- 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 1, 2024
- Draft:Google Chrome version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTCHANGELOG, I don't think this will ever make its way into mainspace, since Google Chrome versions individually don't appear to be notable, even though Google Chrome is. I would also suggest adding an abuse filter to warn about creating titles that could be used just for exhaustive change logs. Awesome Aasim 19:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is never a reason to delete a draft. “Will never make its way into mainspace” is not a reason to delete a draft, but is a reason for AfC to decline or reject. See WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 30, 2024
- Draft:Shawn Logan Michaud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
A draft article that appears to be a vanity article. User:Namiba 19:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - Does not satisfy biographical notability, and is probably an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. If resubmitted, this draft should be rejected. Oh! Wait a minute! This isn't AFC. This is MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - See the guideline that drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. There is no guideline against vanity drafts in draft space, because there is a guideline against vanity articles in article space, and such drafts should be declined or rejected. The nominator is advised to review the guidelines about drafts before nominating drafts for deletion for reasons that would be valid for the deletion of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:COI authors are told to use draftspace. Do not use the Wikipedia:VANITY term. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 29, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Tyler, The Creator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Recently created WikiProject about a musician. I cannot find any discussion that lead to this project creation and its two-member team will more than likely lead to its very likely DoA status. I'd even say that marking this musician's handful of articles with a task force is too much. There are currently just as many project categories than there are actual articles. Gonnym (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as too narrow of a WikiProject. Nothing worth to archive. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This WikiProject, with its whopping two members, is highly unlikely to go anywhere, and to be honest I am starting to get jaded by the several inactive WikiProjects we currently have on musicians. On paper these have quite a lot of listed participants, but in practice the members often do not even collaborate on articles under the projects' scope. WPs need active participation, not just participants. I echo the concerns at another MfD for a musician WikiProject, WP:SZA, which faced the exact same problem. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the proposals page of the WikiProject Council says that no WikiProjects should be started until after the proposal process is overhauled. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too narrow to possibly ever be active or useful DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals, which states that (1) there was a proposal process for the creation of WikiProjects until the process was suspended recently to minimize the number of projects that failed to launch; (2) the proposal process is currently suspended to be revised; (3) new proposals should not be made while the process is being revised. This project was created without attempting to go through the review process, so it is not important whether there was a proposal process at the time it was created. It was created out of process, and the purpose of the process is and was to avoid stillborn WikiProjects. Maybe a species of fish is needed for editors who create WikiProjects without prior discussion or review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 26, 2024
- Draft:K. Annamalai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This article has been the subject of WP:DEEPER and was on hold during the subject's election for the potential for the subject to meet assumed notability under WP:NPOL. However, this was not the case and now the article has been kept in the draft space. However, every so often new changes will be made, thereby resetting the draftspace 6 month timeline. But it is clear that the subject does not meet the Wikipedia threshold of notability for biographies, something that has been confirmed via multiple different and repeated avenues. In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace (see {{Db-draft-notice}}), I think this draft ought to be deleted manually lest it continue to languish in the draftspace only sometimes attended to, forever on hold. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Very important record and point of reference. Deleting would be a net negative. This is blacklisted and mainspace is mostly safe from intrusion of new pages on this topic. —Alalch E. 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative to deletion, if the page history record is the important issue: maybe the article content ought to be {{intentionally blank}}ed but the AfC declination/rejection history left? Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I suspect the title blacklist entry is a bigger cause of mainspace being "safe" then the existence of this draft. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This page's existence is, and has always been, nothing other than a beacon of false hope. It is time to snuff it out, and send the signal that we are not interested. And that proposed alternative to deletion does not satisfy me. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The ATD wasn't my preference, I offered it as I thought it would be a roundabout way of addressing what my current issue is, it is the expected continued treatment as though the article is in the mainspace. See this edit just recently, that doesn't even begin to address the actual subject of the draft. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No we need to send the signal that we *are* interested but the problem is with the topic's eligibility for an article, not with us. By saying that we are not interested (based on what? subject could become notable, active politician, not an insignificant figure) we make ourselves appear partial and situate the problem in our midst, when the problem is not here, it is there in the outside world, and the lack of recent submissions maybe means that some people have finally understood this. —Alalch E. 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The nominator has not explained why there is anything wrong with this draft lingering in draft space, sometimes attended to, forever on hold. If the draft is deleted, a new draft will probably be created, spelled differently, to try to sneak it into article space. The edits to the draft are doing no harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the only reason it isn't in mainspace is the blacklist after one of the recent DRVs. Let it stay as a honeypot. It's not taking up meaningful space. If a newer reviewer doesn't know the history, they'll have to go through an admin who will end a move to mainspace. Star Mississippi 14:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe I don't understand the argument by User:Alalch E., unless they are saying what I am saying. What is this a record of, and what is it a reference point for? I support keeping this draft, but I don't understand. Is Alalch E. saying that the draft is a honey pot? If so, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's a honey pot, and the chronology of submission attempts and declines+rejection together with the AfC comments and also the state of the draft and the sourcing are all helpful to someone who doesn't know what is going on with this topic to form a fuller picture. If it is deleted, a new draft will be created, and then? G4 in draftspace, recreations in draftspace under various titles, new socks, blacklisting in drafstpace. All work that is not needed. —Alalch E. 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: because of the long-running shenanigans around this subject (including, but far from only, at this title), I'm as fed up with this as the next guy and would like to draw a line under it... but somehow I doubt deleting this draft will achieve that. I also see no compelling policy-based reason to delete. Conversely, while I get the honey-pot-argument, I think it's the title rather than this particular version that is the honey-pot, so retaining this draft for that reason seems unnecessary. All of which is another way of saying I don't particularly mind either way. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a candidate politician who has come very close, and holds party positions, but fails NPOL, this is exactly the sort of thing that belongs in draftspace, and it being kept alive by edits is exactly a desirable feature of the system. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 22, 2024
September 23, 2024
- User:Michael Jester/St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster (I–J) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete; abandoned project already covered by St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to delete someone else’s usersubpage. Redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - See the guideline on copies of articles in user space, which says:
Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted.
. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]- This page, via copy-paste, came from the user’s userspace, years later to be userfied back by someone else. It is not a copy of the article, but a userfied old article. The guideline you quote doesn’t apply to this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Michael Jester/St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster (A) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete; abandoned project which is already covered by St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to delete someone else’s usersubpage. Redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe, thank you. I'm still figuring things out here. I'm not as familiar with articles discussion policies; I'm more involved in Templates and Categories. If you think that is the best course then I agree with you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Omnis Scientia. Thank you. You’ve got a lot of edits in your two years here. Deletion is much more readily done with templates and categories, in my view because they are not real content but transitionary support of content.
- I advise you to get experience at WP:AfD, it’s a good place to learn stuff, from the other volunteers there. At AfD, things that don’t belong, in any form, in mainspace, get deleted.
- At MfD, addressing userspace content, there is no need for the content to ever belong in any form in mainspace. I see MfD as only usually deleting deleting things that should never have been created in the first place, like a copy of something else serving no purpose and potentially creating future confusion. In this case, the page has a long history of edits, and was in mainspace for a long time. The edits are content edits, and we usually don’t delete content edits without good reason. If we consider the old content to now be redundant to something better, redirecting is a nice neat way of packaging it, without restricting anyone’s access to their past edits. As redirecting is easily undone, it doesn’t require a formal discussion to consider doing it. If it’s old and redundant, just redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 19, 2024
- Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a horrible "template" that makes the simple process of adding or following discussions on a talk page, extremely hard. It's also a duplicate of the Wikipedia:Tip of the day for no reason at all. Compare the current version of Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day to this version. While projects can style their project pages how they want (within reason), the talk pages should be as simple as needed. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you raised this on a talk page anywhere? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 18, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unclear what has changed since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. The few new editors that just signed up to Wikipedia is hardly a sign this project will survive. At best that needs to be a task force (if even that). Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep due to no deletion rational proffered by the nomination. This should be a talk page discussion. The claim, This project has now attracted about 20 editors, and we've made a significant contribution to wikipedia. Please see the campaign here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/southern_african_music__sound/programs, should be discussed on the talk page, not at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The deletion rationale is the same as for the first deletion nomination in March 2024, which was closed as delete. The work of a WikiProject is normally done at its talk page. The talk page of this project had 159 pageviews in the year 2024, which is less than 1 daily pageview, and 113 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024, in connection with the previous MFD. The project page itself shows 399 pageviews in the year 2024, or approximately 1 daily pageview. and 117 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024. The activity for both the project page and the project talk page is in two clusters, the first between 13 March 2024 and 1 April 2024, and the second between 18 September 2024 and 20 September 2024. It appears that this project and its project talk page were entirely unused between 2 April 2024 and 17 September 2024. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the deletion rationale or the circumstances are the same. The March 2024 MfD was not closed as delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 17, 2024
- User:Yumuli/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This was submitted to AfC draft review queue - user space page filled with obscene/graphic content (warning to discussion participants) ostensibly to prove a point about WP being uncensored, but seems like a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT to me. I don't see a real reason for this page other than trolling AfC reviewers and wasting time that could be spent on more important tasks. ~Liancetalk 20:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Page seems to want to intentionally shock the readers, and that's not what userpages are for. Doing so to make a point only makes it worse. (Note: the user has not edited since last April). Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the user not editing since April, I should've caught that but just wanted the page out of my sight at the time of nomination (seems like an IP submitted it for review)... I'm still standing by my deletion nomination as this is a pretty obvious violation of WP:UP#NOT ~Liancetalk 14:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank. Attempting to achieve an outcome by shocking AfC reviewers is maybe disruption. I see this as a collection of links to Wikipedia content that Yumuli (talk · contribs) thinks should be deleted. They may be correct, the videos are of dubious encyclopedic merit, and I believe that amateur self-photography submissions were discouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Commons files. The standing sex vid was kept in a deletion discussion, and the cunnilingus one is used on the Asturian Wikipedia. In general, these files aren't going anywhere. They're not low-quality enough for a Commons consensus to delete. —Alalch E. 11:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I read the usersubpage as a reasonable statement of protest related to the project. Keep as within reasonable leeway. Submitting it to AfC was not the right thing to do. Anyone may blank it as an edit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Any future submitting through AfC should be dealt with on the conduct side. Everything on a computer screen is graphic. Nothing special goes on in these videos. There is concerning media on Commons and this is not concerning media. If seen as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, this barely registers. Generally, the videos are not obscene, not shocking, they just show sex. As sex videos, on average, they are wholesome. The blowjob robot video is just dumb, but it isn't shocking either; I will remove that particular video from the page. A younger user could see this page and it would not cause them any harm. The creator is trying to say something about censorship; maybe how Wikipedia should be more censored. Whatever. It's some type of commentary about Wikipedia. Deletion is not required. Can be blanked.—Alalch E. 16:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, at least partly per Alalch E., but mainly because I am not supportive of any sort of preaching on morality and such; eventual decision to delete this could certainly be interpreted in that way. There is nothing disturbing or shocking in this videos. On top of that, as we all know, Wikipedia is not censored. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 18:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 8, 2024
- User:GoBAPgo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:RFORK, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep unless the nominator provides a link to the other draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Earliest edit I could find. Please note that that sandbox was moved to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.[1].
- Weak Delete this is older than the article that was created is (2017 vs 2023), and this editor has been inactive over 7 years and non-responsive to their talk page. All appearances of being abandoned. TiggerJay (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank. The article and the much older abandoned draft don't have a shared history. The draft is about a living person and is poorly sourced and mildly promotional. There was no need to nominate this for deletion because involvement of administrators and other editors is not required.—Alalch E. 19:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a reason to delete someone else’s usersubpage. Consider redirection or blanking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 6, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Popular pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Useless only has 1 page and apparently only has ever had 1 page as per page history Isla🏳️⚧ 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark historical' and revert to last functional version, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of garbage in, garbage out as, until my actions at Talk:Winter Storm Helena (which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the assessments special page search results. I've removed it from the bot's config page. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading the documentation and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the templates were merged/deleted. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Historical. No evidence that there is consensus in the WikiProject to delete. Does the nominator represent the WikiProject? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or soft redirect to Massviews.
The bot malfunctioned…
The bot is doing exactly as it was programmed to :) The issue here is apparently WikiProject Severe Weather was merged to be a sub-project of WP:WEATHER, and no one updated the bot's config. Compare Special:PageAssessments for "Severe weather" versus "Weather/WikiProject Severe weather".So it is one simple change to the config and the bot will start updating the report again. However I agree that there's likely little interest in this report, judging by the pageview data and the fact that no one noticed the report broke in all this time since 2021. Also, as this WikiProject is quite small (~2,000 articles), the bot-generated report is redundant to live querying with a tool like toolforge:massviews. This example shows the exact same data that the bot would if the config is fixed. For such a small project, I advocate we don't need the bot-generated report. Just put a link to Massviews at WP:WikiProject Severe weather or even soft redirect the popular pages page to Massviews results for the previous month. — MusikAnimal talk 16:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
August 30, 2024
- Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal
. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To make this easier on a closer, I support moving to projectspace. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: as a well-known portalista I'm generally inclined to keep the portals which are left as examples of type (like old ships kept in "mothballs"). This is a portal of a very odd style; like User:Robert McClenon, I find this unusual construction compelling as a menu. I'm also interested in the intact digital artifact. Because of the coding, many older-style portals fall apart when moved from portalspace, but this one should move to project space fine. FYI, while pagecreator User:Bermicourt self-reported as retired in January, they've edited as recently as two months ago. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't odd, it's German. This is how they make them over at dewiki. Essentially they are outlines with some added visual structure. —Alalch E. 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move back to WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, as per part of the outcome from the previous MfD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination). North America1000 00:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussions
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates
