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	2	20	22
TfD	0	9	9
MfD	0	0	2
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	1	26	27
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.

October 5, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Collaboration/April 2007

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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 12:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Collaboration/April 2007

Several WikiProject sub-pages that are no longer referenced and are over a decade old. WP:Cruft Mjquinn_id (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical - We don't need to waste time on deleting coprolites. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/mark historical (if you must) per Robert McClenon. I actually have found old pages like that useful; for instance, I linked to Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight/History/Archive 2005 in my personal Wikipedia timeline. Graham87 (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added relevant links from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Cleanup; they were removed in August 2012 after a page move. Graham87 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wonderful documentation of past initiatives to get certain tennis player's articles to A-class/FA.—Alalch E. 16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I question the need to even mark these as historical. Wikiproject Tennis is a currently active wikiproject and I see no need to go around slapping historical tags on what are essentially archives of an active wikiproject. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the nominator is a member of WikiProject Tennis. This is probably something that should be discussed in-house first. They could be redirected or marked historical if no longer useful; deletion is unnecessary. I don't see the relevance of WP:CRUFT here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2023 (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.

October 4, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Scooby-Doo! and Krypto, Too!

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: redirect to Scooby-Doo! and Krypto, Too!. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Scooby-Doo! and Krypto, Too!

Page already exists at Scooby-Doo! and Krypto, Too! Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Scooby-Doo! and Krypto, Too!. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: That's not a problem. Nominating it here is pointless bureaucracy, Notrealname1234. Put your valuable time to work elsewhere– G13 will catch this in time. There is no valid reason for deletion. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edward-Woodrow it is a duplicate, i dont see this draft going anywhere soon. Notrealname1234 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Notrealname1234 - First, drafts that are not going anywhere are left alone and will expire in six months. Second, drafts that duplicate articles can be redirected to the article, and can be redirected unilaterally. Third, don't waste your time and ours looking for duplicate drafts, but you can redirect them to the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Notrealname1234 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2023 (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.

October 3, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby/userboxes/Lu

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: WP:SNOW keep. Deletion is not AfC. (non-admin closure) LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby/userboxes/Lu

Userbox for a TV show that does not have a Wikipedia article (Lu & the Bally Bunch), which is currently used only by the userbox's creator. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_23#Category:Wikipedians_who_like_Lu_&_the_Bally_Bunch, where the associated category will be deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm unable to identify a reason to delete in this nomination. The category was deleted. But why does that mean that the userbox should be deleted? And why does it matter that the think mentioned in the userbox does not have an article?—Alalch E. 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument to delete an userbox. There's a Wikia site and a TVTropes page, not to mention plenty of coverage in animation trade publications. If there's a redlink in the userbox, then WP:AfC is down the hall and to the left. LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 03:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No clear reason for deletion has been provided. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article should be created first, then a userbox second. It should not be the other way around. Catfurball (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Catfurball. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see a valid reason to delete. The category deletion is not relevant to this userbox, which does not seem to violate anything in Wikipedia:Userboxes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (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.

October 2, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Webstrike/Frosteam

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 23:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Webstrike/Frosteam

Should be deleted as G11 or U5 or per WP:FAKEARTICLE, for U5 it was said "creator has made edits outside userspace" but not really exactly true, all of their edits are "promotion only", all but one article created by them were already deleted as promo or non-notable and I nominated the last one which will most likely be deleted as well, this is a spam page of something that was deleted as non-notable already: [1], WP:FAKEARTICLE says: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content", "Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted", "Blatant promotional content may qualify for db-g11 tagging. Clearly inappropriate content created by non-genuine contributors should be tagged with db-u5.", WP:STALEDRAFT was pointed to say "let it be" for this reason but WP:STALEDRAFT says: "if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues)" (this is problematic with "promotional issues"), "if the draft has no potential and is problematic even if blanked, seek deletion.", "User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely", anyway, the bottom line, I think it's clearly a G11 deletion. Tehonk (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No purpose, not a feasible draft, no reason to host it here. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete although a trout to the nominator is in order for rag picking. This is a user subpage that looks like a stub article, and is more like a draft than like anything else. Drafts last for six months. There is no need to keep this for 13 years, or for 5 years after the last edit by the user. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2023 (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:A17 Bionic

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: Redirect Nobody thinks this should be kept, but there isn't enough of a consensus to delete rather than redirecting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:A17 Bionic

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not 6 months old yet, but stale draft that contains purely speculation, nothing that isn't present in the Apple A17 article that has been created in the meantime. alexiaa (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why are some editors in a hurry to delete stale drafts? What harm do they do? Why spend additional time by the volunteers at MFD?
Redirect to Apple A17. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not your average everyday stale draft. It's a speculative draft that basically never really served a purpose, though I don't know if there's a policy against such. Technically it wouldn't really hurt anyone to leave it there for two more months, but I asked what to do about it in #wikipedia-en and received no response so I thought I'd ask here.
- (I'm fine with a redirect outcome, but it's worth noting that the title isn't even correct – "Bionic" was a good prediction but it's actually "Pro", and either way it doesn't follow the naming convention of the existing chip articles.) alexiaa (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to its speculative nature, and for being obviously stalled. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:43, 15 October 2023 (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.

September 30, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable

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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable

I think this policy should be deleted. It's being used and thrown around way too much with the purpose of indirectly insulting many good-faith editors. I see it happening in a lot of talk pages and I think its negatives outweigh its positives — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatmanBw (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.... This essay isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline and we have WP:EM that acts as a counter viewpoint. Personally, I don't think editors who specialize in certain topics can be replaced. There are ares of Wikipedia within an interest area that have not received any major updates for 10+ years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is..... it is becoming a tool to discredit or dismiss editors who question another editor or a process. I also saw it being used out of context way too many times when it's completely uncalled for. It is also demoralizing for editors who have a passion for a certain topic who might in fact be irreplaceable, as you mentioned. CatmanBw (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the single best Wikipedia essay.—Alalch E. 14:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to tell us the reasons? I personally think that even if it is partially true, not everything that is true or partially true needs to be said out loud due to its demoralizing effect. Imagine if your boss at work gave you a link to this essay....how would you feel about going to work everyday now? Well Wikipedia editors are volunteers, so they don't get any pay for their work. You expect them to continue to keep editing when they are constantly being reminded that they can be easily replaced? CatmanBw (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The essay provides a reasonable perspective as well as advice. If it is being misused by some editors to attack or belittle others, then that is a behavioural issue for that specific editor. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the essay itself is partially to blame though since it gives people the ability to misuse it. CatmanBw (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you post diffs or conversations were the essay has been misused? NotAGenious (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't keep note of the all the incidences but I posted an example below. It's not really being misused in this example; I just don't think it was needed here. The editor clearly had good intentions when starting the discussion. There was no need to to tell them that they are irreplaceable and demoralize them. CatmanBw (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this essay. It is not a policy. If you disagree with it, don't link to it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#CatmanBw_(talk_·_contribs)_edit_warring_/_deleting_deletion_proposal_(1rr_violation)_+_personal_attacks_on_identity. seems like a perfect spot to remind you that you are not irreplaceable. Bbb23 probably should've blocked you for WP:STICK, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT. I see you are also BLUDGEONing this MfD. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what triggered my request for deletion. I see it being used all the time when it's not really needed. | This is the latest example that I've seen
My point is that: Users are not really irreplaceable, a lot of areas stop getting edited when certain users leave. And even if it is partially true, the content of the essay is demoralizing. These are my reasonings on why it should be deleted. But as I see from the comments, the consensus will most likely be to keep. I am not trying to win any debates, I am just having a normal discussion where I present my point of view. CatmanBw (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, each individual editor with a high level of competency is actually very important to Wikipedia. I do not agree with this essay's meaning. That doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. CatmanBw (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An essay is an essay. It represents a perspective some editors hold. Keeping it is not an endorsement. If there's a persistent problem with people referencing it, one can always address it through editing. Something like the banner at the top of WP:CIR or the caveat in WP:POINT may be a good idea. Nardog (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I also think the banner is a good idea since the essay will most likely stay. CatmanBw (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely not. Perfectly valid essay and opinion. The fact that one or two jerks choose to use it to abuse other users does not discount its message, however much people may agree with it. Writer cannot control what other people do, and nominator should have care to stop bludgeoning the "keep" !votes. The practice is frowned upon. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid essay. Andre🚐 04:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a somewhat callous essay, which I often see used to justify unreasonably mean-spirited comments. But an essay nonetheless. I don't think deleting it would fix the problems here. jp×g 06:20, 4 October 2023 (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.

September 29, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Video games

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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Video games

This MfD is being submitted after a strawpoll at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Portal:Video_games. The purpose there was to judge whether any members of the project had interest in actually maintaining this Portal. The overwhelming consensus was no, and so I'm bringing the portal to MFD.

This portal has a staggering 110,000 incoming links, which leads to a mere 200 views a day. The content on the portal itself however is largely out of date and unmaintained, ranging from last update being from 7 years ago to 14 years ago. The talk page hasn't had a meaningful discussion since 2022, and 2020 before that. The FA and GA sections are the only thing up-to-date, because they feed directly from WP:VG's FA and GA lists, which are maintained. The "Selected Pictures" have not been updated since ~2008-2009. The DKY lists has not been updated since it was created in 2016. The "this month in video gaming" section has not been updated since ~2008-2009. The "Selected Topics" have not been updated since ~2012-2014. The "General Images" carousel feeds off five very broad articles without any changes or maintenance in a decade.

This portal is unmaintained and unwanted by the editors who would be most knowledgeable for maintaining it. It's views are driven entirely by sheer amount of links. There was a suggestion to remove any unmaintained sections, but that almost makes it simply a mirror of WP:VG. Providing readers with 10 year out of date content is a disservice. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not useful to readers, not read by readers, not maintained, not going to be maintained. --Pres N 20:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that a portal not being manually updated and curated merits its deletion - it's perfectly feasible for a portal to be automated and just be there as a landing page for users interested in learning more about the topic. WP:VG is more of a Wikipedia editor page than a landing page for readers. Furthermore, the strawpoll was entirely made up of highly engaged editors who would have less than zero reason to visit the Portal in the first place, making for a skewed view of its usefulness or lack thereof. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a strong majority of engaged, experienced, knowledgeable editors have no intention on maintaining it, who can you realistically count on to maintain this? It's not the sort of thing that passerby/casual editors would want to, or even be capable of, maintaining. I'm not sure I see the realistic path forward here. Even the few people not supportive of deletion in the straw poll didn't show any actual personal interest in helping (yourself included.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these points have already been discussed and argued. Why push forward with the same talking points if nothing new has happened since the last RfC? WP:MfD isn't cleanup for a job that can be automated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We just had a new discussion at WT:VG this week and what I'm talking about was the general sentiment. I'm literally talking about new developments. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are only talking about this one portal then its fine. I just remember how long and drawn out it was last time is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are we seriously going to have another round when it comes to ending portals? (See: WP:ENDPORTALS) There is no policy or guideline based rationales given in this MfD nomination, but there is a prior consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No argument for ending portals is being presented or made. A specific portal is being proposed as unmaintained, out of date, and not useful. There's no policy or guideline based rationales to express, other than to lay out these details, because we have no "Portal deletion policy". WP:DEL doesn't even mention portals once. Are you saying that because of WP:ENDPORTALS, not a single portal can ever be evaluated? -- ferret (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you made a good point, but I still see automation as an alternative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and automate. There is no reason why this portal needs to be manually updated. "This month in gaming history" is a nice addition but can be deleted if its dated. - - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with this. I fully admit I don't have interest in manually maintaining a portal, but I don't think that's a "gotcha" that makes the argument fall apart. I do not believe a fully automated portal page that pulls from recent developments in the video game space would be detrimental to readers. It would still highlight "behind the scenes" information that readers may not normally bother checking, and lay out information in an easily navigable format. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fix that has since been done for other portals with the same issues Ferret has here. "Out of date and unmaintained" issues fall under WP:CLEANUP, which deletion isn't meant for. That being said, the biggest issue here isn't the nomination here but the prior discussion which indicates almost no support within the VG project to keep the portal page. Why force a Wikiproject to keep a project page that they don't want? This has me more towards a "weak delete" lately regarding this debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable the poll was affected by how the question was posed: with the sole choices being to manually maintain it or delete it altogether. I wonder if the possibility of full automation was brought up how it would have affected consensus, since all the "delete" votes were along the lines of "we shouldn't have to maintain this". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ferret, who is preaching the Wiki-gospel here. Panini! • 🥪 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments in the previous WT:VG thread. It's one thing if a portal is rarely used but at least mildly useful for the readers who do click on it; if it's useless and disappointing even for readers who try it anyway, it's better just deleted. So there is a stronger reason to delete here than just general distaste for portals. (But, at risk of rehashing old arguments, to be clear we probably should delete many more portals - this one is at least part of a WikiProject with some activity. Old, abandoned portals that don't even have WikiProjects that notice should probably be even more deletable. But this gets back into the age-old "why do we still even have Portals" debate, see old arguments there.) SnowFire (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I don't think anyone would object to deleting Portals with no Wikiprojects attached to them. The whole idea of Portals is to highlight the achievements of a Wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Surely it's to highlight Wikipedia's content relevant to a topic. If the portal scope coincides with that of a WikiProject, and if that WikiProject wants to update the portal occasionally, that's even better, but I don't think a portal is mainly here to highlight the WikiProject's achievements. Certes (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Not yet !voting.
- - This is a very popular portal, with 243 daily page views in 2022, and 228 daily page views in 2021. By contrast, the lead article, Video games, had 3834 daily page views in 2022.
  - The portal is very popular because it is well advertised, with an astonishing 110,000 backlinks.
  - This was a very extensively developed portal when it was last maintained in 2016, with 128 articles and 187 DYKs. The subject area of video games is one in which change and progress are rapid and frequent, and the selection of articles is probably obsolete.
  - The architecture of this portal is an old-style architecture with partial page copies of selected articles. Therefore any article on a video game for which the article has been modified in the past seven years is now obsolete. Any article on a video game that was developed in the past seven years simply is not included in the portal.
  - A five-year-old RFC against ending portals is hardly a useful argument against deleting one portal.
  - Although the community decided five years ago not to delete portals, the community decided four years ago that there are no portal guidelines
  - There is no consensus as to what the purpose of portals is.
  - In the absence of comprehensible reasons for portals, it appears that there are mystical reasons for portals. No editor is required to accept another editor's mystical reasons.
  - Consensus Can Change, and there does not appear to be a consensus about any aspect of portals.
  - Is User:Knowledgekid87 offering to automate the maintenance of the portal, or are they only saying that we should find someone to automate the maintenance of the portal?
  - The combination of the high popularity of this portal and the absence of any maintenance in seven years illustrates that portals not only do not maintain themselves but do not find portal maintainers, even when the portals find users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Knowledgekid87: I've made some changes to the portal, what do you think?—Alalch E. 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly LOOKS better, with many redundant sections removed or shifted. It's a much cleaner layout, which was a problem I didn't highlight before. DYK seems automated, but the new biography section is a manually curated list. The rest remains hand curated as well. All of the non-automated content needs a deep review by topic knowledgeable individuals, which loops back to the fact the WP:VG project does not have a desire to do so. -- ferret (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better to me, thanks for your work! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The featured topics have replaced "selected topic", and it's actually automated in the sense that it's a transclusion of the current list of featured topics. I hear what you're saying about biographies, but the manually curated list of biographies is from relatively stable wikiproject classifications and ratings of articles as essential and vital. I don't really think that the list needs to be complete, and if there are a few suboptimal entires, it isn't a major problem. That is something that can be reviewed on a five-year basis.
The "This month in gaming history" box can't be automated and I agree that it's the biggest problem. ~~Should probably just remove it~~ (edit: Done; replaced with something that is automated). The images are non-automated too. —Alalch E. 15:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that portals are actually good for featuring content and that they can truly be sub-main pages, despite that being the original idea. My view on portals is that they should be seen as pages with the primary function of collating links from disparate namespaces / navigational methods and links to sister projects and even outside resources:
1. primary article
2. primary outline
3. primary index
4. primary timeline
5. primary list of lists
6. category tree
7. primary navbox and other important navboxes
8. glossary
9. WikiProject
10. related portals
11. relevant content on other Wikimedia projects
12. relevant resources outside of Wikimedia (if appropriate; for example thew link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in Portal:Philosophy is appropriate)

I think that if a portal can fulfill this function (meaning: if most of the listed things actually exist), there's no need to ever delete that portal, and what should happen instead is just removing non-policy compliant boxes that have always been all about featuring this or that, and are not necessary for this link collating function as I've described it. I don't think that a hypothetical portal that doesn't feature any content (no need for it not to feature featured articles however) and just contains navigation would have a net negative effect on a reader's experience. Such a portal would not require maintenance. Based on this, there's no need to delete the majority of portals about broad topics (which, for example, have an outline, a navbox, a WikiProject, which are meaningfully represented on the sister projects etc), and this is one of the portals that don't need to be deleted. Some much more niche portals about topics that are not so high-level as video games could probably use deleting. My mystical 2c.—Alalch E. 16:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Viewers who want to see a video game portal probably want to see a portal that is mostly about video games of the last seven years, which this portal is not. It does not appear that new articles have been selected in place of the previous articles that were selected in 2016, and the obsolescence of the selected articles is the main drawback of this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation if the new portal has an architecture that does not involve partial copies of pages, which are content forks, or has other automation such as was suggested by User:Knowledgekid87. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a look at the wikitext, recreation is already almost complete. The architecture no longer involve partial copies of pages. It's created dynamically, and automatically mirrors edits made to the showcased articles. Subpages such as Portal:Video games/Recognized content are updated automatically by bot, so new FAs and GAs will appear in the portal without manual intervention. If the main objection is that the WikiProject doesn't want to spend time curating the portal, then there is no longer any reason to delete, because most of the portal will remain current without manual curation. Certes (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. No deadline, wiki not paper, etc. Andre🚐 04:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Alalch E. has done a splendid job, not only with a one-off update but by installing automated processes to mirror changes within articles and to add new GAs and FAs as they occur. Although it would be helpful if the WikiProject took an interest, the portal can continue to refresh its content and remain of acceptable standard without their involvement. Certes (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2023 (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 19:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC) ended today on 25 July 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.

September 22, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/sandbox

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. I can email you the content if you have not already got a copy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marine 69-71/sandbox

WP:NOTWEBHOST and probably WP:BADSAND. Appears to be fanfiction to me. I am actually surprised that an administrator has been editing this page almost exclusively for the past few years. #prodraxis ^connect 14:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page view statistics definitely seem to indicate misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am using my sandbox, which is not open to the public, for creative purposes. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THat's a reason to delete content, not to keep it, per WP:UP#GOALS: Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article..... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sandboxes are open to the public, which is why this one has been seen to be nominated. Wikipedia is not a creative exercise. Maybe that should be added to the policy rather than inferred from other guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's open to the public. The content is not something that should be appearing on Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 18:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User_talk:Marine_69-71/archive_52_sial appears to be a copy of the sandbox's contents that this user just made. #prodraxis ^connect 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or blank as inappropriate use of a sandbox, and I would recommend the user either get a hold of Google Docs or even set up their own WordPress site with the Wikology theme if they want a Wikipedia-style interface. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sigh. Why don't people have better things to do than to trawl through other people's user space looking for silliness to waste community time on? Who cares if there's some fluff in there? Nobody will ever see it if they're not looking for makework. Fun fact: this user has about as many edits to mainspace as all of the delete !voters combined. (Yes, there are lots of ways to contribute to a better Wikipedia experience for readers/users that don't involve mainspace. ...But this right here is not one of them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another fun fact: WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy. A policy that an admin should be fully aware of, and comply with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of how it got here, it's here at MFD and is a using a sandbox for webhosting. -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the creator could easily use a website other than wikipedia as this is a misuse of the sandbox. Ao3, wattpad, fanfiction.com all could just as easily host this.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 16:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both versions. We rightly give experienced users quite a bit of leeway when it comes to NOTWEBHOST, but this is just so unequivocally "excessive unrelated content" that no amount of leeway can save it. The author is of course welcome to use any number of other applications or websites designed for storing this sort of material. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless, on principle. Andre🚐 04:37, 4 October 2023 (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.

August 18, 2023

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js

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: Moved the creators user space.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js

A rare .js script that isn't in userspace or mediawiki space. Has been blanked since 2020 with the edit summary Blank ancient script: reported not working (User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool) for nearly a decade. As long as importScript()-ing a deleted file doesn't throw any errors, seems like this should be deleted. Searching reveals use in 231 other files. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defunct script per nom.—Alalch E. 15:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is hardly of any use. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a coprolite at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to what seems to be the working replacement, User:Tris Wilson/delsort.js. Waggers TALK 13:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please Redirect to User:Tris Wilson/delsort.js , or move to my userspace. Thanks, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? I think userfying would be a reasonable ATD here, since it seems like the original maintainer wants the edit history. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I don't know if we can redirect .js - but I think moving them may require an interface admin. Pinging User:Xaosflux, who I think knows more about these things than I : ) - jc37 04:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a special way to redirect .js files; going from a public area to someone's userspace is a security risk. No issue moving it without a redirect if someone wants it. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably one could make a wikitext-content-model redirect, which would redirect people who view the page but not users who import it, and thus not be a security risk (if I understand the issue correctly). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historical. Allow User:John_Vandenberg to do with it whatever he likes. People with no involvement with old things should not get equal say in keeping vs archiving. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are three scripts in MW space that redirect to user scripts, see here. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 04:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historical Andre🚐 04:39, 4 October 2023 (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.

Note that this script was moved to User:John Vandenberg/WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js as part of the close, and I changed the content model to JavaScript. Looks like it was moved without leaving behind a redirect at the old location, which seems fine, this helps clean user scripts out of mainspace. I also removed the full protection so that it behaves like a normal user script page and is editable by John. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates