Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

Technopedia Center

Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
S1 Informatics S1 Information Systems S1 Information Technology S1 Computer Engineering S1 Electrical Engineering S1 Civil Engineering

faculty of Economics and Business
S1 Management S1 Accountancy

Faculty of Letters and Educational Sciences
S1 English literature S1 English language education S1 Mathematics education S1 Sports Education

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, February 2011, from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion, see discussion.
No consensus (not moved), May 2016, from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion, see discussion.

Archives

/Archive 1: Aug 2005 – Dec 2006
/Archive 2: Jan 2007 – Dec 2007
/Archive 3: Jan 2008 – Sep 2008
/Archive 4: Oct 2008 – Sep 2009
/Archive 5: Oct 2009 – Dec 2010
/Archive 6: Jan 2011 – Dec 2011
/Archive 7: Jan 2012 – Dec 2012
/Archive 8: Jan 2013 – Dec 2013
/Archive 9: Jan 2014 – Mar 2016
/Archive 10: Mar 2016 – May 2016
/Archive 11: May 2016 – Jul 2017
/Archive 12: Jul 2017 – Jan 2018
/Archive 13: Mar 2018 – Apr 2018
/Archive 14: May 2018 – Jun 2018
/Archive 15: Jun 2018 – Jul 2018
/Archive 16: Oct 2018 – Sep 2019
/Archive 17: Sep 2019 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move

A discussion has been initiated regarding redirects from the draftspace to the mainspace that are not the result of a move, as well as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect. Interested editors are welcome to comment at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Redirects from draftspace to the mainspace which are not the result of a move. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relists not working anymore

Seems something must've changed recently with how the bot relists discussions. There have now been multiple discussions relisted in the past few weeks, but these discussions are not moving to the Date which the relist occurred. Something is broken. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MFD request: Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?

This post violates POINT. DNFTT Star Mississippi 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe this page was created in response to an onslaught of articles here related to BFDI or other shows inspired by it, however, this page is probably not needed any more, and may violate WP:POINT. I couldn't find any coverage of BFDI in news sources from when the page was written, but there is some news coverage of BFDI now. While this news coverage is likely not enough to warrant a full article, the very nature of this essay is preventing an article on BFDI from ever being written. Maybe this should be a footnote in WP:GNG, but to me, it just seems like an example of WP:GNG that will probably become invalid in the near-future and is preventing an article on BFDI from existing. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page will never be deleted. When the BFDI article is created it will be marked as historical with a note saying that, in spite of what the essay says, the article now exists. The essay does not prevent the creation of the BFDI article. It is unimportant and just a nice-to-have. It actually exists out of courtesy to you (yes, you), to help you understand the situation. What prevents the creation are technical barriers imposed by administrators, which are supported by consensus. They can be challenged at the WP:Deletion review forum by saying that the barriers should be removed because there is new evidence that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. If you go there now and say that there is such evidence, you will need to show it. If you don't show it, the discussion will be summarily shut down. If you show only weak evidence, the same thing will happen. You will need to show strong and conclusive evidence. If editors agree with your assessment, a decision will be made to allow recreation, and the technical barrier will be torn down, and the BFDI article will be live again (once it is recreated). And as with any article, it will still be possible to delete it even then, by consensus. —Alalch E. 13:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about BFDI. My knowledge of the web series is almost non-existent other than a few clips I have seen floating around. I merely found it odd that there is an essay which consists of what would be an article (albeit an unsourced article) and then a ton of information related to why said article shouldn't exist. I perfectly understand WP:GNG, and I am aware that an article about BFDI would likely be inappropriate at the current time. However, I was completely unaware of how contentious this topic was, and I apologize for making this request. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk pages nominated for deletion

Sometimes at MFD we see talk pages nominated for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should look very carefully at whether the nominator appears actually to be trying to nominate a talk page for deletion, for instance, to delete a record of discussion. Deleting a talk page is probably not in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If something was said that is so offensive that it should be removed from view, it is almost certainly better to ask an administrator to revision-delete the offensive post rather than delete the talk page. However, when I have seen talk pages nominated for deletion, it has usually been good-faith user error, in that the user was looking at the talk page for an article, and then clicked the XFD tab in Twinkle. Twinkle then does what it is asked to do, and nominates the talk page for deletion, but the user meant to nominate the article for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should ask the nominator if they were trying to nominate the article for deletion when viewing the talk page. These nominations are usually closed as Wrong Venue, and we should ask the nominator whether they made a good-faith error. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal scope

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Portal_scope about a proposal for a guideline to use empirical data to help determine whether a topic has sufficient scope to merit a portal. Please head over there for more detail and to join the discussion. Waggers TALK 10:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]