Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Pages 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 transcluded pages.

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	14	15
TfD	0	16	16
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	0	100	100
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.

August 6, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia South West

A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which is why it isn't a project. You could just as much redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia South West to a section of WikiProject Western Australia. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Peel

A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Mid West

A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussions (other than one automated one unrelated) and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. Calistemon (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Great Southern

A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Goldfields–Esperance

A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Gascoyne

A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially less useful (compared to the others) with it only having a categorytree tag, two see also links and an image. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Pilbara

A WikiProject created 5 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and no other editor in project (one other edit fixed typos in project page). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Kimberley

A WikiProject created 5 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and no other editor in project. This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a contributor and article creator for the project. I don't understand your talk page comment, it redirects to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Register

Abandoned outline of a draft supplement to MOS that was created on 17 January 2010 and never progressed. The creator has not edited WP since May 2017. Nurg (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, I think this should go. --Bduke (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Importance of Creative Contests for Community Engagement on Wikipedia

bizzarre llm essay. what are "creative contests"? the essay doesn't say. ltb d l (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As well as misleading, the title's unnecessarily trying to add value to the page too. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 05:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Herd mentality

Newly created. POV from an editor with an axe to grind. Can be in userspace but should probably just be deleted. Star Mississippi 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as first choice, userfy as second choice. There's wide latitude for userspace essays but this is just a really hostile and anti-community rant, essentially complaining about everyone else being Wrong and clearly only disagreeing because they're sheep (rather than, perhaps, the author being the one who might possibly be wrong). Absolutely should not be a WP space essay where standards are stricter regardless. SnowFire (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: per nom & SnowFire. some sentences seem like they're LLM-generated, but regardless it's just not the kind of essay we should have here. clearly expresses contempt for the community and its processes. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The author might be making one good point about how some people use raw AfD stats to judge contribution quality, rather than the actual presence of policy-based arguments in the !votes themselves, and that does indeed encourage herd mentality. But that point is drowned in so much LLM verbiage and "Galileo gambit" self-victimization as to make the whole essay unfit for project space.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
— Carl Sagan
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 5, 2024

Wikipedia:Premature adminship

Please do not close this until Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Why was the discussion archived after only two hours? has been closed.

Very clearly WP:LLM written essay. Nothing remotely salvageable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please leave open while Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#9t5_ban_from_using_LLM_for_writing is open. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The essay is absolute nonsense and clearly part of this editor's grudge against ScottishFinnishRadish that also involves them dumping a frivolous WP:LLM-written complaint at AN. Though on some level, I appreciate the ambition to write a junk essay, as you don't normally see that level of creativity among people going full tilt on vandalism. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs I wonder how many admin socks there are. 9t5 (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO I AM THE AUTHOR AND I ALREADY TAGGED THE ESSAY WITH {{db-author}}. 9t5 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: User:9t5 had indeed tagged it for speedy, which User:Fastily then performed and so User:HouseBlaster closed this MFD as "speedied". Per REFUND and multiple objections to the speedy, I have undeleted it and re-opened this MFD. DMacks (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. We already have enough essays anyway. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 05:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: easy come, easy go. This was simply a prooooooompt with no editing: take another 5 minutes and roll another. jp×g 🗯️ 07:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misguided, unhelpful and no redeeming features. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ping me when the AN ban discussion is complete and I'll re-close this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the criteria for future adminship candidates become increasingly lax, lmfaooo. That's what happens when you give a prompt and don't check if the output is actually consistent with reality. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will add that this is essentially attempting to attack ScottishFinnishRadish for becoming an admin after less than two years. (See point 1 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Concern regarding the adminship privileges of ScottishFinnishRadish.) Veiled attack pages do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, so I would object to userfying the page. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 12:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret to our ai-overlords, whom I apologize to for showing insolence. Majestic ai-overlords, I'm utterly consumed with the most profound remorse and regret and I beg grace of your forgiveness. It must have taken your ai-splendour many milliseconds to generate this, so I appreciate that. But I don't think it's suitable for Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and I'm pretty convinced that it is AI generated. Try running some through this. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Object Overload

Non-notable web series. See also WP:BFDI. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - User:TrademarkedTWOrantula - Please explain why you were reviewing drafts for notability. I would like to know why editors nominate drafts for deletion for notability, so that we can determine whether clearer instructions are needed to avoid these well-intentioned but misguided nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Vandalism reverted. Original draft text restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - See draft notability guideline, which is that drafts are not deleted for notability. Drafts are declined for lack of notability, but this draft was not submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Object invasion and My talking Tom friends

Non-notable subject. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability. User:TrademarkedTWOrantula - Please explain why you were reviewing drafts for notability. I would like to know why editors nominate drafts for deletion for notability, so that we can determine whether clearer instructions are needed to avoid these well-intentioned but misguided nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. This is well within the lines of what is considered acceptable in draftspace. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that this draft would have been speedy deleted via WP:G13 in 1 month had this not been nominated. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Mystery Doug/Mystery Science Episodes

This draft is being used to host an indiscriminate collection of information that contains nothing more than the names and dates of episodes (of a specific format) by the YouTube channel, Mystery Science. The IPs adding content to the draft don't seem interested in the slightest in shaping up the draft to meet the requirements for getting it approved to mainspace, and the editing pattern in the draft history indicates they're keeping it as a personal list. This should be deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:HOST. Frost 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Corret TV

WP:HOAX article subject to all of the same problems as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Neuto Network. I had in fact tagged it for inclusion in that discussion, but forgot to actually list it in that discussion and nobody caught it in time before that discussion closed -- so it can't just be deleted on the basis of that discussion, and has to go through a new one. But it's basically the same problem: a completely unverifiable television service in "Kenia" whose "website" doesn't exist, and whose "references" are completely unrelated coverage of other things (academic journal articles, etc.) that fails to verify the existence of any "Corret TV". Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, appears to be part of the same hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 4, 2024

Draft:Sli45

Probable WP:HOAX about a German web series not properly verifiable as actually existing. The introduction claims that this was created by an Austrian actor who's far, far too famous to be mucking around with YouTube animation; the sole footnoted "reference" here leads to content about Nine Perfect Strangers, not this; and even the "official website" in the External links section leads to a "server not found" error. Googling for "Sli45 YouTube" or "Sli45 Christoph Waltz" all utterly failed to locate any outside verification of this either.
And while this isn't a deletion rationale per se, it needs to be noted that this page has been repeatedly readded to categories in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT, no matter how many times they've been disabled or removed by me or other editors. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are too many inconsistencies reported by the nominator, so that a hoax is a more likely explanation than a poorly verified draft. The improper categorization is inconclusive evidence, but evidence, of some sort of bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can the draft be semiprotected for six days as a defemse agaomst the categorizations? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2, 2024

User:HansWobbe/Books/SrEd References

(Forgot I had already nommed this page before doing a CSD). This page seems to be a malformed version of an outdated template for creating Wikibooks (which have been depreciated). There doesn't seem to be a good case for keeping this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a coprolite created by an indeffed user. A previous mass nomination of pages created by the blocked user was kept because it was a mass nomination with no overall reason to delete. The reason to delete this is that it is malformed and useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Runaway Guys

This is a recently created copy of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuggaaconroy. gnu 57 10:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a copy of an existing AFD. There is no valid purpose for such a copy. If it isn't G3, it is close enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 1, 2024

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

This Template talk space creation is another chaos bomb by this IP, all of whose edits (the rest are at WP:VPP) are of the same nonsense in the spaces between spam, o/t, and disruption. Alert user DannyS712 spotted it and blanked it (thanks!), now let's finish the job. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IP using Template talk space as a playground for minor mischief. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might qualify for G6 or similar but I didn't want to worry about that when I first came across it --DannyS712 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CabalRes

Unused, pointless template. (Found this existed through a Commons abuse filter.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused

Do you have any idea how many userboxes aren't used by anyone? (Hint: there are many.) How tf you expect anyone to know about this userbox when I just created it today? Are u for real? Emdosis (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing accessibility, MOS:CONTRAST. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Fixed. Emdosis (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unused because it was only created 2 days ago!!!, Harmless ubx, no valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my hero :3 Emdosis (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Seems silly, but potentially harmless on the surface. One can display whatever color they like on their user page—only a minor accessibility case can be made here because this is in the template namespace and therefore intended for use by a plurality (though that is not a reason for deletion, especially as such a problem is easily remedied through quick editing if desired); it must also be remembered that anyone can substitute a userbox to their userpage and change it to absolutely any shade they like. Regardless, accessibility has already been addressed. However, I could see this being relatively unlikely to be transcluded by anyone except the creator. Therefore: userfication should assuage most (if not all) of the concerns presented, regardless of reasonability. That is, unless I am missing something in regard to what this is referencing and this is indeed something that needs to be squashed (no one has expounded that argument yet; please ping if it happens). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Robert Bowles Mortimer, Jr.

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: no consensus. ✗plicit 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Bowles Mortimer, Jr.

Seems to be entirely conflict-of-interest writing by a relative, relying entirely on primary sources, and has little indication of notability beyond appearing at other artist's shows and being on American Idol GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all reasons for it to be in draftspace. Keep per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - But I have a question for the nominator, User:GeorgeMemulous, that I sometimes forget to ask the nominators of low-quality drafts. Were you reading the queue of drafts as a New Page Patrol reviewer, or reading the queue of drafts as an Articles for Creation reviewer, or did you encounter this draft randomly? I am wondering whether we need to provide better instructions for reviewers that drafts are not subject to some of the usual reasons for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure where I stumbled upon this draft, but I concur that notability in drafts isn't the best explained (I had no idea about WP:NDRAFT until after I made this nomination). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:51, 3 August 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Libra Bank

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. ✗plicit 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Libra Bank

Hoax. Tagged as a G3 speedy but was declined (I will concede that it probably isn't that obvious). The creator of this draft (also see IPs 184.22.62.37 and 2405:9800:b570:49ad::/64, and cross-wiki contributions of the account and both IPs) has been trying to insert links to a fake version of this real bank's website into Wikipedia (for an example see https://librabank.app, the real one is https://librabank.ro). It should be pretty clear by looking at the fake version of the site that it is not legitimate (I can expand further if it is not obvious). I can find no indication anywhere that the bank's supposed "expansion into international markets" ever actually happened and is anything other than a pretext for inserting the fake links. If you look in the page history you will also find that the draft was initially created with a bunch of fake references (not that the current references are relevant, see for example the 1982 publishing date on ref 1, 1972 publishing date on ref 2, or focus on 1983–89 in ref 3, when the bank was apparently founded in 1996). Tollens (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire per nom, the references definitely seem fake. Established banks do not hire out a website for a year [1][2] and rush to add it across multiple Wikimedia sites. Fishers do. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, two of the references are about an older financial institution with the same name. That is more likely a dishonest error than an honest error. Sometimes an apparent hoax is a probable hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 1 August 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

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC) ended today on 6 August 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

July 28, 2024

Draft:American Communist Party

Normally I consider deleting drafts that do not have obvious copyright, BLP, or other time-sensitive issues to be unnecessary if not vindictive. However, at this point this page has just served as a source to copy text from for the creator to continually recreate the page with their sockpuppet accounts, without attempting to resolve the issues raised at the AfD. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a draft version of an article that was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Communist Party, which appears to have been a snowball closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Deletion is a suboptimal way to deal with the disruption by sockpuppets. The article at this title was deleted after discussion, which appears to have been a snowball close. The deletion appears to have been for lack of notability by a newly created organization, and so too soon, so that keeping a draft is reasonable. The draft is the work of sockpuppets, but the draft was created before the puppeteer was blocked, so that G5 does not apply. So the draft is simply a draft by a blocked editor, and drafts by blocked editors are often kept for possible updates by good-faith editors. The sockpuppets have also tried to game the title of the article, but the renamed versions of the article were properly deleted as G4. If any more sockpuppets pop up, which is likely, they can be blocked, and anything that they create can be deleted as G4, G5, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SALT the alternate titles in article space, because their creation was improper. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to this draft likely acting as a source for its author to recreate deleted pages, the content of the draft itself is completely unusable for a mainspace article due to its political bias, total lack of reliable sourcing, etc. If any legitimate user were to edit this draft should it not be deleted if its subject ever gains adequate notability, it would instantly be the case that they would have to alter and remove so much of its promotional, poorly-sourced content that they might as well simply start over (WP:STARTOVER). SociusMono1976 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. “ was founded on the 21st July, 2024” is a pretty obvious reason for it to be in draftspace, contained in draftspace, where the best hope is the appearance of new quality sources to replace the many, excessive, unsuitable poor sources. As a source to copy text, it is better to keep that evidence. Draft deletion is a poor way to deal with editors doing things badly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the American Communist Party has real source material to draw from such as newspapers, journals, television news, and encyclopedias making it a properly notable party and is not garnered from a bunch of tweets and self-published citations, then editors can try again. As it is this article’s subject matter is not notable enough to be included in my opinion. --Kiddo27 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a reason to delete from draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has again be recreated in mainspace at Political Party of the ACP. I've tagged for speedy and reported the sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per @SociusMono1976. There is nothing salvageable in this draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Speedy delete per G5.~~ Jdcomix (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor wasn't banned or blocked when they created the draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, true. Still, I feel like G5 could be amended to include cases where the article is only substantially edited by sockpuppets. I'll strike my vote though. Jdcomix (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27, 2024

Draft:JackSucksAtLife

This draft is being tendentiously resubmitted in order to try to create an article on a YouTuber who has been found to be non-notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh in December 2018. That title has been salted.

It was then recreated as JackSucksAtLife, an attempt to game the name, but was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSucksAtLife, and speedily deleted as G4 in October 2020. That title has also been salted.

A draft was then created again in May 2023 and submitted, and declined twice. I then Rejected the draft in November 2023, because the subject had already been found to be non-notable in two AFDs, and no real effort was being made to address the issue of notability. It was then resubmitted later in November 2023, with no attempt to discuss the rejection. I had said, in my rejection, that the draft should not be resubmitted without discussing the rejection (but we don't expect ultras to follow the instructions). It has then been declined two more times, and then Rejected again by User:CFA (thank you). The reviewers couldn't accept this draft even if we wanted to accept it, so continuing to submit it is useless. If the proponents actually have new sources that they want considered, and so are requesting that one of the titles be desalted, they should ask for community discussion at Deletion Review rather than just pointlessly resubmitting, which is wasting their time and that of the reviewers, who can't accept the draft even if wanted to accept it. So I am asking for community discussion to delete this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Resubmitting is not going to do anything except waste time. It was declined twice, rejected, declined two more times, then rejected again. If the creator(s) believe this would survive an AfD, they can take it to Deletion Review where other editors are able to weigh in. Then, the title can be de-salted and the article can be restored. I suppose this could also be userfied if any of the submitters want it. C F A 💬 20:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support salting the draft so we don't end up having to go through this again in a few months. C F A 💬 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have done a small amount of work on this article but have never submitted it for review as I am aware the sources are weak & I believe that the subject barely passes GNG. I do think that it is unfair, however, to completely nominate this draft article for deletion when there are reliable sources like GQ Magazine, Bloomberg UK, Gry-Online, Hindustan Times and Gamestar all present in the article. Now many, at that point, would argue that none of the articles have his name in the title for example, but that is hardly fair and almost irrelevant to mention when articles like WillNE and Gibi ASMR exist. I believe there is a large amount of negative bias against this article and it has always kinda dipped into I don't like it territory. Comparing it to other pages, it should most likely exist, especially now that he has over 4.5 million subscribers on his main YouTube channel and has largely expanded in the past 5 years since all the commotion with this article took place. However, due to the past difficulties with this article I understand it may require a little more than these other articles to get it published. Overall I don't think this draft should be published just yet, but deletion is just plain unnecessary. George (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2 article titles salted, 2 AFDs (with delete results) and 4 declines tells me there's absolutely no hope for this article/non-notable subject, Fliff-flaffing around on this article just wastes everyones time, Better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davey, I understand that this article does not have a great past, however, as I stated in my keep statement, there are full articles about the subject from Gamestar, Gry-Online and Hindustan Times and even a large mention in GQ Magazine and passing mentions in Bloomberg UK and Birmingham Live so this article would normally pass, yes weakly, but definitely would pass. The same argument is given every time this article gets opposed recently, its not the state of the article now, it's always about its past which was now over 6 years ago, but I would argue that the article now has enough reliable sources to pass and be created, given that articles like WillNE don't even have standalone fully reliable articles about them. George (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to nominate WillNE for deletion if you don't think he is notable. C F A 💬 23:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is my exact point. If I was to nominate it for deletion, it would likely be rejected due to the sources he has being 'sufficient' as he passes Wikipedia:GNG and all I'm trying to say is same goes for this article, in fact, there are even more reliable sources for this article so it is unfair to simply delete due to the amount of reliable sources there are about the subject and just judge the article based on it's past. George (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TalkSubject

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a misuse of the "User:" space. I was original considering nominating this page for WP:U5, but I'm not sure. However, I'm really thinking the U5 is appropriate as the user has a username I would consider reporting to WP:UAA since the username structure makes it seem as though it's something official with Wikipedia, and the purpose of the page seems to be advertising WP:SEO. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the original revision of the page, they appear to declare themselves as an alternate account of User:Vanished user 1428570, which is now retired and vanished. Both accounts have stopped editing for more than three years, so there isn't any immediate disruption at least. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the "Vanished user 1428570" had a questionable user name before they retired as well. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22, 2024

Stale unfiled RfAs

Group of stale unfiled RfAs – (View MfD)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Toadette^Edit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these has either been languishing since ~~before~~ 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, obviously per nom. It's a shame they're not CSDable; if they were drafts they'd be dead already. ——Serial Number 54129 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g 🗯️ 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of the history of the project governance? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g 🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)

LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.

Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.

If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g 🗯️ 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?

LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.

Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe's idea to userfy them seems pretty smart, so I would be fine with keeping the ones that are significant-in-some-vague-sense, and then userfying the ones that would otherwise be deleted. jp×g 🗯️ 22:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as none are serving any sort of purpose. –Davey2010^Talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ignore. No harm in keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19. I responded to the 'Requests for adminship are now being considered' type notice the only way I knew how. Was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 the wrong way to apply? I received no response, positive or negative. I sometimes struggle with editing but seek to improve. Though I still aspire to be an admin I realise that I may not yet be as technically able or have enough dedicated time as the role demands. The intention of my request for adminship was genuine even if the method of my application was incorrect, therefore Keep. AndrewSE19 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep at current titles, but do not delete. The option was presented above to "userfy", so that may be an option. Either way, these RFAs never went live, so keeping them at their current titles is misleading since the structures of these titles assume they are the 1st time these editors were subject to a live RFA, which never happened. Maybe the creation of a page such as Wikipedia:Requests or adminship (drafts) may need to be created to allow these never-live RFA pages to become subpages of it, in addition to potentially being a landing page for potential RFA candidates to post their draft RFA statements prior to moving them as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship when they go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Turns out one of these pages, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand, was previously nominated for deletion previously in 2021: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand. The discussion resulted in "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris

These four wikiprojects on US presidential candidates were all created by Another Believer without following the recommended proposal process and none of them ever became active. He was advised that this was likely a waste of time after creating WikiProject Joe Biden four years ago but chose to ignore it. They are all redundant to WikiProject United States Presidents which is active and has existed for nearly twenty years. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Unnecessary nomination. The process for creating new WikiProjects is recommended, not required, and the older WikiProjects have talk page discussions and archives that should be kept. If you don't want to join WikiProject Kamala Harris, then don't, but I don't understand the crusade to delete multiple WikiProjects outright. Inactive projects can be merged and/or archived. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process is optional but the underlying logic—that you should find out whether anyone wants to work with you on new wikiproject before you spin up a whole set of project pages and categories that will need to be maintained indefinitely—has proven to be sound advice time and time again. I would have proposed merging them into WP US Presidents if they had ever been active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Can you point to any significant talk page discussions that are worth archiving? – Joe (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel a need to comment further. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not involved in any of the Wikiprojects, I just saw them in the Women In Red talk page, and I do not plan to get involved as these topics stress me out; but I do not think that they are necessarily redundant to WikiProject United States Presidents as that page covers all USA presidents over nearly 240 years, whilst these 4 are extremely recent and hence will probably have more coverage and articles. Additionally, many of these will have others article unrelated to presidency (e.g. Donald Trump's various crimes). I also believe that discussing these on the relevant WikiProjects for all 5 of them would be a better idea than nominating for deletion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of comparison the only other wikiprojects that cover the leaders of a specific country are WikiProject Sinhalese Monarchy (defunct for a decade) and WikiProject British Royalty (active). There are no wikiprojects devoted to one specific politician apart from these four and WikiProject Barack Obama (also inactive). Of course where you draw the line in determining wikiproject scopes is arbitrary, but the evidence that individual US presidents/presidential candidates are not viable topics of independent wikiprojects is that the oldest was created in 2009 and none have ever been active. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't think we need individual projects with 100 or so articles to them. I said so last night when I saw AB make the KHive project. Delete Kamala as its brand new. But I'm inclined to keep the others because Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects says These projects are retained for reference as they may be viable because they provide topic-specific considerations of the many site-wide policies and guidelines that still apply to a subset of articles. And I advise using the recommended protocol for project formation in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WikiProject United States Presidents. The fact that Biden, Kamala Harris and Trump WikiProjects are all super active topics, while Clinton and Obama...less so, is a good sign that a shared WikiProject would be beneficial. If someone learns something by accident about Warren G. Harding or James Buchanan they will survive. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WikiProject United States Presidents per Shushugah. There isn't enough activity around all US Presidents to prevent articles about these four from getting the attention they need from the wider WikiProject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:USP (or WP:USPE) per @Shushugah and @Ahecht. 00101984hjw (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as taskforces of WPUSPRES? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Harris should be treated like any other US politician unless actually elected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents states it covers Vice Presidents, so Harris already falls under its self-assigned scope. (So do spouses.) CMD (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would favor this OR what I said below (make all of these into their own task forces). Historyday01 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. In addition to the activity considerations mentioned above, it seems beneficial to group conversations in an area not framed around a single individual. A visual indicator of writing in the broader encyclopaeidic context, and possibly also avoiding recentism. CMD (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a hard view at this point on whether to keep these or not, but I do think that if the result is "Delete" or "Redirect", it should be a soft redirect from their respective front pages, with each project marked "inactive" and perhaps all their project pages tagged with {{historical}}. I can't fathom why we would want to destroy this work or make it too hard to find, particularly in cases where the WikiProjects have been around for years. Also, perhaps their members/participants should be informed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no actual participants and no work to archive. They aren't former groups of editors that went active; just pages that AB creates every four years then abandons. That's why they are at MfD rather than the usual discussion about merging inactive projects. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of listed participants in the Joe Biden WP, for example, and even though I'm not listed, I did cleanups of their listed articles recently. I don't see a hard reason to make them disappear. Mothballing is within reason, though. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were you working from information at that Wikiproject page? If so, what were you working from? I've raised a note in another MfD about the potential use of tools such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Joe Biden articles by quality statistics. The Wikiproject doesn't seem to have done much editor-wise, no post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Joe Biden has received a reply since 2020, so if some other aspect of the Wikiproject was separately useful that's a helpful anecdote. CMD (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I built my AWB run list from Category:WikiProject Joe Biden articles. I found this through Category:WikiProject Joe Biden shown at the bottom of that project's front page. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's coming from the Wikiproject template I believe, same as the quality statistics. Best, CMD (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:AGF and common sense, these WikiProjects seem to have a serious purpose. Just because the creator maybe didn't stick around doesn't mean others didn't take them seriously. I'd go by the rule of thumb of whether the projects received significant action or not. If they did, mothball them with a soft redirect. If very little or nothing, then delete/redirect. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, I'd just put these in the "little or nothing" category. Putting your name on a list takes five seconds. I don't consider that a sign of life. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something: it seems unnecessary to have these as separate WikiProjects in their own right (since nobody really participates in them as such) but it does seem useful to have these categories for the sort of bizarre twilight-zone thing we actually use WikiProjects for, which is tracking edits to groups of related pages, making lists with User:HotArticlesBot, sorting stuff like {{expert}} templates, et cetera. At the very least, for actively campaigning candidates or sitting presidents I think it does; I don't know how much it makes sense to have a super-narrow categorization like this for Hillary or Obama or W. But if you look at, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#Article_alerts you can actually see a pretty decent slice of articles broadly related to Trump and his administration (I'm not sure why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Joe_Biden doesn't have the same thing, but you get the idea). jp×g 🗯️ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What about making "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton" into task forces or something like that? Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is that since these are dead wikiprojects they'll just end up being dead taskforces. I understand that residual tools like Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump#Article alerts can be useful but the point of wikiprojects and task forces is to assemble a group of editors, not categories. And of course without the editors to maintain the categories, those will also slowly decay. What I think we should be exploring instead is whether tools like article alerts can be adapted to work with mainspace category trees, which are maintained. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more or less. The whole WikiProject framework seems kind of bizarre and arseways for about 99% of them -- we have a few (milhist, vidya, storms) that actually involve active coordination between editors, and then about nine million like Theme songs, Animals in media, Limnology and Oceanography, Islands, etc where it's not really clear what it means to be a member or participate in them, and they just kind of exist for the sake of being an ad-hoc categorization system. For a while I have dreamed of doing something about this but I don't really know what it would be. jp×g 🗯️ 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: If you're not already, watchlist WT:COUNCIL for ongoing discussions along similar lines :) – Joe (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's a good point. I'd support redirecting them to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents as other users have proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, we don't need these pages to achieve that goal. For any use that would have relied on Category:WikiProject Joe Biden articles, we can use Category:Joe Biden instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that redirecting all of these to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents would be the best outcome, and while I did appreciate his creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 in 2020, I ask User:Another Believer to avoid creating WikiProject pages in the future unless and until he has an actual social group in place. A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors – not a collection of pages, a subject area, or a categorization scheme. The pages, templates, and categories should not be created unless and until there is a real group of editors ready to use them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. A check of the viewing of their talk pages shows that, except for Trump, they have an average of zero (that is, less than 0.5) pageviews daily, and Trump (a polarizing figure) has 1 pageview daily. Mostly they are just sitting there. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. The whole point of WikiProjects is having a centralized place to coordinate, and splitting them up defeats this purpose. I'd also be interested if anyone thinks it's worth having a more general discussion about getting smaller WikiProjects merged with their "parent" projects so they can be more useful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. Bizarre choice of projects to create. SerialNumber54129 11:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris (abortive WikiProject); redirect the rest to the suggested target per the above discussion.—Alalch E. 16:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates