Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

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

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

Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Files 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.
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. Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

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}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}

If the nomination is for a userbox, use <noinclude>{{mfd}}</noinclude> as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

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.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.

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.
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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
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	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	7	63	70
TfD	0	7	7
MfD	0	0	13
FfD	0	27	27
AfD	0	89	89

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.

February 28, 2021

Wikipedia:FixFirst

Replaced by WP:FIXFIRST. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete WP:G7 SK2242 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete (G7) — csc^-1 21:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete Obvious G7. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:ENF - Embarrassed Nude Female/sandbox

Abandoned draft, no potential for ever becoming an article. Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not quite CSD#U5, as it conceivably could get into Plot device, but that article is not a list of all plot devices, and this is a very shallow one. I think you should have blanked it on discovery, as it is not worth having everyone here think about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - This has been abandoned for six-plus years by an editor who came and went six-plus years ago. The name of the account used by the editor is the same as the name of the plot device, which means that the account was created for the purpose of creating this draft, which means that the account was a sockpuppet account of someone. That isn't G5, but it is another reason to delete after this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Clear U5, whatever the hell this is it needs to go. SK2242 (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Has very little chance of becoming part of an encyclopaedia article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I actually searched TV Tropes before filing this, because the style is so close I thought it might be a simple cut and paste copyright infringement speedy delete. I Didn't find a smoking gun, but the copied page may have been deleted from TT years ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete — Clearly non-encyclopedic, get it out of here. — csc^-1 21:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - One question - Just why ?...... Anywho doesn't improve the 'pedia in any way, shape or form. –Davey2010^Talk 17:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

February 26, 2021

User:Heymikeyatl/sandbox

Unsourced promotional micronation b.s. Delete per WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTAWEBHOST Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon.

I am Michael J. Fanning, Atlanta Blogger and Journalists. The information I posted is both verifiable and violates not copyrights. Nor is this propaganda but a mere statement of facts that are verifiable in other media (i.e, books, articles, etc. listed in the reference section). If formatting is an issue please advise. As to the claim of unsourced promotional micronation b.s. the article spoke to documents publicly filed, published, and verifiable. The organization seeking UN recognition has a public petition with over a thousand supporters and is working with other organizations groups, and governments, to seek admittance to the United Nations. Was your assertion that this is b.s. referring to the notion of the organization seeking statehood under the precepts outlined by the United Nations, or in reference to the social cause they list as the impetus for their work? Ones personal beliefs should not be sufficient to bar verifiable facts from public entry to the encyclopedia. The subject of this article has been featured in the Atlanta Voice, on various domestic and international news cites, as well as reference in books. Please list what facts are in question or went without citation and they can be responded to directly. Is it your and or Wikipedia's stance that a civil service organization seeking to create solutions for racial equality with membership and support in the thousands is not noteworthy? Please Advise Heymikeyatl (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you've got a blog already, that's the perfect place for this kind of material. It is not what Wikipedia is intended for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, this is some real WP:FRINGE stuff here. — csc^-1 22:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - hoax and/or fringe theory that is clearly not going to make it to mainspace. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete @Heymikeyatl: As a matter of Wikipedia policy, any material included in the encyclopedia should be verifiable from reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and should maintain a neutral point of view. This page, were it to be submitted as a mainspace article, would be subject to speedy deletion as overly promotional, and does not establish that you are notable enough (in Wikipedia's sense of the term) to merit an article here. Further, we strongly discourage autobiographies and other editing where a conflict of interest is involved. As for your edits to Bir Tawil, the sources provided are your own website (not independent), and a self-published book (not even close to being reliable), which fall far short if the sourcing we would want to see even if your claim were valid.

As for declaring it to be "promotional micronation b.s.", I wouldn't have put it quite that way, but you have to understand that Bir Tawil has been claimed as a new nation by hundreds of people over the years, and we've had to revert material for literally dozens of these claims from the article thereon because they were equally (or more) inadequately sourced than your claim here, and no more (or less) valid, and to editors who keep watch over this article it can seem like an endless game of Whac-A-Mole. Besides, in my personal opinion I'd rank your claim well behind those of this bloke in England who bothered to have an actual coronation ceremony or this guy who at least made the effort to travel to Bir Tawil to lay his claim. --Finngall ^talk 23:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If all the people who have claimed Bir Tawil over the years were actually forced to live there, there'd probably be enough of them to create a viable community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Except that all of them would insist that they're in charge of the place. --Finngall ^talk 23:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - A user sandbox is user space, and U5 applies, in addition to the other reasons cited above. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Hellstrom (film)

Recently created draft by an IP on a film project that has not been confirmed to exist. Likely a hoax and personal interest of the creator. This should not be in draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete hoax. SK2242 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak Keep only because MFD does not need to do the work of verifying the information in drafts. That can be done by the reviewer if the draft is submitted. If submitted, decline or reject. If never submitted, leave for G13. If repeatedly resubmitted, semi-protect, or delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak Keep as a draft, though it'll likely find its way over to G13. — csc^-1 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. This is the sort of thing draftspace is good for. There could be something in this rumour, and draftspace keeps it out of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep - If it's a hoax the reviewer can tag it as such. (I don't care enough to go searching). –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

February 24, 2021

Draft:Miniminter

Since the October 2020 decline this draft was resubmitted four times without any significant improvement, two of which were after the rejection notice was placed. Time to put this to bed. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete and I should remember to watchlist these drafts. SK2242 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete and ECP Salt in draft space - This was resubmitted twice after rejection, which is only visible in the history because the reviewer reverted the resubmissions. Resubmission after rejection (without discussion) is tendentious and calls for either MFD or some other sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Miniminter is already salted in article space, and should be left salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. See also the talk page, where I added some background information a while ago. There is a complete lack of good faith here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete and salt per nom. Undecided on whether full or ECP salting is justified. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete draft ~~but make Miniminter into a redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group)~~: The draft itself has indeed failed to prove the person's notability for his own individual Wikipedia article and it's unlikely, short of an immediate major overhaul by the draft maker, that this situation will improve on short notice. However, his group, the Sidemen, has been proven to be notable in of itself and his online name should be at least used as a redirect to that article, not indefinitely salted. That being said, should a redirect be made from Miniminter, said redirect should be locked immediately after creation to prevent users from trying to sneakily convert it into his own proper article. –WPA (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comment: I've noticed that his real name, Simon Minter, already exists as a redirect to his group. –WPA (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Update: My requested redirect has been created since my vote was made. –WPA (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete due to continual resubmission after rejection. — csc^-1 22:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete as the person who rejected the draft; no serious improvement since declination. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Alexander Jackson Maier-Dlamini

Appears to be mostly a hoax, I can't find anywhere that reliably states the subject is infact an aristocrat Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete as the core claim to notability (a British/Irish noble title) appears to be made up from whole cloth. There is no record of any 'Marquess of Annaville' in any records of the British Peerage, despite what the author of the article claims, nor can I find any reference of this person being married to a Liswati prince. I realise that WP:NMFD states that drafts should only be brought here if they have been repeatedly submitted and declined (and I doubt two submissions, even without any improvement between them meets the standard of 'repeatedly'), but given that this article is exceptionally unlikely to ever meet the standards for mainspace, and is a pretty clear-cut hoax, I ask that we apply a little WP:IAR and send it to the bit bucket. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, as a combination of G3 and G11. The British and African nobility/royalty claims are clearly made up and they are just used to promote the subject. Delete the Marquess. Nsk92 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the Prince too, G3/G11. What's with these people's obsession with fake titles? Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete hoax. SK2242 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per the made nobility claims. — csc^-1 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Probable G3, and we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The sources are significant and confirm the information. I’d say let the page publish and if the claims are false they would yield a pretender section, which would be worse than a deletion. I see grounds for publishing as the punishment for anything washy in details would be part of what could be a long, elaborate ruse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B8D9:DFE0:B9AF:E67E:1969:3FD5 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
We absolutely CANNOT do that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The information is certainly accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B8D9:DFE0:B9AF:E67E:1969:3FD5 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - While I would normally be inclined to ignore the sourcing here (as this is a draft) a quick perusal of the sources makes it pretty obvious the nobility claim is made out of whole cloth, and a Google search likewise returns jack on that claim and on notability references en generale (strings: Alexander Jackson Maier-Dlamini, Alexander Jackson Maier). While an argument could be made that this is not G3able (as most of the sources proffered are based upon his acting roles), I get the sense this is G11able, with the fabricated nobility claims being a rather blatant promotion attempt. I should note the subject-apparent, who I presume is the IPv6 in this discussion, also attempted to canvass helpers at #wikipedia-en-help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 05:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete the addenda as well. No source means no go. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - For evidence of this being a hoax, the creator of this article tried to add the Marquess of Annaville to the List of marquesses in the peerages of Britain and Ireland with a creation date of 1843. A search in the 1847 edition of Debrett's Peerage finds only 2 mentions of Annaville, with both of them referring to the town of origin for Lady Harriet O'Brien's husband. Lady Harriet O'Brien was the sister of the 2nd and 3rd Marquessees of Thomond. The 1850 edition of Burke's Peerage finds no results for Annaville. Additionally, The London Gazette, where peerage appointments are officially published to this day, has only 7 results for a search for Annaville, 1 from 2008, 5 from the between 1936 and 1956, and the oldest from 1852, 10 years after the marquessate would have been created. None of these results refer to a marquessate, but instead are a mix of references to the actual village of Annaville or to streets that are named Annaville. The main "source" they are relying on is an article published in the St. Lucia Star, which they had uploaded photos of onto Commons, which were deleted for copyright reasons. The article was written by Alexander Jackson Maier-Dlamini himself and claimed that he had received a phone call last week telling him that he was suddenly the 11th Marquess of Annaville, but offered no proof beyond his own claim. I have not been able to find a digital copy of this article, so unfortunately I can't include it for reference. Emk9 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional note, should Draft:Sungani Maveni Maier-Dlamini, Alexander Jackson Maier-Dlamini's husband be bundled with this discussion? Emk9 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. I was going to add it, but that would be poor form for a nomination that's not mine (oops!). @Zppix: what say you? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Added as clearly deletable under the same criteria as the other draft. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. It's a hoax and it's vanity spam. Blablubbs|talk 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Per Firefly; no evidence of notability and strong evidence of hoax. Darren-M talk 21:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

February 23, 2021

User:BSAEagle5000

Clear-cut WP:NOTHERE, using Wikipedia space to host fan fiction/original content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, quite clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — csc^-1 00:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Close enough to U5 to be unquestionable delete here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

February 22, 2021

User:Hero3409

Wikipedia is not a webhost for fan fiction/fan-created/made-up content. See WP:NOTMADEUP and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The author also indicated that it is fan made in this edit (Also now made very clear here). Magitroopa (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: User:BSAEagle5000 also seems to be a major amount of fanmade content, that may need to be deleted as well. Might also fall under WP:NOTHERE, specifically the Editing only in user space part. Magitroopa (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: They could be sockpuppets of each other? -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - I don't understand why anyone with half a braincell would ever want to create something made up .... it's obviously not going anywhere so why waste your time ?, Anyway delete per NOTMADEUP/NOTHERE. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. — csc^-1 00:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete meets section U5 of CSD-misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, the user has too many mainspace edits for U5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- They have 13 edits (out of 234 total) in mainspace. -Cupper52^Discuss! 16:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  - These thirteen look to be good contributions. This makes him a contributor, and so U5 doesn't fit. The low mainspace versus userspace ratio speaks to a possible NOTWEBHOST issue, but the speedy criterion has an unusual broadness that is tempered by the requirement that the user is not a contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete as falls outside the purpose of Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete for at least two reasons:
- - As per Rubbish computer, outside the scope of Wikipedia.
  - Close to U5 although not U5. CSD criteria must be unquestionable, but often a CSD criterion has a penumbra. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. It is not OK to put made up stuff on your userpage. Maybe in a sandbox, but even then, your userspace playing needs to be small in proportion to your actual contributions, or you are in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Borderline G3 Db-hoax case. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC) ended today on 2 March 2021. 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.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please change this notice to {{No admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

February 21, 2021

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Verified

Unused 'template'. Izno (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unused template from 2008. — csc^-1 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, not used anymore, and if we ever want to go back this path we can always recreate the tree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/Participant

Unused 'template'. Izno (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, as an unused template from 2007. — csc^-1 05:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic/Navigation

Unused 'template' in project space. Izno (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks noticeboard header

Unused 'template' in the Wikipedia namespace. Izno (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak Keep unless the SPI clerks say to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The user who created this left Wikipedia in 2015 and no added content has been made since. If the clerks really deemed this essential then it would have had some use by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete sincerely, an SPI clerk Sro23 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ohiostateeagles/Tahir Naqvi

Unreferenced userspace draft from ten years ago of a banned account, no good evidence this person exists and there's not much content here either way. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, abandoned draft that's never going to go anywhere. — csc^-1 05:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Debris that has been abandoned for nearly ten years. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Tony Patt/sandbox/Elections/2016 United States presidential election in Absaroka

Given that the state of Absaroka was never formed (briefly proposed in 1939), I don't see how a hypothetical 2016 election for this state is compliant with WP:NOTWEBHOST. Hog Farm _Talk 20:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — csc^-1 05:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. I am tempted to CSD tag this page as {{Db-hoax}}. Nsk92 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - As Nsk92 says, this could be G3, but we are here, so delete as a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - while a well made and interesting hypothetical, Wikipedia isn't a free webhost, nor is it for things made up one day. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mickeys1fan/sandbox

Old alternate-history election sandbox. Wikipedia is not a free web host. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — csc^-1 05:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete as not web host. But better science fiction than sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:BippyTheGuy/sandbox

Old alternate-history election sandbox. Wikipedia is not a free web host. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST — csc^-1 05:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete as per Firefly and Arccossecant. We are not a paid web host either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signpost/Templates/Signpost-article-start/Portal:Featured content

Unused 'template' in Wikipedia space. Izno (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 17, 2021

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed/de

full list of pages

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) bibliomaniac 1 5 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/MediaWiki:Noarticletext/es, as an English language Wikipedia, it is entirely pointless to have personalized messages in [foreign languages] as it is expected that those contributing have a decent command of English. In summary: In order to contribute to this project, you need to have enough of a command of English to understand all the English-language system messages and policies that we put there, and translating these messages will probably just encourage non-fluent English speakers to contribute to this project in broken English, rather than contributing to their own language Wikipedia fluently without problems. For this reason, I nominated this list of 108 pages for deletion and would prefer deletion of all of these above messages. If this should be discussed in the village pump instead, I am happy to raise my concerns there. Aasim (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoa there if these pages are empty or otherwise useless, then sure delete. But otherwise having a page such as MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon/nl exist doesn't seem to be following the nominators deletion argument. If you are a multi-language editor and have your interface language set to your common language you will see these messages instead of the local custom english version - else you will get the mediawiki default which could be even worse. This nomination is a bit broad to not have more specific reasons for specific pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I know people like to set their interface language to their foreign language, but speaking from the point of view of someone who predominantly speaks English, my contributions on other language wikis would not be super helpful. Plus we also have the Wikipedia:Embassy for those who cannot communicate or understand Wikipedia policies very well. The level of English required to contribute to an English project (and this is true for other languages as well, not just English) is very high. En-1 and En-2 does not cut it. Sure you may be able to edit at En-2 but the kinds of edits you can make are very limited compared to En-N or En-3/4.

And the MediaWiki default being "worse"? I disagree a little. You still have access to all the tools, they are just not conveniently linked at the bottom of every talk page. The solution is just go to your native wiki or an international wiki (like MediaWiki or Meta) and you get the tools linked at the bottom there. Aasim (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep English Wikipedia, as the most prominent Wikipedia, should remain accessible to editors of different languages. There is very little cost to keeping these. Zoozaz1 talk 18:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Reject nomination and send this matter to a venue better equipped to debate it. The community should be queried, mayhaps through an rfc at somewhere like the village pump, regarding the appropriateness of such pages (i.e. seemingly translations of abuse filters) as a class. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 13:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jay Drew

Unsourced BLP, a request to add sources has been ignored. SK2242 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete as an unsourced BLP. It also happens to be promotion and no hint of notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- I could find no reliable independent source. Unsourced BLPs should be deleted exactly per BLPPROD, allow seven days to find a reliable source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NMFD, though I have no doubt it will be G13'd. — csc^-1 16:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP is policy that is active in all namespaces. NMFD does not explicitly mention unsourced BLPs as something not to delete, and should not be used as a response to just any draft at MfD. SK2242 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Draftspace exists as a place for articles to be developed, obviously any contentious material should be removed per policy, but otherwise it should just be left for WP:G13. — csc^-1 17:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

- NMFD is about non-notability not being allowed to be the primary reason to delete a draft, but given another reason, it can be considered. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep for now, hasn't been submitted yet. Can be tagged for autobiography if it has a promotional tone. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Will this person ever be notable ? Well judging by these search results the answer's no. Most Nigerian/Zambian bios created here tend to not be notable and this draft looks nothing different from the rest of the now-deleted drafts/articles. If he becomes notable in the future someone can go to REFUND or just recreate. –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Drafts allow time to compile and add sources; if nothing comes of it, then the darkness that is G13 will snuff out its light. If it is unreasonably promotional to the point of no hope, then request it be speedied. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep autobio that will be G13d in the course of time. Java Hurricane 14:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak Keep because notability does not apply to drafts, and because SmokeyJoe has a good idea about unsourced draft BLPs, but it isn't policy yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak delete, too promotional, there really is no plausible indication of notability now and no realistic chance of becoming notable any time soon, as Davey2010's search indicates. I don't see a point in retaining this draft for months "just because". Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

February 9, 2021

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Falangist

Userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NONAZIS. See other previous discussions about such userboxes. — csc^-1 19:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete These discussions have shown that this userbox is inflammatory enough to be deleted according to policy. Zoozaz1 talk 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep The label "fascist" is not a reason for deletion. It is a reprehensible philosophy, but in this case there is a clear distinction between the policies of Falangist Spain, which was immoral but not evil (as in not committing genocide), and more destructive fascist ideology, such as Nazism, which was both immoral and evil. Just because something is fascist doesn't mean it should be deleted. Zoozaz1 talk 03:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Falangist Spain, which was immoral but not evil (as in not committing genocide) Patently untrue. Please read White Terror (Spain). The Falangist regime absolutely engaged in terror and genocide. The fact that it wasn't as well-publicized as The Holocaust does not diminish its significance.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

~~That is a lot of terror, definitely, but that doesn't mean it was a genocide, which has a very specific definition according to the UN.~~ Zoozaz1 talk 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't move the goalposts. Terror is terror. Indeed, the United Nations as you referenced is investigating further the crimes against humanity (disclaimer: link copied from article is broken) committed by the Francoist regime. The Francoists and Falangists are one and the same. It's bad enough that you are voting to keep this userbox, but don't use ignorance of their misdeeds as a defense. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not moving any goalposts. Any ideology that has been implemented at scale has had moments of terror. Should we delete userboxes supporting America, or Republicans or Democrats, because of the treatment (arguably genocide, certainly crimes against humanity) of the Native Americans? Britain because of its Empire? Democracy because of the massive slavery and repression it was founded during by some of its most notable adherents? We can go on and on. There are lines to be drawn, but I do not think they should be drawn here. Zoozaz1 talk 16:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't want to humor this conversation any further, as the false equivalency and whataboutism in attempting to equate the terror of the Franco regime - something that is still fresh in the minds of Spaniards - to prior misdeeds of other countries is an ideological exercise that will lead nowhere good. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per nom and per the keep comment of Zoozaz1 above. Yes, if a userbox is fascist (in this case by definition), absolutely, that does mean that it should be deleted. WP:NONAZIS, please. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep I do not see how it violates WP:UBCR as it is trying to recruit anyone to join. I also believe that a political ideology by itself is not substantially divisive. As for WP:POLEMIC I do not believe that this would be considered an attack on anyone or a group of people. As all the userbox states is what that particular user identifies as. As for WP:NONAZIS it is an essay, and as such has not been vetted by the community, that being the case, I feel that the case for WP:NONAZIS is moot. AfricanChristmas (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Lets keep in mind that WP:NONAZIS is not a policy or guideline. If you think this guideline should be then I would look to discussions (if any) on why this was never put into place. Other than that this template recruits or targets nobody as the movement is used in past tense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The userbox is incredibly inflammatory. Perhaps in Spain some apologists of the Franco regime still argue about the fine differences between fascism and Nazism but the most of the rest of the world does not care to make that distinction. Nsk92 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Can't believe we even need to discuss this. WP:NONAZIS please and thank you. WaltCip-(talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/ Brazillian Integralist

Unused userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NONAZIS. See other previous discussions about such userboxes. — csc^-1 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Similar to my reasoning on Falangism. Brazilian Integralists explicitly distanced themselves from Nazis. A horrible philosophy, yes. One deserving of editors being banned from expressing their support of it, no. Zoozaz1 talk 03:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per nom and per the keep comment of Zoozaz1 above, similar to the other MfD for a similar userbox. Yes, if a userbox is fascist (and Brazilian Integralism is by, definition, fascist), absolutely, that does mean that it should be deleted. WP:NONAZIS, please. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates