opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anything political is inherently divisive. There is an obvious fine line for what Wikipedia does and does not allow when it comes to political userboxes, and this particular userbox is fairly innocuous. Agree with Rosguill that this discussion should probably be closed before anyone (whether they agree with you or not) comes in and derails it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 17, 2024

[edit]

User:TheRealJackMarshall

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

  • 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

[edit]

Draft:Doctor Who series 17

[edit]
Draft:Doctor Who series 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
Draft:Doctor Who series 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
Draft:Sixteenth Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
Draft:Seventeenth Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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]
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]

November 15, 2024

[edit]

Draft:Castianeira: Part Three: Castianeira's Role

[edit]
Draft:Castianeira: Part Three: Castianeira's Role (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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]

Wikipedia:Noam Cohen

[edit]
Wikipedia:Noam Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

We don't typically keep biographical articles or bibliographies in WP space, and I don't believe it's appropriate to have here. However, it's existed for so long at this location, I thought it best to nominate it instead of boldly moving it to user space, which is my preference at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for finding this, Keep, and why not just mainspace it? as a list in his Wikipedia page (Noam Cohen). A treasure trove of articles on Wikipedia from the later 2000's on. Probably enough critical historical information here to keep as is, mainspace, or at least leave it in Wikipedia space as an exception to some rule or other. Should list and link it prominently on the Wikipedia in the news page etc. This one is worth digging around in. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: There's an article in main space at Noam Cohen. Hey man im josh (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't this list be added to his page bibliography? They are examples of his articles on one subject, and fill out his bibliography well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be my preference, yes @Randy Kryn. I'm not a fan of the idea of author specific bibliographies about Wikipedia in WP space. It seems like a way to get around what we'd normally have regarding notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think mainspace biographies tend to include bibliographies individual articles, which are a lot less significant than e.g. books. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sdkb talk 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify if anything, I think this is too navel-gazey for the main namespace, but it should absolutely be kept in some form. Graham87 (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham87, the concept of pages about Wikipedia being navel-gazing seems a bit outdated since Wikipedia is notable as the world's largest and most read encyclopedic source. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of individual bibliographies about Wikipedia by author in Wiki space definitely fits the bill of navel-gazing from my perspective, regardless of the size of the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Graham87 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Project space is, by definition, navel-gazing. We have a thousand essays, joke pages, satire, historical discussions, and IIRC even a few We have a handful of journalists that frequently cover Wikipedia and typically do it well. Cohen's articles about Wikipedia are rare examples of someone actually getting the community's point of view right. As such (especially back when he was more active on the subject), his articles come up in discussion, referenced by Wikipedians. So someone compiled them in one place. Seems mildly useful, but more importantly I'm having trouble finding a deletion rationale here. I don't have an objection if someone wants to merge the three "beat reporters" pages together, but also don't see that as a big gain. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is clear, WP space is not for bios / bibliographies. The examples you mention of similar content in this space (2 other pages) were also created by the same author of this article. So someone compiled them in one place. – Wikipedia is not a web host. It's either relevant enough to have a list of article in main space, or relevant enough for a bibliography section of a journalist's article.
There needs to be a line between article and WP space. We don't just dump anything tangibly related to Wikipedia in its own page in WP space and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to support that. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bio, but it is a bibliography. Where is the policy about no bibliographies you're referring to? Presumably we should also get rid of other bibliographies, then, like Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in books, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in cartoons, etc., not to mention the hundreds of bibliographies produced by wikiprojects. I do not think projectspace is as pure in purpose and as inflexible as your characterizing here, per what I said above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Let's make a new rule that whenever any journalist or researcher publishes at least 10 articles where Wikipedia is the subject, and they do so in a top-tier venue like The New York Times or Slate, then Wikipedia: becomes a place to present their bibliographies. I have made no attempt to present biographies here, and only intended to list some of the best Wikipedia commentary which exists.
I am the creator. This is good information to index to publicly, rather than in userspace. The problem, if there is one, is that the Wikipedia: space does not have an existing format for cataloging it. Tag this as an essay or whatever works, because this content is comparable and at least as valuable as typical Wikipedia user essays. I also made Category:Wikipedia beat reporters and the other two article collections there. I would make more but unlike media platforms of similar popularity and impact, Wikipedia only attracts a journalist's attention every few years. This is the complete collection of top-tier Wikipedia beat reporters. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a fine collection it is, thanks Bluerasberry, I wasn't aware of the pages before this discussion. Another option (but may not be needed if the Keep comments continue), combine all three articles into one 'Press coverage of Wikipedia' page or something similarly named, either in mainspace or Wikipedia space. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Right, we already have press coverage by time at Category:Wikipedia press coverage and for example Wikipedia:Press coverage 2024. These three pages I set up are the only indexing of press coverage by author. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very fine collection.
I don’t agree with the recommendation to combine, as a multitude of such project pages should be easier to manage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hide the page as an article subpage. This nice article and its links fits well into Wikipedia's culture and history collection. It should be easily seen and accessible as its own page (with some links to it added elsewhere). And by the way, snow? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having the page as a subpage does not make it hidden or hard to find. Wikipedia:Press coverage has a subpage: Wikipedia:Press coverage/An encyclopedia that is alive. If I want to access that page I might search for "wikipedia" and "alive" in the Wikipedia namespace. This will lead me to the desired page just the same as if it had not been a subpage: search result. —Alalch E. 01:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if you know the name of the page then finding it is easy. That's not what I mean, the page should be a stand-alone page and not a subpage for readers who don't know its name or even that it exists. My personal choice would be to add the list of Wikipedia articles directly to Cohen's Wikipedia page, which would mainspace the list. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can find it by browsing the categories. If it was integrated better and had more incoming links, it wouldn't matter that it's a subpage: You click on the link and get to the page. Ensuring that it is not a subpage does not in any way increase it's findability and awareness that it exists. Making it a subpage creates an additional navigation to it: Subpages of Wikipedia:Press coverage via page information. —Alalch E. 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12, 2024

[edit]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jack 6502
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 and blank. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 23:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jack 6502

[edit]
User talk:Jack 6502 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Only edit is off-topic, and by a user blocked as "not here to build an encyclopedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 12 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.

Old business

[edit]


November 2, 2024

[edit]

Template:User Oppose VHP

[edit]
Template:User Oppose VHP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) JJPMaster (she/they) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJPMaster (she/they) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

[edit]
Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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). HouseBlaster (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]
  • Delete. Unused, divisive.—Alalch E. 23:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose PFI

[edit]
Template:User Oppose PFI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) JJPMaster (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). HouseBlaster (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, JJPMaster (she/they) 01:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Ban PFI

[edit]
Template:User Ban PFI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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

November 1, 2024

[edit]

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...

[edit]
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... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1258522909"