Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

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

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	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	2	4	6
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	0	11
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	1	26	27
AfD	0	0	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 26, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DovidBenAvraham/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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC) User:DovidBenAvraham/sandbox User:DovidBenAvraham/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) WP:POVFORK (or, more accurately, WP:REJECTEDSPAMFORK) of Retrospect (software), where this user has been padding the article and pushing back against all attempts to prune it back to something less like an advertisement for months. Guy (help!) 17:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete because this is a content forum, and Delete as per Wikipedia is not for advertising is the only way to deal with this sort of crud at MFD. Other remedies might apply in a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Keep because Guy's "all attempts to prune it back to something less like an advertisement for months" have not included any WP article links to official rules stating that a listing of features of a backup software application constitutes an advertisement. The only paragraph of Wikipedia is not for advertising that might apply is "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable." Guy originally objected to my non-puffery features references to first-party user manuals—which I had made because I had difficulty finding third-party references to some features. However I revised the article on 21 October 2019—5 days ago—to eliminate all first-party references except the developer company's announcement of its acquisition on 25 June 2019—and WP expressly allows first-party references to company ownership. Guy promptly re-deleted my feature-listing sections, on the grounds that my feature listings were somehow WP:HOWTO; typically, he's since not made any explanation of that. I will institute a more formal proceeding later tonight. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Translation: I cannot see any problem with my content that numerous editors have said was inappropriate, and want to reinstate the content that was removed, with approval of numerous editors and admins more experienced than me. Guy (help!) 23:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC) "Numerous editors" evidently means one other editor on the article's Talk page, plus one other editor in this section. The other editor on the article's Talk page explained that he had doubts about the full independence (in 2009) of one of my second-party sources, so I substituted replacements for that source last night. That's the only explanation I've seen, and it's not for your collective belief in Wikipedia rules that in fact don't seem to exist—despite you editors having bounced around editing a whole bunch of posts for years. You'll get another chance to provide valid links later tonight. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - This sandbox is a disorderly set of notes that appear intended to take the place of discussion on the article talk page. If this is a content dispute, I suggest that you develop a Request for Comments to see whether the community agrees to your changes. Alternatively, this could go to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC) My userspace Sandbox is not "a disorderly set of notes that appear intended to take the place of discussion", but is as it should be, "a place with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change." I've continued to use it for development of articles before I put them into mainspace; since Guy started deleting my versions of the Retrospect (software) article, I've been using it to develop new revisions that more fully comply with what Guy and Dirk claim they want. What I did this afternoon was to show on the Talk page for the article a diff between what I'd just developed and what I had left over in my Sandbox from 21 October 2019, which I'd copied into the article page—but which then had its "Standard features" and "Editions and Add-Ons" sections deleted by Guy. I thought the diff would be helpful in showing them how I was complying with the latest cutting-down proposal I had made on the Talk page earlier on 25 October 2019. I considered substituting my latest revision for the feature-less version Guy had left in the article, but I knew Guy would immediately delete my two newly-cut-down features sections. Apparently Guy is using my having done the diff from my Sandbox as an excuse to justify deleting it. This is more than a content dispute, because Guy has made it clear in several comments—most recently in his 17:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC) comment in this section—that he believes any listing of application features makes the article an "advertisement". Since Guy has refused to link to any Wikipedia policy article that justifies his belief (basically saying that this is a traditional rule of long-time editors), IMHO it must become an ANI rather than an RfC. I've tried hard to avoid taking that step, but I'm going to have to do it overnight. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete The purpose of a sandbox is to develop material helpful for the encyclopedia. Maintaining notes posing questions about another editor is a violation of WP:POLEMIC. A dispute regarding an article should be examined at the article's talk, or a noticeboard. After that, maintaining the dispute in a sandbox is unhelpful. Keep a local copy on a computer if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete all revisions regarding retrospect and containing the polemic remarks (which is all except for the first 2 or 3 revids). Discussion is ongoing on the article page, and diffs can be applied (and self reverted) on the actual article. There is no reason to keep this, still promotional, version there. WP:IDNHT starts to apply here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Comment or Procedural Close I think this MfD should be temporarily suspended or closed pending resolution of this parallel process at ANI. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Delete with the proviso that should DovidBenAvraham reflect on Wikipedia's core purpose and the policies previously cited to him, adjust his behaviour, and be unblocked, that this content can be restored to him upon request so that he might compile a how-to manual, changelog, or other treatise over at Wikibooks. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 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/User:DominicKara/Formula Sketch

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC) User:DominicKara/Formula Sketch User:DominicKara/Formula Sketch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been abandoned for seven years and there are no references to this draft so it has no chance of being published. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as abandoned, and as per Wikipedia is not for advertising, and as per Wikipedia is not your dustbin. Another user who came, littered, went. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Speedy Delete as promotional — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this abandoned draft.Catfurball (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 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/User:DonShrimp/Proz

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC) User:DonShrimp/Proz User:DonShrimp/Proz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been abandoned for nine years and it is in a different language so it has no chance of being published on the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - User came, left this in maybe Portuguese, went away. Send it back, or, in the absence of a way to send it back, send it to dev/null. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Speedy Delete as unsourced promotional BLP. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this abandoned draft.Catfurball (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Dougcweho/subpage

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. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 17:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC) User:Dougcweho/subpage User:Dougcweho/subpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been abandoned for nine years and this junk has no chance of ever being published on the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - Label "Scrap heap" is correct. User left it here nine years ago and went away eight years ago. We could mail it back to the user, but it doesn't have a return address. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Keep - It's. A. Sandbox. It's not even a one-off, but someone with more than 700 edits. Do you not use your userspace to keep track of various lists, ideas, links, etc.? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this abandoned draft.Catfurball (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom; if the editor returns and wants it back (I don't know why they would), it can be returned. Britishfinance (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Donauld/ Marketing in the digital age

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. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 17:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC) User:Donauld/ Marketing in the digital age User:Donauld/ Marketing in the digital age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been abandoned for eight years and this is simply trash that has no chance of being published in the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as per nominator. Editor came, left this turd, went. Throw turd out. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Keep and blank - won't disagree with it being lousy content, however, being old or lacking potential aren't valid reasons to delete a sandbox as per WP:STALE. If seeing subpar pages in other people's userspace rankles someone, and that user is inactive, it is permitted to blank. MfD is for when would be problematic even if blanked. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this abandoned draft.Catfurball (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom; if the editor returns and wants it back (I don't know why they would), it can be returned. Britishfinance (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Dondoroci/Gorenje Kosova

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC) User:Dondoroci/Gorenje Kosova User:Dondoroci/Gorenje Kosova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been abandoned for five years and it is in a different language. Either this draft should be transferred to the Wikipedia with the correct language for this draft or it should be deleted if this draft is not very promising. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - User hasn't edited in three years and left this, which is in a Slavic language, and most of us don't even know what other Wikipedia it should go in if any. No hope of finding out what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Speedy Delete - Looking at a Google Translated version of this shows it to be quite promotional, and uses first person pronouns which suggests it may be from the company itself. Either way, it should qualify for CSD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this abandoned draft.Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Donjuanvargas/Toche League

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC) User:Donjuanvargas/Toche League User:Donjuanvargas/Toche League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This has no chance of ever being published in the mainspace as this draft fails WP:NOTGUIDE. I also can't verify if this sport even exists because I can't see any mentions on Google. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - Nominator is reasonably asking whether this was made up. More importantly, abandoned since 2011. When nominating stuff that has been abandoned by ghosts of users since 2011, please say so. Do you have a query that finds crud that has been abandoned in draft space for eight years? If so, thank you. But please say so when nominating. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC) This is a pet project and the sport is indeed small, but i have organised leagues in Shanghai and Berlin. I didn't find in the Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE anywhere saying that if something didn't appear in Google it was forbidden. If it requires Alphabet's blessing, then search "Toche Song 10" in youtube. (can't put link here coz it's forbidden. Keep - No valid reason for deletion given. Neither being old nor failing notability guidelines are valid reasons for deletion as per WP:STALE. If seeing subpar pages in other people's userspace rankles someone, and that user is inactive, it is permitted to blank. I don't know why anyone would need to do that, but MfD should only be used if it would be problematic even if blanked. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Changing to Delete on the basis of WP:NOT. Possibly qualifies for CSD. According to our guidelines, the age of the draft nor level of activity of the author cannot be sole rationale for deletion of userspace drafts, but hoaxes are out of scope. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this draft it has been abandoned for many years.Catfurball (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTMADEUP. A hoax term. Britishfinance (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Dorapampa/Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC) User:Dorapampa/Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil User:Dorapampa/Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has no chance of ever being published on Wikipedia as it fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete, but, User:Pkbwcgs, if a draft has been abandoned for eight years, and this one has, please say that the draft has been abandoned for eight years. That is most of the reason to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this draft it has been abandoned for many years.Catfurball (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 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 25, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Khushi Kaur

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Draft:Khushi Kaur Draft:Khushi Kaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Draft created by a sock, likely not to be improved and will get G13'ed anyhow. Sources are dubious at best, with most being what looks like press releases or interviews CodeLyokotalk 23:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom. This needs WP:TNT badly as it is persistently moved to mainspace by socks. Hard to tell if she is notable for anything WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO afterwards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - I strongly dislike seeing a page draftified twice. That is move-warring. A page that is moved a second time to article space after being draftified should be taken to AFD. But since this page was draftified a second time, we might as well have the deletion discussion here. We don't need sock drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this sockpuppet garbage forever.Catfurball (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Charlie Silver/Charlie Silver's Direct TransAmerica Proof of the Steiner-Lehmus Theorum

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC) User:Charlie Silver/Charlie Silver's Direct TransAmerica Proof of the Steiner-Lehmus Theorum User:Charlie Silver/Charlie Silver's Direct TransAmerica Proof of the Steiner-Lehmus Theorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) No chance of this draft being published on Wikipedia. This has been abandoned for eight years and is only promoting the user's personal theorem through an external link. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTMADEUP. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - This appears to be original research, and appears to be pseudomathematics. It also has been abandoned for eight years. Theorem, meet bit bucket. Bit bucket , meet or eat Theorem. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this draft has been abandoned for years.Catfurball (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 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/Portal:Bremen

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Portal:Bremen Portal:Bremen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Long-neglected mini-portal on a narrow topic, with content-forked sub-pages, no active maintainers, no WikiProject interest, and trivial readership levels. (An average of only 6 views per day in January–June 2019, which is barely above background noise.) The portal topic is Bremen (state), which is a city state of Germany. It's the smallest German state by both population and land area, with a 2017 population of only 681,000. It is rare for geographical portals of areas this small to be sustainably viable, i.e. to attract enough readers and editors to avoid rotting. Over the last seven months of portal MFDs, dozens of such portals have been deleted because they are similarly neglected. In this case, per the evidence below, there is also not enough quality content. The portal was created[1] in December 2016‎ by Niet-0-leuk (talk · contribs), who also created 5 selected article pages and 3 selected biographies. In March 2108, Niet-0-leuk added Portal:Bremen/Selected article/6. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Bremen shows a v small set of sub-pages: Portal:Bremen/Selected article with only 6 sub-pages. 5 were created in Dec 2016, and /6 was added in March 2018. Three of the articles are only start-class (/3 = Bremerhaven, /4 = Die Glocke (Bremen), and /6 = Böttcherstraße). The others are 2 C-class and one B-class. The only one to have any changes since creation is /1, with a few trivial technical edits. Portal:Bremen/Selected biography with only 3 sub-pages, all created in Dec 2016. /1=Johann Poppe is C-class; the other two are start-class: /2=Gesche Gottfried, and /3=Wilhelm Kaisen. All are unchanged since creation. Portal:Bremen/Selected picture with 4 sub-pages There is no news section and no DYKs. (Probably no great loss; with such a narrow topic, there would be little to fill them). The image gallery has less than a quarter of the 18 images in the head article on the city of Bremen. Those images are available to logged-out readers (i.e. the vast majority of readers) as a full-screen slideshow. Try it yourself by right-clicking on this link to Bremen, selecting "open in private window" or "open in incognito window", and then click on any image. That full-screen gallery is vastly better than the tiny set of images on the portal, which displays its set only one-at-time, and requires the readers to purge the page to see another from the set. The set of only 9 articles is less than half the risibly low minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG. It includes no recognised content (i.e. FA-class or GA-class), and there is little scope for doing so because few such articles exist. I used AWB to generate a list of all 2,520 articles in Category:Bremen (state)+subcats, and compared that with a combined list of the 874 +Category:GA-Class Germany articles. The intersection list (see WT:MFD:P:Bremen#Recognised content has 87 pages, but 81 are ships built in Bremen, 3 are Kings of Great Britain, and two are wives thereof (Caroline of Ansbach and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, included since they were titular Duchesses of Bremen and Verden). There also few B-class articles. Using the same AWB methods, I made a list of the 29 B-class Bremen articles (see WT:MMFD:P:Bremen#B-class). It has only 29 articles, of which 25 are ships. That leaves only 4 non-ship articles. Unless the portal was to be stuffed full of ships and British royals, that leaves only one FA/GA-class article (the footballer Bert Trautmann) and 4 B-class. The portal is also unmaintained. Niet-0-leuk's last edit to any part of it was in March 2018 (see Niet-0-leuk's portal-space contribs). In July 2018, @Dreamy Jazz used WP:AWB to identify Bermicourt (talk · contribs) as a maiantainer.[2] There is no indication of whether Bermicourt had requested this, but while I assume that Dreamy Jazz acted in good faith, there is no sign that Bermicourt is doing any significant maintenance. 15 months later, the portal still has only 9 articles (5 of them merely start-class), and Bermicourt's only edit to the portal since then was in Dec 2018,[3] when Bermicourt changed the date on the {{Portal maintenance status}} from June 2018 to Dec 2018. This is surprising, because Template:Portal maintenance status/doc says that the date is for |date= Date of last template update, but there was no other chnage to the template and the portal's revision history shows only trivial technical changes in the preceding months. There is also no sign of support from any topical WikiProject. Whatlinkshere from the Wikipedia Talk namespace shows only one mention: a 2015 comment in WP:GERMANY that it is one of two "missing" German state portals. There was no response, and no indication that the project wanted such portals. There has been no mention of the portal since then on any project talk page. The portal also gets no mention on any article talk page, or on any user talk page. This portal's narrow scope measn that it should never have been created. The lack of interest from maintainers, WikiProjects and readers give no basis for sustaining it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Germany), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. There is a much better and more useful portal for this major city-state on German Wikipedia. Bermicourt (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Bermicourt, look at the population size. With only 24% of the population of Greater Manchester, 51% of the population of County Dublin, or it's not exactly a major city-state. It's actually the smallest of Germany's three city-states. A portal on this topic may be viable on de.wp, where there are more and higher-quality articles, and probably some maintainers who role is more than nominal. But this is not de.wp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - Portal:Bremen had 6 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, which is no more than noise based on the research of User:BrownHairedGirl. By contrast, the head article had |293 daily pageviews (not always enough to support a portal). The absence of a DYK section is not a disadvantage. Portal DYK sections very seldom meet the criteria for Main Page Did You Know, and are usually an excuse to provide general trivia. As noted by BHG, no maintenance on the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Comment for those interested, I added the maintainer(s) to portals based on the "Specific portal maintainers" list (which can be found here). Bermicourt is listed as the "lead editor" for most German state portals on en.wp, including this portal. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as per analysis by BHG and as per my comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this state doesn't need a portal.Catfurball (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per BHG's analysis, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per the highly detailed and thorough investigation of the portal by the nominator, @BrownHairedGirl. The portal fails on all points (readership, maintenance, scope, etc.) and its only listed maintainer, Bermicourt, doesn't think it should be kept either. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 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/Portal:Poverty

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Portal:Poverty Portal:Poverty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) A newly-created (on 24 Oct 2019) navbox-clone automated portal, just like thousands of spam portals created in late 2018/early 2019 by User:The Transhumanist (TTH) and his acolytes. Most of that portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in a series of follow-up nominations. The first of those MFDs was exeptionally well-attended, and both showed an overwheming consensus to delete this type of spam portal. In this case the portal draws its selected articles list solely from the navbox Template:Poverty, of which it is therefore simply a bloated and redundant fork. It draws its set of images solely from those used in the head article Poverty, which again adds no value. Those same set of images is avaialble to logged-out readers of the head article (i.e. the vast majority of readers) as a full-screen slideshow. Try it youtself by right-clicking on this link to Poverty, selecting "open in private window" or "open in incognito window", and then click on any image. That full-screen gallery is vastly better than the set of small-sized images on the portal. Note that this portal was created by a new editor, who I am sure was acting in good faith when they used {{subst:Basic portal start page}} to make this pseudo-portal. But to prevent further such msistaken creations, Template:Basic portal start page shoud be deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Related discussion: WP:TFD#Template:Basic portal start page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom. Vastly inferior, and forked, version of the much larger, well structured, actively edited, Main Article and large series of Navboxes for topic-Poverty. Have further concerns on the direction and rationale for this portal having read the creator’s user page. Britishfinance (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Improve It's an insult to everyone that this portal doesn't exist yet, though I didn't realize there were already better templates to form the basis, and that one didn't need to be made. It would be scandalous if the Wikimedia Foundation failed to support efforts to maximize the use of its platform to ensure everyone is educated on this most important topic. This portal was created during a Wikipedia editing community collaboration. I encourage everyone to not just improve this portal but to devote themselves to improving content that can best equip people to make a difference. I also encourage you to host similar events in your own communities. John 14:23 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC) @John 14:23, firstly I urge you to take a long read of WP:NPOV, and then follow it. I see strong indications in your comment that you haven't been working within that policy, and your highly partisan userpage was further evidence of that. (I trimmed some of its excesses.[4]). Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a place to write great wrongs. Secondly, the way to improve Wikipedia's coverage of any topic is by building encyclopedic content. And content is in articles, not in portals. Portals just are a navigational tool, and they are barely uses: in Jan–Sept 2019, the median viewing rate for portals was only 22 views per day. In the same period, the head article poverty averaged 2,434 daily views. That's over 100 times as many views. Even a sub-topic gets way more views that the portal, e.g. Feminization of poverty gets a median of 159 views/day, and Relative deprivation averages 165 views/day. So if you do want to educate more readers, improve articles. That's what readers actually read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl The only partisanship here is for the Wikimedia Foundation mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."([5]) I intend to try to promote Wikipedia Editing Events in various communities to bring people together and further that mission. Portals can be a tool to engage and encourage editors and to help people grasp the extent of the content now available. If there's any subject that should be of concern to those with the time and intellectual space to consider making a contribution, it would be an issue like poverty. I encourage everyone to make a contribution. It looks like there's a lot of work to do. John 14:23 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) John, your words above and on your userpage outright contradict your denial of partisanship. As to your claim that portals can be a tool to engage and encourage editors and to help people grasp the extent of the content now available … that's demonstrably not the case, because hardly anyone reads them. That was the theory behind them, but it has failed in all except a v few cases. In this case, the pseudo-portal which you created is just a bloated clone of a inadequate navbox which you created. As to encouraging everyone to make a contribution, I note that you have made only 280 edits in 9½ years. Not the best platform from which to be an evangelist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl "Partisanship" has no meaning without context. With regard to Wikipedia guidelines, "partisanship" refers to article content, not having a preference to take the next breath or not. You have stated here that I've created no content on this subject, and you are correct, so partisanship just doesn't come into play. I'm trying to organize the existing content so I can host editing events around this topic as well as facilitate contributions by everyone. Perhaps I need to create a Wikiproject as well. Maybe you should take the lead on making sure Wikipedia is maximally equipping everyone with an internet connection to be informed about this critical topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John 14:23 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC) No, John, I did not state you have created no content on this subject. Please don't put words in my mouth. And sure, I'll give everyone on earth an internet connection. But first I gotta make world peace, which is probably gonna take a few hours, so the 'net-for-all may not be ready before breakfast. Sorry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) Comment - I will try to explain my view on whether to keep Portal:Poverty in terms of my outlook as a Christian editor of Wikipedia. I consider myself to be a left-wing Catholic, which means that I believe that Christians, in accordance with the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, should try to make the world more hospitable as individuals and as citizens of nations to reflect the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46. My concern about this portal is that I concur with the concept that Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. Normally that policy is applicable to editors who seek to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to remedy perceived injustices or wrongs that other editors consider to be fringe or even wrong-headed. However, in this case, the proponent of this portal is seeking to use the portal to improve the world in accordance with Christian teachings. In other words, global poverty really is a great wrong, and should be righted by Christians and other persons of good will. But is Portal:Poverty an appropriate way to right this wrong? I have stated my position on uses of Wikipedia for socially desirable purposes other than the extension of human knowledge in an essay on socially desirable purposes. I respectfully submit that a Wikipedia portal is not an appropriate way to try to address global poverty. First, Wikipedia presents knowledge from a neutral point of view. That is non-negotiable, and knowledge is and should be an end in itself. Christians can look to John 8:32, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". Non-Christians can look to other religious or philosophical affirmations of the value of knowledge in itself. Using Wikipedia to achieve socially desirable purposes other than its own socially desirable purpose of extending knowledge will interfere with the extension of knowledge. Besides, as hundreds of MFD discussions have pointed out, portals are not an effective use of Wikipedia, let alone being an effective way to use Wikipedia for a social objective. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete - As noted above, Portal:Poverty is a misdirection of the resources of Wikipedia and not an effective way to address the problem of global poverty. Editors who are interested in the noble objective of using Wikipedia to reduce poverty should work on the improvement of neutral articles on poverty and related subjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - this type of portal is clearly deprecated and is also totally redundant and useless, as explained above. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It would therefore be improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this unneeded navigation device should be kept. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per the highly detailed and thorough investigation of the portal by the nominator, @BrownHairedGirl, and Crossroads. There is a long-standing consensus that spam portals like this have no place on Wikipedia and add nothing for our readers. This portal should have never been created, and Wikipedia is not the place to push personal points of view. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Ceroberts/Opening a Home Day Care

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. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 17:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC) User:Ceroberts/Opening a Home Day Care User:Ceroberts/Opening a Home Day Care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been abandoned for eight years and fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - Another abandoned quasi-draft. As noted, not likely to be accepted anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Keep - won't disagree with it being lousy content, however, being old or lacking potential aren't valid reasons to delete a sandbox as per WP:STALE. If seeing subpar pages in other people's userspace rankles someone, and that user is inactive, it is permitted to blank. MfD is for when would be problematic even if blanked. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC) @Rhododendrites: I agree that blanking is a good idea. However, I think that it would qualify for WP:U5 as it is not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC) No comment/objections from me about U5 here. Seems borderline, but clearly a NOTHOWTO problem. If something is egregious enough to meet CSD, then it should indeed be speedied. My objection is when something doesn't qualify for CSD, and people bring it to MfD on a "but I really want it to qualify for CSD" basis, when it could just be blanked. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Delete. Should be a G13, but given poor topic and state, we might as well delete here. Britishfinance (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 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/User:CodyHatFiona

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: speedied U5. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC) User:CodyHatFiona User:CodyHatFiona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Unnecessary social networking links, etc. from a user with no edits outside user space. User notified at User talk:CodyHatFiona#Wikipedia. Senator2029 “Talk” 11:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete - Hardly worth deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC) 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:Is the milky way made of goatmilk or cowmilkyway?

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: speedy deleted as G3 by Oshwah. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Draft:Is the milky way made of goatmilk or cowmilkyway? Draft:Is the milky way made of goatmilk or cowmilkyway? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Do we really have to keep this? CptViraj (📧) 10:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete WP:TNT. Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. North America1000 13:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per Northamerica1000. aboideautalk 14:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - G3, vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC) 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 24, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elderson Félix/Seventh-day Adventist Church in Brazil

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC) User:Elderson Félix/Seventh-day Adventist Church in Brazil User:Elderson Félix/Seventh-day Adventist Church in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View Mfd) This draft has been abandoned for many years. The creator User:Elderson Félix was last active in 2013. So this draft should be deleted.Catfurball (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as specified by nominator, abandoned for six years. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC) 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:Your Average Gamer

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. ‑Scottywong| [spill the beans] || 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Draft:Your Average Gamer Draft:Your Average Gamer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Proven not notable by the draft itself.. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Neutral - On the one hand, this stupid draft will never be notable, and so is a waste of draft space, although there is no such thing as a waste of draft space. On the other hand, not every stupid draft that has not been a nuisance needs to be sent to MFD. User:MoonyTheDwarf - As a reviewer, please use judgment in deciding what sorts of crud to send here and what sorts of crud to ignore. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Point taken. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Neutral per Robert. The draft is crap, but if we deleted every non-notable and poorly sourced draft, 99% of draftspace would cease to exist. It hasn't been submitted yet - in fact, it was nominated for deletion only one minute after it was created - so there is no reason to not let G13 deal with it. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Topic is unambiguously not notable, and the draft article has only one ref to the subject's own youtube account. Sympathy for draft articles aside, if this draft is not a violation of NOWBHOST, then we should drop the guideline and allow all youtubers immortalize themselves in WP Draftspace. Britishfinance (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Arunmanoharmg/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: no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC) User:Arunmanoharmg/sandbox User:Arunmanoharmg/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Uhm... I'm not sure what to say, honestly. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Comment Largely replicated in Maheswaram Temple. Certes (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this draft is done poorly.Catfurball (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - Keep an eye on the sandbox. It should have a {{mfd}} tag on it. If it doesn't, put it back. But MFD is a content forum, and on further review this is a competency issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Keep it is a current draft, being actively worked on, presumably in part to add to Maheswaram Temple. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC) User already copied over a large portion of the draft to that article, resulting in it gaining two new maintenance tags. Just for note. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - Largely incomprehensible. The article cited above also needs deleting, and isn't being improved either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maheswaram Temple (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Keep - Holy WP:BITE. This was nominated literally one minute after it was created. This is not what MfD is for. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Rhododendrites Do note that the user in question has been around for years. Since 2015. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC) That has literally nothing to do with deletion policy. Besides, the user has 76 edits total. That's a newbie. The bigger point is that this is an active draft, and you've nominated it immediately without even citing any policy-based reason. Sandboxes/userspace drafts don't have to meet the content requirements of mainspace. If it doesn't qualify for CSD and it's currently active, I can't think of any reason to nominate it for deletion. If it were inactive, WP:STALE would come into play, but then, too, it would come to MfD only if "problematic even if blanked". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Delete Per nom and Robert McClenon. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maheswaram Temple (2nd nomination) has just been deleted again. I note that the title of this sandbox version seems to have been changed so it will appear as a different topic article (and avoid a 3rd AfD). Britishfinance (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC) To be fair, many editors overwrite their sandbox with completely different content on a regular basis as and when they move on to a new task. I certainly do, and I see it as legitimate use. Certes (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC) As long as it's a different version, there is nothing in our deletion policies which allow for entirely different versions of a deleted topic to exist in userspace. In fact, many exist on highly controversial topics. I'm also unclear how this would still be problematic if blanked -- what reason is there to delete the history? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC) I would normally agree with Certes and Rhododendrites, and especially for sandboxes. However, my reading of this is that this editor has been pushing this topic a few times now which has required two AfDs, and with very little substantive changes. After a point, you have to balance giving an editor space and time versus waste of community time on AfDs/MfDs. If I really felt that this was a lost cause, I would ask for SALTing, and I fully expect this editor will still find a way to re-create this article, however, I feel that a point should be made to the editor (and to future AfDs/MfDs on this topic) that this is turning into a time-sink, and may even need SALTing in the future. Britishfinance (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 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/User:Vj Broun

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. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 17:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC) User:Vj Broun User:Vj Broun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) WP:NOTAWEBHOST. User may be here solely to have a 'page' on themselves..? Could also be good faith, but this happens to be their very first contribution to the site. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete - Not as blatant as some cases, but Wikipedia is not a web host and U5 still apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Keep talk to the user on how to improve their page.Catfurball (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Keep - If it were old, I might say U5, but this was nominated the same day it was created.... Many people instruct new users to create a user page as a first step. This person did so and before they even received a greeting they were immediately bitten -- and for what? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Week Keep. Not as blatant as this case: User:Jimbo Wales. Might inspire VJ to contribute to WP - if not, can always U5 later. Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Comment It's been a significant period of time without further edits from this user. Likely intended solely as a page for themselves. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 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 23, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GianniX 0

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC) User:GianniX 0 User:GianniX 0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Not sure if this qualifies for U5, putting up for discussion. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Keep It's a 2 sentence introduction. Maybe they're trying to promote their Youtube channel, but it's not blatant spam or a WP:FAKEARTICLE. It's two sentences telling us that the editor has a Youtube channel and likes Minecraft and Russia. It would probably be better to discuss the user page with the editor than to just delete it. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Keep it's better to talk to the user on how to improve their page.Catfurball (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Keep. Not a WP:U5; an editor is allowed to provide some basic bio details on their user page. Look at the cheek of this guy Jimbo Wales. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC) 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:Landlubber Jeans

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. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 17:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Draft:Landlubber Jeans Draft:Landlubber Jeans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Has been declined four times and just submitted again with only trivial changes. It was most recently declined for copyvios, which were changed into close paraphrases by tweaking a few words here and there, with the edit comment, Fixed copy and paste problems by rewording most of the article. The sources are mostly passing mentions and routine coverage of business announcements. The one good reference is the Patterns article from the NY Times, but one is not enough. The tone of the article probably qualifies for WP:G11, which is not surprising given that the WP:SPA author stated, in a now-deleted version of their user page, that they were, part of Ad Excellence a full service advertising agency. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete - Didn't really need deleting because it hadn't yet been rejected. Concur with nominator that it probably is G11, and that anything that has to be scrubbed to avoid G12 probably has no real content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon, it looks like you rejected the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Leave as reject. If resubmitted without improvement afterwards, then delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Neutral as per User:AngusWOOF. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this stupid pathetic draft forever.Catfurball (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom. Given the motives of the creator of this article, and their repeated failure to show notability, it should be deleted (otherwise it will reappear); enough time has already wasted on it and any AGF for this topic used up. Britishfinance (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 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 22, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Women's sport

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Portal:Women's sport Portal:Women's sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Long-neglected portal. Created in 2011 with an absurdly over-complex structure (440 subpages!), it has long been abandoned by its creator, by readers, and by the WikiProject which has never shown any interest in it, let alone in staying on top of the 440 sub-pages. I was prompted to examine the portal by a request on my talk[8] from Black Falcon (talk · contribs), who was considering adding links to it. The notes which I wrote in reply[9] form the starting point for this nomination. It has 9 Portal:Women's sport/Selected articles, and 13 selected biogs, all content-forked. All 13 biogs are about people who were alive when the content fork was made in 2011, but none of the 13 has had any substantive update since. All are outdated. Here's there first 6: biog/1: Cri-zelda Brits appears to have retired in 2016[10], but the portal doesn't mention that biog/2: Alyssa Healy is still active, but the portal makes no mention of her many achivemnets since 2011 biog/3: Lauren Ebsary. The portal says she is a current member of the Australia national women's cricket team, but she last played international cricket in 2010[11] biog/4: the portal describes Izzy Westbury as an Australian cricketer, but the article says she is a former cricketer. Cricinf lists her last match as being in 2017[12] biog/5: the portal says that Steph Davies has played for Somerset women since 2001, but Somerset Women cricket team says she left the team in 2012 biog/6: Faith Leech died in 2013, but the portal doesn't mention her death (Note also that 5 of the 13 bogs are about cricket, which is a serious imbalance). The DYKs are all long-since stale; the sample of ten birthday pages which I examined were all untouched for between five and 8 years; the most recent addition to the biogs was in 2012 (see biog/13); the most recent /article is article/9, which was added in 2011, i.e. before the portal was even moved to mainspace. The portal is almost unread. It had a daily average of only 10 views/day in Oct 2018–Sept 2019. That's risibly low, and it's not due to lack of promotion: there are incoming links from 1,322 articles and 2,046 categories. There has never been any discussion at Portal talk:Women's sport. This portal seems to be the work of one lone edior who created it and then abandsoned it, with no editor taking an interest thereafter, apart from the usual formatting tweaks to the mainpage. There is a WP:WikiProject Women's sport, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport looks only semi-active. There are periodic announcements, but I don't see any actual discussion. A search of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport and all its sub-pages (i.e. archives etc) gives no hits for "Portal:Women's sport", apart from a 13 October 2019 note on adding links to the portal. So AFAICS, this is an abandoned portal: abandoned by its creator, by readers, and by the WikiProject which has never shown any interest in it, let alone in staying on top of the 440 sub-pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom, to which nothing need be added. bd2412 T 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as per User:BrownHairedGirl. The portal has only 12 daily average pageviews in the first half of 2019 (BHG was using a different baseline and had a similar number), as contrasted with 298 for the head article, which is not usually enough to sustain a portal. (Readers don't want to read about women's sports; they want to read about particular female athletes or particular women's teams or competitions.) The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise. The discrepancies in the articles illustrate the unsoundness of using content-forked subpages. Low viewership, obviously no maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC) I agree with Robert McClenon's comment that "Readers don't want to read about women's sports; they want to read about particular female athletes or particular women's teams or competitions". That was my thought when I first looked at the portal, and it seems to be supported by the evidence of a relatively high number of incoming links but low readership. Obviously, some readers will be interested in the topic of "women's sports", but it seems that most readers are far more interested in the individual sports rather than all sports by gender. In any case, this portal does an abysmal job of depicting the topic of "women's sports". It just shows a pseudo-random selection of articles, rather than attempting to explain the history of women's sport and how it compares with men's sport. Like most portals, this is a set of decontexualised samples rather a guide to a concept. If we are going to have portals displaying sets of articles, there should be some actual curation involved, but this portal reflects the normal poor standard of having a list which could have been generated by a bot trawling the categories and making a random sample of articles above a given quality threshold. They are like Churchill's pudding: no theme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Delete portals should not have so many subpages. Better to nuke. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - There is a logical reason for 365 of the 440 subpages, even if we disagree with it. There is one subpage for every day of the year. I have occasionally seen this in other portals. It does make it very hard to assess the portal, because the content subpages, such as Selected Articles, get pushed onto the second browser subpage. Just explaining. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per nom. Portal is now technologically redundant to other superior WP options/tools (main articles, navboxes and WP Project directories). It is thus “rationally abandoned” in favour of better alternatives, and unlikely to recover from that situation. Britishfinance (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this portal isn't needed.Catfurball (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per nominator, per the delete votes above, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the poor condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals; instead they are to be evaluated individually, as is being done here. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 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 21, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ShopeenBest

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Draft:ShopeenBest Draft:ShopeenBest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Declined G11. Not just a skeleton. Blatantly promoting the company website plus: https://www.youtube.com/... https://www.instagram.com/... https://www.facebook.com/... https://twitter.com/... all unsuitable source, promtional unrelaibel sources. And there are Zero other sources, which means that nothing, not even the skeleton, can be reused. Pages like this should always be deleted CSD#G11. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Keep Those are not cited as sources, those are links to the company's own sites. As per WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL one official web site should normally be included. Granted we don't normally include 4, but new editors will often not be aware of that restriction, nor in this case is it clear exactly which one of the four is the "main" site and should be retained. This was created less than 24 hours ago, and has not even been submitted for review -- it is not reasonable to expect full sourcing, or indeed any sourcing, at this phase. This is basically the content of an infobox at this point, plus a one sentence tagline or mission statement. It is not justifiable to nominate for deletion at this point, in my view. What is the point of draft space if early skeletons of possible articles must be deleted promptly? This is over the top. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC) I usually agree with you DES, but not across this line. When it is a promotional topic, AND, there are zero acceptable sources for starting an article, it has to go. I used to argue that if we are nice, and patient, then they may return and add a quality source, and add content, but it never worked out. When a new account turns up add writes promotion and links promotion, minimally WP:TNT applies, always deletion is required to give a simple answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC) I can't see one sentence as so promotional that it has to go.. I don't approve of TNT, and don't accept its arguments in most cases, including this one. I have edited the draft, to remove the promotional sentence, and the extra web links -- it is now a bare infobox, with purely factual data. If someone finds and adds a few reliable sources, it can be expanded into a valid article, perhaps. If not, it will eventually go G13. I admidt I will be a bit surprised if notability is demonstrated, but I've been surprised before. Well, let's see what other editors have to say, SmokeyJoe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Keep - It's a stupid draft. I do approve of the TNT concept in article space, and usually for submitted drafts in draft space. This hasn't been submitted yet. It isn't ready for submission, let alone for article space, but tagging this for MFD because it isn't ready for article space defeats the purpose of having article space. If you think that there is undisclosed paid editing, report it at the conflict of interest noticeboard. This doesn't quack of UPE. It's just a stupid draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC) No one says “undisclosed”. See the page creation edit summary (“ Biography of my company/ecommerce store. ”). The reason for deletion is the blatant promotion, citing only promotional sources. It WP:NOTPROMOTION policy or not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Comment I originally tagged this draft for speedy deletion under G11, which was declined. I agree that draft space is draft space, and we shouldn't be deleting things in development unless there are serious problems (which I felt existed in this case). However, I think it important to think about where this draft could possibly go. In this case based on what I've seen so far, the answer is; nowhere. The website of the company is not fully functional, and has significant problems. This business was founded in August of this year [17]. Doing a search for anything from a reliable, secondary source related to this business and came up with nothing. When the creator of the page made it, he indicated he is the owner of the business "Biography of my company/ecommerce store.". The Twitter feed has one follower, Instagram 75, and Yahoo 75. There biggest traction is on Facebook, but there has less than 1000. The creator of the page has now been blocked indefinitely [18]. I'd like to dig more, but so far to me it's clear that this is a COI/Paid editor trying to promote their nascent business which has been around for about two months. The business has a partially non-functional website, and apparently has not gained notice in secondary sources. Again, I'd like to dig some more, but I'm not seeing any reason to believe this draft will become anything other than stale. There's nothing to develop it into. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Delete or even Speedy Delete as G11. This is nothing but an advertisement -- and not even a competent advertisement -- and should have nuked immediately, Draft space or no Draft space. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC) A G11 speedy has already been proposed and declined. When multiple experienced editors think a page should be kept, a speedy deletion is not clear-cut, and therefore should not be performed. That does not, of cource, prefent a consensus to delte being reached in thsi discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Keep - not sure it'll go anywhere, but it's a new skeleton at this point. Not remotely eligible for G11 - please don't nominate things like this for G11; CAT:CSD patrolling is a pain as it is, it doesn't need people adding obviously bogus requests. WilyD 09:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. There's no basis there for an encyclopedia article. It was eligible for G11 at the time it was tagged (diff) and is hardly better now. – Athaenara ✉ 17:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this worthless piece of garbage forever.Catfurball (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Weak delete - I don't think this should have been brought here, but left for G13. However, we're here now. The evidence given by Hammersoft above seems to show conclusively that the business is not notable, and since the creator is blocked, no one else is realistically going to work on it. May as well delete it. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 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 19, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rahul Megh Arya Page

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Draft:Rahul Megh Arya Page Draft:Rahul Megh Arya Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Can we put this one to rest? Will this ever have a chance to meet WP:ENT? It's been created and recreated multiple times with sourcing supposedly from different places, but they are all referring to the same press release statement. It's also been CSD G11'ed multiple times, and still comes back, but can't CSD G4 unless there's consensus it will never be notable, and it's not G5 because the IP hops. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC) delete as WP:PROMOTION. The sources are non independent and low quality. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as blatant promotion. Notice that this is named Draft:Rahul Megh Arya Page and not Draft:Rahul Megh Arya, because the correct title has already been salted in draft space due to repeated creation. That warrants a G4 of this as a blatant attempt to game the system. Recommend also implementing a Title Blacklist regexp to prevent further gaming of the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Comment t0 User:AngusWOOF - The salting in draft space is the admin determination that it never will be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon, this is NOT true. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC) User:SmokeyJoe - Whatever the reason, it looks like sufficient basis for a G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC) It can’t be G4-ed without a prior AfD. A persistent vandal can justify a salting without reference to the very difficult question of potential notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Note - The IP removed the MFD tag and resubmitted the draft yet again. I have reverted to the version tagged for MFD by AngusWOOF, and have requested semi-protection of the draft so that the IP will not disrupt this debate. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC) For a proposed solution to unregistered editing, see WP:Village pump (policy)#Require registration. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Per RFPP, I have semiprotected the Draft:Rahul Megh Arya Page. No objection if another admin wants to take further steps, such as those suggested above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Finding a range block that would cover all this editor's IPs, I have blocked Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2100::/40 one month for edit warring and promotional editing. The block can be lifted if they will will agree to follow our policies and edit with a stable identity. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Delete and salt. Dunno why this wasn't speedy deleted, I think G11 applies pretty clearly here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Not G11 because there are references that are not obviously unsuitable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Delete this draft should've never been created.Catfurball (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Strong delete per above. Is there a speedy criteria that applies to obvious salt evasion? Maybe there should be. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 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

October 16, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Professional wrestling

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. Killiondude (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Portal:Professional wrestling Portal:Professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Neglected portal. Selected article/1 created in January 2008 was updated for the first and last time in June 2013. Entry had live vandalism for 19 days and 17 days. Selected article/2 was created in January 2008 and last updated in June 2013. Selected article/3 was created in January 2008. It was last updated in June 2013. Selected article/4 Created in January 2008. Last updated in June 2013. Entry had live vandalism for five days, ten days and three days. Selected article/5 was created in January 2008 and updated for the first and last time in June 2013. Selected article/6 was created in October 2008 and never updated. Selected article/7 was created in November 2008 and never updated. Selected article/8 was created in January 2009 and never updated. Selected article/9, Selected article/10 and Selected article/11 were created in April 2010 and never updated Selected article/12 was created in June 2013 and never updated. Professional wrestling/News is over 20kB and constantly updated by User:Fishhead2100, but all the news items are completely uncited. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC) With over 1000 edits per year, the news subpage has been at times more active than the entire German Wikinews. The English Wikinews may be alerted in case they want to import some content, but at this time the portal appears to act as an abusive pseudo-Wikinews inside Wikipedia, with lower standards on sources than both Wikipedia and Wikinews have. Nemo 09:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. If there was a fan-site portal in Wikipedia I thought would work, it would be Professional Wrestling. Having gone through it, it makes me realise that portals, outside of a smaller group, have little future in Wikipedia. Not only is the portal now abandoned (aside from being abused as a personalized unsourced newsfeed), but the Main article is also heavily tagged with no sign of improvement. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling seem to want nothing to do with this portal, and are a much better source for the directory of articles on the topic. The portal has been effectively replaced by the Navbox and WP Professional Wrestling project site, and is now maintained by almost no-one, and read by almost no-one. Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - This is a well-viewed if unmaintained portal. It has had an average of 123 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 2298 for the article. It would be helpful if the nominator, User:Mark Schierbecker, provided a clearer definition of what they mean by "never updated" with respect to articles. Most of the articles that are said to have been never updated have had edits to disambiguate links, to change the resolution of images, or for other cosmetic purposes. The existence of vandalism that was uncorrected for weeks illustrates an inherent drawback of content-forked subpages, that the subpages are easy targets for vandalism. (If an article is transcluded, vandalism is against the article, which is commonly watch-listed, and is seen more frequently). This portal has 147 DYKs, which is even more than other portals that have too many DYKs. Large numbers of DYKs in a portal are almost always simply a device to support a general trivia section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Keep Not updating the selected articles should not be a reason for deletion. This topic has over 300 potential FA/GA articles to showcase and does receive a number of edits. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Comment. A portal is not an article, and abandoned portal is a reason for its deletion (like if the Mainpage was abandoned for years). In addition, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling is an active project (and who ignore the portal), and are a much better structured and unbiased catalogue of the topic articles. Britishfinance (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete - Where is the guideline that says that lack of maintenance is not a reason to delete? There is an essay to that effect about articles. Portals are not articles. There are no portal guidelines. The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise. Common sense is that we should not be showcasing information that we know is obsolete because it has been updated in the articles. This is a well-viewed portal. If someone is willing to maintain it, then it can be maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete, because the portal is in very poor shape and needs WP:TNT, but does have high pageviews. TNT is needed because it has a flawed design based on forks rather than transclusion, because the DYKs have turned into trivia, and because the personal pet uncited newsfeed is inappropriate. If all these problems were fixed, I would change to a Keep. However, I suggest spending effort on improving the head article instead. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement or removal of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. The portal has high pageviews, but nobody is interested in maintaining it. The recent (i.e. September 2019) discussion at WT:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 106#Portal:Professional_wrestling makes it very clear that the project doesn't see value in the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 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 15, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sailing

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. A clear consensus for deletion has transpired herein. North America1000 17:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Portal:Sailing Portal:Sailing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Neglected portal. Seven never-updated selected articles and seven selected bios created in April 2012. Errors Paul Elvstrøm died in December 2016 Ben Ainslie metaled gold in 2012 Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Sports + Portal:Nautical), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - Portal had 9 average daily pageviews in first half of 2019, as opposed to 377 for head article. Subpages include 7 articles and 7 biographies created in 2012, some minor edits to some articles between 2013 and 2017, no substantive maintenance as of Oct. 2019. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per nominator, per Robert McClenon's comment, and per the fact that there is no good reason to keep such a portal as this. Low page views and the condition it is in mean zero value is added by such a portal. There is no policy or guideline which suggests this portal should exist. Portals are not content, like an article is, since they are for navigation instead. It is therefore improper to use rationales meant for keeping articles to argue that this failed navigation device should be kept. There is no reason to think that hoped-for improvements and long-term maintenance will ever materialize anyway, even if promised or done at the last minute just to stave off deletion. Simple assertions that the topic is broad enough are entirely subjective; rather, that it is not broad enough is demonstrated by the lack of pageviews and maintenance. The community's consensus not to delete all portals is not a consensus to keep all portals. Content forks are worthless, since they go out of date, preserve old and inferior versions of article content, add pointlessly to the maintenance burden, and are vandalism magnets; therefore they should not be saved. I support replacement of links rather than redirection, to avoid surprising our readers. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom. Last support of this portal left it in circa 2012. Main article is already heavily tagged for verification issues (with nobody showing any interest in fixing). Navboxes on main article are very good and detailed, and propably kill any possible use this portal could serve. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing project has also not had an edit for over a year (and very little edits since circa 2014). Nobody wants to support this portal, which is out-of-date and has errors, and nobody seems to want to read it. Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Delete as per nominator, and as per metrics. Low readership, not very many articles, no substantive maintenance of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - As an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing, I can report that the project is still underway, with work being done to create articles on every sailboat type produced (eventually). Although our participation is low (okay, just me, recently), we are still adding many new articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing/New articles. That said, I have never seen the value of portals on Wikipedia in general and they certainly shouldn't remain unless they are kept up to date and someone commits to doing that. I think it will be a minimal loss for this one to be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Delete. As others have noted, this is a long-neglected and long-outdated portals, with low readership. It has neither any interested maintainers, nor a supportive WikiProject. The portal was created[30] on 11 April 2012‎ by Kasper2006 (talk · contribs), whose last edit to any part of the portal was only 15 days later, on 26 April 2012[31] (see Kasper2006Kasper2006's portal-space contribs). AFAICS, Kasper2006has never been a member of the project[32], and from what I can see of Kasper2006's portalspace edits, this appears to have been a sort of unannounced driveby creation on the assumption that others would maintain it. This was unwise. The resulting portal shows minimal knowledge of sailing, with a severe bias towards one event. It focuses far too heavily on the Olympics, to the extent that Portal:Sailing/Sailing classes (last updated in April 2012) is all about the Olympics, omitting the vast majority of sailboat classes which have never been near the Olympics. There's no way that this portal even tries to offer a balanced overview of the sport. I don't in any way suggest intentional bias, but I do note that this is an example of the wider problem which I have repeatedly raised about portals being developed by editors who both lack deep knowledge of the topic and don't consult before adding articles. Since then the portal has been almost completely abandoned: no new selected articles or biogs have been created, and the initial set has not been updated. I see no sign that the portal has ever been supported by WP:WikiProject Sailing. The only talkpage mention of the portal is at WT:WikiProject Sailing/Archive 1#Portal:Sailing, where in April 2012 Kasper2006 announced its creation. No mention since. There is clearly no WikiProject interest in maintaining or developing this portal, and never has been. If the project ever was interested in building a portals, it would do much better to start afresh, without this wildly unbalanced set of stale content forks. But the lack of reader interest indicates that any such effort would be a waste of time, so it's good to see that project editors such as @Ahunt are focusing instead on building actual content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 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 10, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics

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. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This problematic table is prone to becoming continuously outdated, and outdated versions of it are presently being shown to users at MfD in a manner that provides a false representation compared to the actual present state of portals. The table's creator has not maintained it, so other editors have had to update it to prevent users from being shown inaccurate information regarding the actual state of portals. Example diffs include: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Unfortunately, outdated versions of the table are presently being used at MfD discussions, such as at the MfD discussion for Portal:Massachusetts (diff). Use of outdated versions of the table in MfD discussions taints the discussions with highly erroneous information. Delete - Per all of the above. North America1000 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - The nominator is making an incorrect statement about these tables in saying that an unmaintained version of the table is being presented in MFD discussions. I am not presenting information from this table in MFD discussions. I have a Microsoft Access database of portal metrics which I maintain on either of two personal Windows computers, and the database is maintained. The viewing rates are dated, and so those do not need to be updated. Any information that is presented in any MFDs is accurate to the best of my knowledge, and, if it is not correct, I am willing to address its accuracy during the MFD discussion. The statement that this table is being used to provide information in MFD discussions is incorrect. That information is provided from a personal database, and I check its accuracy before presenting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Neutral as originator of the page that has been nominated for deletion. If the community would prefer not to have this information, which is intended to be accurate, available in project space, I have no objection to deleting this particular page (or the Australian or Canadian subnational portal metrics pages). Deleting this page will not change the information that is presented in MFD discussions, which is always accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I am always willing to discuss its accuracy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - This is a vindictive nomination, and does not affect my collection of data in my database, but I acknowledge the right of the community to decide whether a copy of this information is displayed in projet space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC) @Robert McClenon:: You then also need to please update your database to present correct information. For example, the Colorado entry of your table at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Massachusetts stating "No maintenance since 2012. No articles." (diff) is wholly false. Note that per some of the diffs provided in the nomination (diff, diff), this is just not the case at all. You should either please fix the entries in your table at the MfD nomination or remove the table. In its present state, it is misleading. I don't have access to your personal database to make other corrections for you. Also, this is not a "vindictive" nomination whatsoever; it is based on real, pressing concerns, about real errors. North America1000 01:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Keep A transparently vindictive, misconceived nomination by an editor (Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)) whose antics include: making a huge drama cased by their complete failure to understand basic issues of statistics, and even claimed that aggregation of data over a particular time frame is not a statistic still seeming not to understand that the stats for a period in the past don't change repeatedly disrupting multiple MFDs by responding to an accurate sets of stats for a given period by citing a figure from a different period, calculated on a different basis (specifically, given the daily average views for each of a set of pages, measured across a consistent time period, NA1K was repeatedly trying to contradict them by pointing to total pageviews for a different period, of different length). being a vocal defender of almost unused, severely neglected junk portals, and clearly prefering to suppress facts which they find inconvenient in their weird quest to continue to lure readers to almost unused, severely neglected Rube Goldberg machine junk portals Removing portals from Category:All portals because it was "used by deletionists" Proposing the deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals because they didn't like abandoned portals being identified. Repeatedly showing an unwillingness or inability to distinguish between maintenance of a portals' content and tweaks to its display ... and now hilariously denying the transparent vindictiveness of this nominations despite their track record of vindictiveness I have never seen such a sustained effort in denialism on en.wp, and the only thing that comes close to it is the less prolific denialism of some of NA1K's fellow portal fans. However, it would help if @Robert McClenon would clarify the scope of this page (and any others like it) simply by noting what period is covered by the stats provided, and preferably by linking the stats to the relevant stats query. Note that I would be very happy for this page to be deleted if there was a plausible case that it serves no useful purpose, or if it is unlikely to be get any needed improvements. However, NA1K repeatedly claims at MFD that WP:Deletion policy requires that even long-abandoned junk portals should be retained. If NA1K actually believed any of the assertions in their MFD contributions, then NA1K would instead be demanding that this page be retained if there is any theoretical possibility of it being fixed, even if the real possibility was near-zero. Instead, NA1K is outraged at the removal of abandoned junk portals which are presented to readers, but determined to nuke an inadequately labelled page in project space. YCMTSU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Comment - User:Northamerica1000 wrote: "You should either please fix the entries in your table at the MfD nomination or remove the table." I see that there were already edits made to the table on 4 October and 5 October. If NA1k wanted me to make changes to the table, that desire was not communicated before nominating the table for deletion. It isn't clear why the table is being nominated for deletion when it is also being updated by the same editors. I am not arguing in favor of keeping the page, but I am stating puzzlement about whether the objective of NA1k is the improvement of the page or the deletion of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC) J Keep. Serves a valid project-related purpose, assessing some portals. The nominator makes a valid point about out-of-date data. The solution to this is to date all transient data. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Delete - Out of date information, I see this as harmful as we have the same issues with out of date things on portals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC) No the same. Portals are reader-facing pages, this is in projectspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC) The page then either needs to be updated or disused in future deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC) I've not taken the time to examine the details, but I support archiving as "out-of-date" until fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Keep. My understanding is that this is a project-related tool to help with MfD discussions of state portals. If its information is incorrect than it can be updated as it is not a complex table. It seems from the above discussions, that others have been updating it, and ultimately anybody can edit it. Inaccuracy is not a reason to delete any article in Wikipedia (tagging is allowed) per WPNOTCLEANUP, and the table is not a WP:TNT candidate. Britishfinance (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Keep per BrownHairedGirl's analysis of the troubling issues surrounding this nomination. This page and a few others created by Robert McClenon are merely a service to transparent discussion in the community, because their existence makes it easier to follow some arguments commonly used in deletion discussions. There's no benefit in forcing this information to be only on Robert McClenon's hard disk. They could be moved to subpages of a project or user page, to be easier to find, but that's not an argument for deletion. Nemo 08:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Comment – So, this table and the table at the MfD discussion are separate, one on a Wiki page and the one provided at the MfD discussion from a user's personal database. All right then, but this was not declared at the MfD discussion. At the MfD discussion, no baseline dates were provided in the initial table (diff), and as such, users are quite likely to assume that data as being current, despite that content in its Comments column was quite outdated compared to the updates that I added to the Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics page. So, the user who provided the initial table at the MfD discussion has since added a "Revised US State Portals" section to the discussion that presents users with more up-to-date information in the Comments column and added baseline dates (diff). All right then. That's great. The concern from the start was that users at deletion discussions were being presented with outdated information in the Comments column about various portals compared to their actual states, which they were. So, I'm fine with tables being used at MfD, but please include the baseline dates, so users are able to see the time period the data pertains to, please try to keep the comments column data up-to-date, and please declare that the table is from a personal database if applicable. Otherwise, users may be misled to believe that outdated data from months ago pertains to the present state of portals. Thanks to any and all who may utilize tables at MfD for your consideration regarding this matter, and please don't take it personally. Also, for what it's worth, I am not planning on continuously maintaining the Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics page, and it is already outdated yet again per recent reversions that have occurred to some portals. At the very least the recent reversions and the effects of them should also be denoted in the Comments column on the page at this time. So, any volunteers to update the page again? I have no interest in continuously having to maintain this page. Hopefully someone else does, because the page is already becoming what it was before, a problematic table, because it is prone to becoming continuously outdated. For more context, please see Wikipedia talk:US State Portal Metrics. North America1000 12:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Comment. Thanks @Northamerica1000: Obviously such tables should not be used in an MfD if they are misleading or out of date (unless the date issue is at least specified and highlighted). However, for those of us who have not been involved in the "thick" of the portal debates (I have only just read WP:VPPR#Proposal to delete Portal space this morning, having been made aware of it yesterday), is there a specific column/data item that is problematic here and about which there is division (or is it the whole table)? Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Hi Britishfinance It seems obvious to me too, but others have different viewpoints. That's okay. The Comments column on the Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics page is now outdated again. Recently some portals listed on the page were reverted in a manner that removed a significant amount of information from them. As I have stated, I don't want to have to continuously update the page, so hopefully someone else will someday. Fact is, if people want a page prone to becoming continuously outdated around, then so be it. Also, I don't view this matter as part of the "portal debates" at all; my nomination and commentary here is based upon the validity and feasibility of this page itself, or lack thereof. That's it. North America1000 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Understand Northamerica1000 and thanks for that - it makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Keep per Britishfinance and other keep votes above. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 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.