Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

WP:MFD

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

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

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 it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

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}}

{{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	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	3	26	29
TfD	0	9	9
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	6	5	11
RfD	31	21	52
AfD	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

January 11, 2025

Draft:Inauguration of Kamala Harris

Unnecessary draft for an event that will not happen. Per WP:NMFD, it is textbook "unlikely to ever be a viable article" and meets WP:DEL#REASON 6 since no sources can exist. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fake topic that will never come true due to the Second inauguration of Donald Trump. It was created in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and the topic is now a hoax and fake topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a great testimony to the luck the USA and world enjoys by the election of Donald Trump, to the wokeness of Wikipedia and to the stupid rethoric of "What can be (or now: might have been!), unburdened by what has been." Everybody knows this event will not take place, that is beyond the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muelder (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete could have just let G13 take it but since we're here, might as well delete it. This wasn't a "fake topic" when it was created, let alone a hoax, it looks like it was an attempt at a pre-write (and it still isn't a hoax as I see no attempt by anyone since the election was decided to act like this is what was going to happen). Although there was an existing generic 2025 United States presidential inauguration (title at the time) article, drafts can be used to draft new/expanded content for existing articles. WP:CRYSTAL, if it applies at all to draft space, applies much more weakly. Skynxnex (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 9, 2025

Portal:Transgender

Another Portal not supported direct by any Wikiproject. Created in 2009, remained abandoned until 2019 when received few editions, on the occasion of the first MFD, but they have maintained the portal's obsolete structure, based on content forks. Random selection of content with no apparent concerns with WP:V, WP:POVFORK, or WP:BLP. Narrow topic already covered in Portal:LGBTQ. Page views in last 30 days 1,888, against 117,937 of main article.

Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand what is going on here. Is the proposal to delete Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 or to delete the whole portal? If it is to delete the whole portal then why is Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 being made an issue of? It seems to be a page completely orphaned from the rest of the portal. Maybe this illustrates that the portal has cruft in its namespace but I don't see how that reflects on the fundamental validity of portal itself. It seems to be irrelevant to, distract from and maybe even to undermine any argument for deletion of the whole portal. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see now. It is one of four, literally random images shown on Portal:Transgender/Intro and What links here doesn't know about that. That's a bad idea. I think there is a problem with Portal:Transgender/Intro. I'm tempted to revert to the previous version although doing so would leave the transcluded sub-pages orphaned. I'm just going to comment out the random image selection for now so that the inflammatory image is not shown to 1/4 of readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal claims that there is an inflammatory image even though there isn't. Such a removal may be linked with violating WP:NQP and most reasons for justifying a removal of an image are 100% opinion and 0% fact.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... what??? I'm trying to give this portal a chance not to be deleted here!

The image is obviously inflammatory and I can very easily imagine a situation where a screenshot of the Portal, including that image, was used by transphobes to justify their (very obviously false and insincere) claims that trans kids are a danger to society as well as to attack Wikipedia itself. Would we even be having this MfD if it were not for that image? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Africa has 1.491 against 158.866. So that's actually a reason to keep. Skemous (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see anything inflammatory, especially images. Also, if a flag was to contain weapons (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Angola, etc.), would you classify that as inflammatory and needed for removal? You can't just simply do that, especially because of WP:NOTCENSORED.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference. Those flags are... actual flags. They are identified as such and have contexts which make them meaningful for use by an encyclopaedia. This image is a user generated image with no meaningful context. It is not associated with any specific organisation. It has no date beyond when it was uploaded. It's fine for the Wikimedia Commons, as it is clearly uncopyrightable, but it isn't any use here. (OK, it would be fine on a User page but I mean that it is no use in an article or portal page.) I've not put it up for deletion and I very strongly resent the accusation of censorship.

Now, I do get why some people like that image. If I was a trans kid (I'm neither) and I was putting up with the heinous shit that they are being subjected to, then I'd think that that image was metal af! I'd probably have sheets and sheets of stickers of it and stick them up everywhere in town that the cops weren't looking. I'd definitely feel encouraged to see similar stickers pasted up by other people. I understand, and sympathise with, the motivation to do the same thing here but that doesn't mean that it belongs on the Portal page, at least not without context and explanation. As I mention above, its presence could easily be used by transphobes to demonise trans kids and to attack Wikipedia.

Yes, there is an element of respectability politics in what I am saying here and, yes, respectability politics is cringe, but let's focus on saving the Portal, not just argue about that one image. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Net negative for readers. Readers who get to the end of the Transgender article should not click on the link to Portal:Transgender but should read another article about transgender people if they want to keep learning about this topic. There's no benefit for readers in being directed toward this inferior content fork as opposed to any mainspace page about transgender people. Having the wrong architecture and lacking support from a WikiProject, which is inevitably accompanied by a lack of maintenance, is a sure signal that the portal should be deleted.—Alalch E. 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to save this? Would reverting to the older version help? Could another WikiProject "adopt" it? Can we make it a net positive for readers? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting that an editor added this portal as the second of the two portals allegedly mantained by the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies ~~in 2020 (see diff)~~ (edit: corrected below, see reply—14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). There has never been any discussion about organizing maintenance or improvement efforts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. There is a 2008 post about how the portal "needs some content added" (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 17#Portal:Transgender), and that's it. The state of the portal, a look at its page history, and a look at its talk page show that it is unmaintained. There is also the Portal:LGBTQ. It is better. That might be the portal which one or more WikiProject LGBTQ+ members want to maintain, not the Transgender portal. I don't think that anyone wants to adopt it. Reverting to an older version would not help. We can't make it a net positive for readers, it should go. —Alalch E. 13:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I didn't add the portal to the project's scope in 2020, that was done in 2010. My 2020 edit was just a result of retiring the old project navigation template that previously linked to it. It has always been maintained (notionally if not in practice) by WP:LGBTQ+.--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. —Alalch E. 14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I want us to find a way to save this but the problems being raised here are real and I'm not sure what the way forward is. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted then that should be without prejudice to anybody having another go at making a valid portal under this name in the future. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many arguments based on WP:OTHER. This MFD is based on recent discussions about problems related to the outdated “Purposes of portals”. The image in question and the number of pageviwes are just examples of these problems stemming from a lack of maintenance and WP:PWP. As another example, the portal is linked in only 391 articles in the main space, a very small number in a universe with millions of articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The portal is supported by WP:LGBTQ+, and has been since 2010. I wouldn't contest that it has somewhat fallen by the wayside over the years, but I think it would only be fair to alert the WikiProject of the need to improve the portal and see if there is any current interest in doing so. If nothing is done in a few months, I would support selectively merging into Portal:LGBTQ.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supported in name only. The nominal support didn't convert into visible improvements over many years, causing the portal to still have the bad and unsustainable architecture. It isn't fair to say that it's supported when this support is non-material. And what's the benefit to the reader of Wikipedia? It doesn't even have featured content like FA-class transgender articles (Is there an automatically generated list of FA-class articles on transgender topics?), featured topics, featured images ... —Alalch E. 16:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:LGBTQ+ would need to step up and make that support a reality. I just think the project should be given a chance to do so. A notice of this deletion discussion hasn't even been posted on the project talk page. The quality issues aren't a reason to delete, because they would be resolved if the maintenance situation is improved.--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quality issues generally aren't a reason to delete an article provided that the subject of the article is a notable topic—it is that reason outside of the page which provides a reason for its existence. But with portals, we do not have known, generally accepted reasons for their existence, so we have nothing to go by except their quality vis-à-vis impact on the reader. —Alalch E. 22:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because there is no need and no reason for this portal that is obsolete in three ways:

The portal relies on subpages which are partial copies of the selected articles, and so are content forks which do not reflect changes in the articles. One effect is that deceased persons are listed as living persons. More modern architectures relying on transclusion exist and are in use, so there is no reason for this obsolescent architecture.
The portal is not being maintained, and so does not provide a current selection of articles. Being "sponsored" by a WikiProject is not the same as being maintained.
Portals have been obsolete since the start of Wikipedia and the implementation of portals as part of the Wikipedia architecture. Portals are no longer needed on the Internet because search engines can provide much of the original functionality of portals. Portals were never needed in a hypertext-based system such as Wikipedia where an overview of a subject is available by links, and Wikipedia also has categories

If there is no one who is available to modernize or re-architect the portal, that is a further indication that the portal is unmaintained.

This portal is being used more than most portals, which would warrant keeping it if it had a modern architecture for the premodern purpose of being a portal. In calendar 2024, there were an average of 76 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 4685 for the article. In calendar 2023, there were an average of 85 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 5682 for the article. More than 50 daily pageviews is high demand for a portal. Although portals are obsolete, there would be a reason to keep a portal that had a modern architecture. This one does not.

The Heymann criterion should be to reimplement the portal within five days. Otherwise it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation with an architecture that does not rely on content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What are High-Quality Arguments for Forming Consensus?

I'm requesting this after seeing and replying to this move request, which was looking to userfy this page (rather than deleting, which I am not requesting, but of course that's the discussion's prerogative.) I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it was suggested in the RM that this is a more appropriate venue, and hopefully it gets more attention here. ASUKITE 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~~Bensci54~~, sorry, wrong person @Cremastra (pinging the two participants from the RM) ASUKITE 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka ASUKITE 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know how this text came into being, but it's terrible, and I suspect it was LLM-generated. If not deleting, userfy.—Alalch E. 13:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Great Edit War

XfD1=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Great Edit War

This allegedly humorous page glorifies and encourages edit warring and vandalism. We've been trying to stop this idiotic behavior for a very long time, we don't need a page that glorifies this stupidity. The page advertised when the last period of protection would end, and wouldn't you know it, people speaking this same gibberish started vandalising it right away and it was protected again. This isn't humor, it's just stupid.

For the record the previous MFD for this page was something about it having temporarily been translated into Turkish or something, it did not address the substance of the page. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not need this nonsense. Bduke (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia history. Suitable for reflective essays, whether or not humourous. Coverage does not encourage. It is not nonsense. The truth is mildly astonishing. The essay would be improved with dates, details and diffs. What is interesting to me is how little mildly astonishing things motivate oddly determined editing by unencultured Wikipedians. Beeblebrox should have noted that he was involved, not in a bad way, but still, involved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, prefer to redirect to WP:LAME#Caesar salad, allowing merging from the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Caesar salad - I think it's too long to merge to WP:LAME, but looks like it fits in with that type of page. - jc37 09:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it is too long to merge. Right now I would trim it, and I don’t think Wikipedia essays need be limited by WP:SIZE like mainspace articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I wouldn't say this glorified anything, but it is making a lot of goofy jokes without saying much more (and in some respects less) than Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Caesar salad does. From the history this humour page was created as a stub in 2011 with a deadpan military infobox and stayed that way until last year, when it was expanded to the current "Julius Caesar came back to life, 517 million Wikipedians died" version by a lot of IPs and new SPA editors. --Belbury (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Caesar salad.—Alalch E. 11:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 8, 2025

Draft:Government Systems

There is already an existing article on List of forms of government. This draft seems to be AI-generated. AIs like ChatGPT are not reliable because they simply "pluck" any sources what they see, most of them are not trained to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Like humans, AI can sometimes also make mistakes. Essentially, AIs are bad at selecting which source is reliable. There is also a small probability that they can get the source from either deprecated sources or fake news site. Vitaium (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete since we are here, but the draft was already rejected and abandoned and G13 would have taken care of this soon enough anyway. SK2242 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because we are here, and because this should not be in Wikipedia because it is almost certainly the product of artificial intelligence. However, User:Vitaium, please do not bring rejected drafts to MFD unless they are being tendentiously resubmitted. Drafts that are ignored for six months will be auto-deleted. Bringing rejected drafts that are being ignored to MFD is a waste of community time. (Spam, attack pages, and sockpuppet drafts may be nominated for speedy deletion, which is a different process.) Perhaps you didn't know that ignored drafts are deleted in six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:HAROON YOUNAS 112

This draft is an autobiography created by an IP and the IP could be himself writing about his own life in this draft. Vitaium (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. However, this is a rejected draft, and would have been deleted on 15 February 2025 anyway, so it did not need to be brought to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think that this is a reasonable draft. KOLANO12 3 14:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 7, 2025

Template:User anti-American

Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive, and this one is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 00:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Userbox stating anti-any nation is inherently divisive. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User anti-Israel

Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive, and this one is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 00:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. KOLANO12 3 15:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EMD GT42CU AC

Duplicate of Downer EDI Rail GT42CU AC

Regular IP editor with a very strange editing pattern and causing a lot of disruption for other editors to clean up.

This should be deleted, not just shuttled around the namespaces again to simply make more work for everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EMD GT46C ACe

Duplicate of Downer EDI Rail GT46C ACe Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aurizon AL class

Duplicate of Australian National AL class Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Australian National AL class. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why would we want a cross-namespace redirect as a persistent end result of any of this? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EMD GT42CU ACe

Duplicate of Downer EDI Rail GT42CU ACe Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pointless copy. I don’t know why User:Liz draftified it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Liz draftified it because it looks very much like a valid article (having just been copied from one). But we don't need duplicates with (POV?) renames. Maybe what we really needed for all of these was a rename of the existing article to a better name. But that needs a proposal, sourcing and discussion before any action.

It's quite possible that EMD (a big maker of such things) is a better name prefix for these articles than their operator. But that's questionable and would need external material to back it up. I'd have definite opinions and sources if these were GB locos, but Australia is outside my knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Downer EDI Rail GT42CU ACe. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect. It was never a genuine draft. It was a pointless copy made by a disruptive IP, mistakenly draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why? Why would we want a cross-namespace redirect as a persistent end result of any of this? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 13:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 6, 2025

Portal:Genocide

Created in 2007, remained abandoned until 2018 when received few editions, but they have maintained the portal's obsolete structure. Statics subpages like Portal:Genocide/Selected article/1 and Portal:Genocide/Selected article/14 shows incorrect information. Not supported by any Wikiproject. Page views in the past 30 days, 747, against 51,354 views of main article. This portal is particularly problematic per WP:NPOV, does not make clear the criteria for displaying content relationships. Example, "Related portals" linking genocide to politics, religion or communism. Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Net negative for readers. Readers who get to the end of the Genocide article should not click on the link to Portal:Genocide but should read another article about genocide if they want to keep learning about this topic.—Alalch E. 01:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an inferior content fork of Genocide for readers, and an inferior redundant page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights for editors and potential editors, it is for all purposes a negative and should be culled. Nobody seems interested in the records of Wikipedia’s experiment of internet navigation by portals, an experiment that was already failed before the start of Wikipedia, eclipsed by internet search engines, so, delete without worrying about archiving. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator refers to an obsolete structure. They mean that the 30 selected articles (20 general articles and 10 biographies) are actually partial copies of the articles in mainspace. That means that they are content forks of the first paragraph of the article as it was in 2007. This approach is particularly dangerous with biographies, because in 17 years biographies of living persons may become biographies of dead persons without listing a date of death. Portals with this architecture should either be deleted or redesigned. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This portal was created in 2007 by an editor who has since edited sporadically, most recently in 2023, and has not maintained the portal. The portal has had drive-by maintenance between 2018 and 2021 by editors who like to do drive-by maintenance on portals, probably because they like portals, and maybe because they think that portals have some mystical value. The substantive value of portals has never been explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the portal isn't maintained and it transcludes from subpages that were copied years ago but never maintained. Since Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Brazil has been regularly edited it has diverged from Portal:Genocide/Selected article/14 and so that subpage (and the others like it) can no longer meet many policies or guidelines (like WP:V, WP:POVFORK, etc.). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wiki/lede

~~Unused discussion page from 2009; single author. Tule-hog (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Serves no purpose and has no value. Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just delete It's supposed to be transcluded from Talk:Wiki/Archive 2#New version, but the subpage transclusion was broken when it was archived to that page. We might move it to Talk:Wiki/Archive 2/lede so the subpage transclusion works, or subst it into that archive before deleting it, or fix the archive page to transclude it from where it is now. Anomie ⚔ 00:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Good catch, I should have checked through the archives more thoroughly. I went ahead with moving to a subpage of the archive; maybe I'll come back to redirect-for-deletion the current page later. Tule-hog (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:HeyDuggeeOfficial2024/sandbox/The Olden Days

Unattributed copies of Fandom content at https://peppapig.fandom.com/wiki/The_Olden_Days (et al.) some with transcripts which are probably copyright violations. Instead of providing attribution which would be a necessity if keeping and removing the probable copyvio content, I find that it is better to simply delete these pages.—Alalch E. 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of reasons. I'd normally be OK with leaving these in a user sandbox, but as unattributed copies from another wiki they also have a copyright problem, as well as the obvious WP:SCOPE problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as probable copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per given reasons. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Not sure how someone had the time to even make all this, even if they were copying large portions of it. SK2242 (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject People

This is not a proper way to create a WikiProject. And also it is redundant to WikiProject Biography. Should we merge it? Vitaium (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace is self-cleaning (see WP:G13) so it isn't important to bring pages like these up for discussion.—Alalch E. 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because we are here but draft space is self-cleaning. There is nothing here to merge. MFD is a content forum, but we should be ready to clean up more junk created by that IP range. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Roblox

Unlike the previously deleted WikiProject Roblox, this one is a draft version created by an IP. Sadly, many Roblox games, players and any other stuffs aren't notable enough to qualify as article and many of that sources for Roblox related topic are generally unreliable and the creator itself did not follow the guideline how to create a WikiProject. Vitaium (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because we are here. This is a rejected draft, and could have been left alone for six months, but, as the nominator says, it is going nowhere, and is not a draft article, but a draft WikiProject, which is not the way WikiProjects come into being. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 4, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Windows 12
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Windows 12 [edit] Draft:Windows 12 (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) – (View MfD) This draft has been declined numerous times as per WP:CRYSTAL. We also have no idea what would be the name for the next Windows version and there is a chance that Microsoft would change its naming scheme so the name might not be Windows 12. I would also suggest to create protect this draft until it has been officially announced by Microsoft Vitaium (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Delete per policy. Cretinous page, now four years in the making. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Per nom. This draft has been declined many times because no information about Windows 12 has been officially released and the main space version of Windows 12 has been deleted multiple times. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] KeepBECAUSE DRAGONFLY IS A FUTURE TITAN PROBE AND WHY ARE YOU DELETING IT ITS THE SAME AS THE BEATLES UPCOMING EVENT AND YOU JUST DELETE IT. ಠ_ಠ Iamsteve69420 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Iamsteve69420: Your reason is not reasonable and we are not deleting this draft, we are deciding whether the draft should be deleted or not. Vitaium (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please don't reply in all caps. That means you are shouting or screaming, and can be viewed as a bit childish. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sorry maybe im a bad lawyer Iamsteve69420 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Troll blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~ - Rejected twice after 7 declines. This is a waste of the community's time in dealing with users who keep ignoring the need to get rid of this zombie page. ECP SALT so that an experienced editor can create either a draft or a redirect when there is news from Microsoft about the next version of Windows. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I noted in another MFD that drafts should only be nominated for deletion in extraordinary circumstances. Being rejected twice and declined 7 times is the sort of extraordinary circumstance that calls for deletion of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Keep. While this would never make it into mainspace right now, this is a product that is likely to be released in the future. I have it watchlisted so that when reliable sources start covering it more, I can watch as the article is expanded and possibly promote it to mainspace. As an example, here's a major tech website that released an article on this a couple weeks ago. What is needed here is for new editors to stop submitting this when it is in a state that will not pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The existence of this page is consistent with WP:DRAFTREASON #3. The purpose of drafts is satisfied and the contents are not so bad as to be categorically unfit for public viewing on the entire en.wikipedia.org website. But I get it, okay, I get it... Maybe block any tendentious resubmitters and implement some protection.—Alalch E. 19:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Striking Delete per Novem Linguae comment, and not replacing it with an opinion. If the draft is kept, it should be ECP Protected so that inexperienced editors cannot submit it for review. If it is submitted by experienced editors, they should know better and should be partially blocked. No longer saying Delete or Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Windows 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Windows 12

This draft has been declined numerous times as per WP:CRYSTAL. We also have no idea what would be the name for the next Windows version and there is a chance that Microsoft would change its naming scheme so the name might not be Windows 12. I would also suggest to create protect this draft until it has been officially announced by Microsoft Vitaium (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy. Cretinous page, now four years in the making. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This draft has been declined many times because no information about Windows 12 has been officially released and the main space version of Windows 12 has been deleted multiple times. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBECAUSE DRAGONFLY IS A FUTURE TITAN PROBE AND WHY ARE YOU DELETING IT ITS THE SAME AS THE BEATLES UPCOMING EVENT AND YOU JUST DELETE IT. ಠ_ಠ Iamsteve69420 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamsteve69420: Your reason is not reasonable and we are not deleting this draft, we are deciding whether the draft should be deleted or not. Vitaium (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reply in all caps. That means you are shouting or screaming, and can be viewed as a bit childish. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry maybe im a bad lawyer Iamsteve69420 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Troll blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Rejected twice after 7 declines. This is a waste of the community's time in dealing with users who keep ignoring the need to get rid of this zombie page. ECP SALT so that an experienced editor can create either a draft or a redirect when there is news from Microsoft about the next version of Windows. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noted in another MFD that drafts should only be nominated for deletion in extraordinary circumstances. Being rejected twice and declined 7 times is the sort of extraordinary circumstance that calls for deletion of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this would never make it into mainspace right now, this is a product that is likely to be released in the future. I have it watchlisted so that when reliable sources start covering it more, I can watch as the article is expanded and possibly promote it to mainspace. As an example, here's a major tech website that released an article on this a couple weeks ago. What is needed here is for new editors to stop submitting this when it is in a state that will not pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of this page is consistent with WP:DRAFTREASON #3. The purpose of drafts is satisfied and the contents are not so bad as to be categorically unfit for public viewing on the entire en.wikipedia.org website. But I get it, okay, I get it... Maybe block any tendentious resubmitters and implement some protection.—Alalch E. 19:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Striking Delete per Novem Linguae comment, and not replacing it with an opinion. If the draft is kept, it should be ECP Protected so that inexperienced editors cannot submit it for review. If it is submitted by experienced editors, they should know better and should be partially blocked. No longer saying Delete or Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ended today on 12 January 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Categories:

Hidden categories: