Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

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:

Administrator instructions

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.

July 21, 2024

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?/Rewrite

This page is a sandbox abandoned since 2007. It isn't useful anymore, so propose to delete it. See Wikipedia talk:Who writes Wikipedia?#Proposed rewrite. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? – no reason to make it inaccessible to non-administrators, which is all that deletion achieves. Graham87 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BMarGlines/Template:Channel Four Television Corporation

Speedy delete: It's a fake Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a sandbox BMarGlines (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 20, 2024

User:Valjean/Archive 32

This is a violation of numerous site policies.

1) Editors should not use Wikipedia for content that they insist other editors are not allowed to read or discuss. 2) The title is deliberately misleading; the page is not a talk-page archive, but an extremely long and rambling article about the "Donald Trump pee tape" and other rumors involving Russia. 3) Some of the accusations and insinuations against Mr. Trump are BLP violations; the clear intention of the article is to engage in personal attacks against Mr. Trump. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are allowed to use their private userspace for article development. The URL is deliberately neutral to avoid it being noticed and publicized by bad actors. I am not interested in promoting this content. Your opinions of the insinuations and accusations made by RS, Congressional investigations, and the intelligence community should not be used as the reason for deleting content that is being developed for an article. It is not ready for publication yet, so don't judge it as if it had already been publicized. That's an attitude that works against article development and our RS and Verifiability PAG. I am working on, revising, rearranging, and continually paring down, this article-to-be. This may not be its final format.

Keep your political views out of this. This is harassment. You should read it and the sources before acting, and then wait until publication. You will learn a lot.

Whether the rumor is true or not, RS and official investigations have written a lot about the rumor, and the topic is obviously quite notable, so an MfD or AfD would be improper. Harassment of editors while they are developing articles based on RS is a serious breach of conduct norms here and can have wide and damaging ramifications that prevent the development of potentially controversial articles. That is the effect here, and it's a really nasty move. The chilling effect is enormous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocrisy of a person who puts "This is my sandbox. No cats allowed. Just stay away. If you want to discuss this, DON'T use any talk pages. Email me." at the top of a page accusing others of a "chilling effect" and "harassment" for looking at it is immense. I will not reply to any of the other accusations against me. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because I don't want my work to be misused to push a POV or draw attention to it. That would be a forbidden misuse of userspace. You are the one drawing attention to it. Articles, not drafts, are what should get attention.

Stop and think about the chilling effect this has. No editor will ever be safe when creating legitimate content, no matter how notable and well-sourced. This kind of harassment should not be allowed, and we need a guideline to prevent it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for the following reasons:
- - This is an entirely negative page about a living person who is the subject of a biography of a living person. It is not an attack page that is subject to speedy deletion because it is sourced, but it violates neutral point of view.
  - If the user wants to develop article material without interference by other editors, they can do so on their own computer.
  - If the user wants to display content to the general public but does not want them to edit it and does not want them to discuss it on a talk page, then the user is seeking to use Wikipedia as a web host.
  - Since we already have an article on Donald J. Trump, the user appears to be developing a subordinate article. Discussion of whether to spin out or split an article should be on the talk page of the parent article, Talk:Donald J. Trump, not by creating a draft child article subject to article ownership.
  - The originator says that we need a guideline to prevent: This kind of harassment. I would be interested in seeing and reviewing the draft guideline.
  - This isn't exactly a sandbox and isn't exactly a draft, but it is problematic as either. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing this to a Weak Delete for now seeing that other experienced editors disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Neutral. ~~Apart from the problems of the content itself (BLP violations etc.)~~, the user needs to be reminded of WP:OWN. Placing limits on how a user page (or any page) can be discussed is not any one user's prerogative. I also ask my fellow MfD participants to review User:Valjean/Archive 31 and User:Valjean/Archive 30 which have very similar histories to the nominated page except they are blanked. They may also be eligible for deletion. Nickps (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back the part about BLP violations per the latitude users should be afforded in their own userspace. However, I still stand by my comment that placing limits on a talk page like it was done here should not be tolerated. Nickps (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nickps: thanks for your change of heart. I can understand your reaction to my rather terse and short note on the page. It was written at a time when I was under ferocious attack and harassment for working on some draft articles in my userspace, and I was very touchy. It forced me to delete years of work and research.
I have now revised that note and explain my reasons more fully. Please read it. It's also the first time I have publicly mentioned my autism, AFAIK. I'm not always good at communication, am not always diplomatic, and often make mistakes. I'm sorry about that. I appreciate helpful advice. I am not an anti-social person, just a bit awkward at times. Life is one continuous series of hourly misunderstandings, and that makes it a pain in the ass, yet I keep trying. I just wish there were some protections afforded to editors when working in their private userspace. In a publishing house, what has happened here would not be allowed. See my note for more on that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: please clarify a few things for me:

You say it "isn't exactly a sandbox". Please point me to the PAG that requires a page that is clearly labeled as "removed from search engines' indexes" and a "This is my sandbox." (plus "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.") to have a URL or title that also says "sandbox". What have I done wrong?
You say it "isn't exactly a draft". It is clearly labeled a "draft": "For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia: So you made a userspace draft." Please point me to the PAG that requires it to be labeled a "draft" in some other manner. The URL and title can be WXYZ or !@#$%^, AFAIK. I don't know of any rule about this.
Please point me to the PAG that forbids the creation of an article when it, right from the beginning, is obviously too large to be included in a main article. There are such things as articles that mention Trump where he is not the main topic of the article, even though it touches on him. The title describes the topic accurately and has high common name recognition value. What PAG have I violated?
You write "If the user wants to display content to the general public" I do not want to do that, hence the odd URL. I deliberately try NOT to draw attention to it. It is not an essay, and I do not mention it anywhere else, link to it, or share it anywhere else. I am not interested in misusing my userspace. I am doing what editors are allowed to do here, which is to use their userspace to host drafts they are developing as articles or other products useful to the project. What have I done wrong? What PAG have I violated?
BLP applies to "unsourced" negative content, not to properly sourced negative content that is part of documenting a topic like this one. You don't seem to have read the page or know what it's about. You probably think that what is written about it at Steele dossier covers the topic, but that barely scratches the surface, as this rumor started in 2013, and Trump has known about it since then, long before the dossier was imagined.

Please answer my questions. The content is based on myriad RS, many of the highest quality and reliability, as this has national security implications and is the subject of FBI and Congressional investigations, testimony, and several lawsuits by Trump, which he has lost.

You should read these DYK? items. Myriad RS are behind each one:

Did you know?

... that Trump has known about the rumor since he left Moscow in 2013?
... that the rumor did not start with the Steele dossier? The dossier only repeats the original rumor.
... that Trump has repeatedly lied about this? He even dared do it to the Director of the FBI.
... that Trump's lies were so blatant and egregious that they got the Director of the FBI to change from a pee tape skeptic to a maybe peeliever?
... that many other notable people have strong suspicions that the rumor is true?
... that Trump's own actions cause them to think this way?
... that before anyone pinpointed the possible time of the alleged incident, Trump lied very specifically about exactly that time?
... that his actions are considered evidence of his consciousness of guilt?
... that Trump and others have acted as if the tapes were real and actually exist?
... that Michael Cohen has testified about this to Congress in 2019 and revealed many of these facts?
... that Cohen and a group of allies have worked for many years to track down the tapes and stop this rumor? He was willing to pay a lot of money for the tapes. He testified about this.
... that myriad RS, Congressional investigations, and other very reliable sources have written about this and analyzed it?
... that the fact that the actual tape has not been published means the rumor, true or not, remains unproven?
... that the real issues here are kompromat and national security issues, not Trump's alleged sexual proclivities?

And one more:

... that editors should be allowed, without harassment, to do what is allowed here, which is to use their userspace to create articles, including potentially controversial ones?

I do not use words lightly in my draft article, and, whenever necessary, I have used words like "alleged", which is what we do with unproven claims and allegations. The rumor has not been misrepresented as proven fact. It's an extremely notable and serious rumor that did not start with the Steele dossier, and Trump has repeatedly lied about it. That increases the notability, as RS have documented these lies. The topic easily passes the GNG notability guideline. If someone has a problem with some of the content, I have written, right at the top of the page, for them to "email me". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is no different than a draft version of an article, that is being worked on in user space. We delete pages in draft space if they are abandoned for more than a particular amount of time, but this is in user space, not draft space. As such, it doesn't matter much what the user decided to call the page (as in "archive") – but if this hasn't been done already, I would strongly urge putting the "NOINDEX" notation on the page. Maybe there are issues with WP:NPOV (there probably are), but those can be dealt with if it ever gets moved to mainspace. I get it, that some editors just don't like the negative tone, but the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak. If anyone wants to make Wikipedia great again, this is the wrong place to pursue it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- NOINDEX has been there from the beginning, and it's VISIBLE! I do not want to promote or advertise this page. I just want to create an article, quietly, in my userspace. I have always created articles this way. Newbies are not allowed to do this, but experienced editors are.
Anyone can email me if they have issues they want to discuss. It's that simple. The reason I don't want to use the talk page is that it draws more attention to the page. I don't want it to become the focus of controversy. That will no doubt happen after it goes public, as that happens to most articles about controversial topics. That's okay.
It's interesting that the standard template for a draft assumes it is "incomplete and/or unreliable": "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft." Read that template at the top of the draft page. I am not doing anything unusual here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's good about NOINDEX. I hadn't checked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. “BLP violations” are not substantiated. Although there’s a lot there, it’s within reasonable leeway for 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years. The content is reliably sourced. It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo! @SmokeyJoe: you're right: "It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace."...yet! It needs work, and that's what I'm doing. I am getting close to starting to seek input from others. Your advice will be appreciated. Feel free to email me. This is my standard method of writing articles, just like many other experienced editors do. There is nothing unusual happening here, except for this MfD. I don't recall this happening before in this type of situation, where all the rules for article creation are being followed. A draft article should not be judged harshly. It is not perfect, and, as the draft template actually says, a draft is assumed to be "incomplete and/or unreliable". If this were released now, criticism would be warranted, but it's still in my user draft space where it belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Valjean - It wasn't necessary both to ping me here at this MFD and to post to my talk page. I had already seen your ping here before you posted to my talk page. It is true that I didn't answer, because sometimes I think and/or write before answering. I probably will answer, but will not necessarily answer within 24 hours. I am not required to answer, although I probably will. Bludgeoning an AFD, MFD, or DRV is usually not the most effective approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominating a draft for MFD or an article for AFD is not Harassment. Was there some other harassment also? If so, please report it at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Do we need a paragraph in the Harassment policy about What Is Not Harassment? There are too many claims of Harassment, some valid, some not valid. There are too many claims of Vandalism, and we have a section on What Is Not Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination another’s usersubpages can be harassment. As a rule, I always consider whether there is a harassment motivation. Does the nominator have a POV disagreement with the user that related to the user’s usersubpage? It happens. It could be the case here. The nominator, User:Walsh90210, makes broad allegations without easy presentation of the evidence, and I am still wondering how they came to visit this page, and what is their history in relation to both the topic and the user Valjean. I have suspicions about Walsh90210, they are a new account, they don’t act new, they seem combative, they don’t have a userpage but they bluelinked it with a week of their first edit, they claim to know the clear intention of another user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page:User talk:Doug Weller#MfD etc. where User:Star Mississippi raised the question. Walsh90210 replied saying "This is not my first account (note Special:Diff/1225534254). I abandoned my previous account (which was never sanctioned) because I did not want to associate with older comments I had made about Israel-Palestine after the events of late 2023. I don't intend to say any more other than in private communications with ARBCOM. Walsh90210 (talk) 7:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" I agree with the rest of the points made by SmokeyJoe, I think there's likely to be a history behind this nomination. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THanks @Doug Weller. I'm not going to weigh in on the content of this draft, but I do have concerns about the nomination and a procedural close could be in order. As I said on Doug's Talk, it should probably go to ArbComm if there's a privacy matter. Not policy and speaking as editor not admin, but I really think CT/fairly new Clean Start editors don't go well together. Star Mississippi 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look and I think ArbCom should have a longer look. User:HJ Mitchell, User:ToBeFree, can you grab your special glasses? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I currently can't investigate this, but I have forwarded the request to arbcom-en. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant guidelines for this MfD

Different "namespaces" here at Wikipedia are governed by different rules, and that includes the rules for MfDs. Valjean's work here is governed by personal "userspace drafts", not Wikipedia:Drafts (which governs drafts in "draftspace"). Unlike a "personal userspace draft",

"Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia."(Source: Help:Userspace draft)

This implies that a user has nearly full control of a draft in their "private userspace", both creation and publication, but not their work in draftspace. (That "nearly" implies that control is not absolute, as with all things at Wikipedia. There are exceptions to every rule.) If I'm wrong, please enlighten us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 19, 2024

User:Robert Birkett

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, fake article for Drummore Primary School JaggedHamster (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would be open to draftification, but this subject appears to be A7 worthy if it were in article space so it has effectively no chance of promotion to article. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move: to User:Robert_Birkett/Drummore Primary School, Stranraer, Scotland and Ignore. Not a FAKEARTICLE, but not a main userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The school as it stands fails WP:NSCHOOL so moving this userpage although helpful is just setting the creator up to fail, Results on Google News all fail LOCALCOV with the BBC News source just being a one-bit mention, I appreciate this all may not be within the remit of MFD but I don't see the point in moving this when the school fails NSCHOOL and GNG anyway. Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSCHOOL and GNG are not required in userspace.
The content may be suitable for merging somewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True they're not but given the article will never see the light of day in articlespace I simply don't see a benefit to keeping, The article only says "it's a primary school in scotland, that it caters for 4 and 13 years of age and that the school operates under the Stranraer local authority." - None of that is worth merging anywhere imho,
If we really have too then I would support moving to draft as a second option, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 18, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject SZA

This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single musical artist) whose creator has since been indefinitely blocked and only has three other participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a SZA task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the previous nomination until now, but it closed as no consensus and I think the reasoning above still holds. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we do not need an individual WikiProject for a singer. Catfurball (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that my previous !vote for Weak Keep was mistaken because I did not take its out-of-process creation into account. Also, since the first MFD, the originator has been indefinitely blocked by the community. Remaining good-standing editors should consider a task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikiproject pages should be those of real and functioning projects, and article talk pages should not have project tags for wikiprojects that were only nominally there but never really got off the ground. Abortive wikiprojects created outside of the recommended process should be deleted.—Alalch E. 21:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who said in the previous MfD that this should've been created as a task force under a more general WikiProject. Still, there are very few (read: one) people who actually consistently edit SZA-related pages anyway---the rest joined after that MfD---so I don't think even a task force would be useful. This discussion raises a compelling argument about whether we should convert most musician WPs into task forces, and I look forward to seeing where that goes. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jerusalem

This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single city) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Jerusalem task force of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another WikiProject that should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process. Activity is negligible. A task force might be better, since there is an existing project with a larger subject area. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These misguided WikiProjects do not seem to have the defenders that misguided portals have. Maybe that means that no one thinks WikiProjects are mystical. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion.—Alalch E. 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Major League Cricket

This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only two participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a task force of WikiProject Cricket might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another WikiProject that should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process, for a subject that is a subset of the subject of an existing project, and so possibly a task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appear that misconceived WikiProjects do not have the enthusiasts that misconceived portals do. Maybe that is because no one thinks that WikiProjects have mystical qualities. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikiprojects don't have that mystical appeal because they are not "nice" like portals. Portals are "kinda nice". Wikiproject pages are generally ugly.—Alalch E. 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardistan

This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Dardistan task force of WikiProject South Asia might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand where you are coming from. I will convert this to a task force and try to recruit other members. Paristani (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another WikiProject that we do not need. Catfurball (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created out of process. The process needs to be better publicized. Page views show that it has no views more days than it has views, which implies that it does not have utility. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Wolf

Appears to be an abandoned draft article (on a topic we already cover) rather than a WikiProject. – Joe (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nominator says, not a WikiProject If an abandoned draft article, a duplicate. Any unique information in it can be merged into the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ledisi

This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single artist) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Ledisi task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need an individual WikiProject for singers. Catfurball (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was a process but that's fine if you want to delete it. I just noticed that there was a Wikiproject for other singers and I thought this would be a helpful tool for anyone who wants to help contribute. Sackkid (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created out of process. Pageviews are mostly zero, showing that no one is following it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17, 2024

Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs

This is in clear violation of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_43#RFC:_ACE_Calcs; this is nothing but an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info if it's not going to be used in the article. Also WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contention 1: Talk:2023 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs still exists. Talk:2022 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs still exists.

Contention 2: The discussion was closed by LightandDark2000 back in 2020, which reads:

Although there is some dispute as to how this should be done, it appears that the consensus is to use the figures from a trusted source. However, our ACE calculations can also be used as placeholders in lieu of more reliable figures.

As far as I can tell, we.. never figured out how exactly we're supposed to go about this. (Not that I knew that this was a discussion that was had until today, but that's my own fault.) We as a WikiProject (myself included from time to time) continue to update the operational portion of 2024/ACE. I do not know entirely why. I do not know entirely how. At this point, not entirely sure what deleting 2024 would be worth unless we nuked... everything. ~ AC5230 talk 06:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a deletion-worthy violation. Archive. No reason to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 16, 2024

User:TheRealJackMarshall

WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for your fantasy reality game shows. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The user has the wrong ratio of mainspace to userspace edits. The user has blanked the NOTWEBHOST content, which is a good sign. Ideally, someone would have approached the user before MfD-ing their pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as there is no content in the pages. A WP:G7 could be warranted if the user requests it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User blanked, No valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sometimes there may be a Heymann criterion of adding something to a page within six days so that it will not be deleted. In this case, the Heymann criterion was met by removing the content from the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheRealJackMarshall/sandbox

WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for your fantasy reality game shows. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user has blanked the page. Good. A statement from the user would be nice. Maybe they never knew? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been blanked. I tried to use Wikia/Fandom originally for this content but a lot of the code/templates that Wikipedia uses was not working properly so I was temporarily using Wikipedia. Because of the MfD I'm going to expedite that move to Wikia/Fandom and try to figure out the formatting changes. Thank you for letting me know that I was out of code for what's acceptable use on Wikipedia. TheRealJackMarshall (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as there is no content on the pages - maybe a WP:G7 would be warranted. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user can WP:G7 or WP:U1 at any time. Better to see the user self manage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User blanked, No valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The user has blanked the page and is no longer using it for a game. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 15, 2024

Draft:2029 in American television

Yes, this is a draft, and while things don't have to be perfect, a 5 year crystal ball is pushing it. Q ^{T C} 23:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Billy Murray (singer)

No useful content Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this portal, without prejudice, but with a large fish to the nominator:
- - The nominator's statement that there is No useful content is true but misleading, either deliberately misleading or bizarre. The nominator blanked the portal, removing a link to the lead article, Billy Murray (singer), immediately before nominating the portal for deletion. They were therefore technically in compliance with the {{MFD}} tag, which says do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice. So the nominator first blanked the portal, which removed useful content, and then nominated the portal for deletion.
  - My first thought, on seeing that the portal had originally had a lead article and nothing else, had been to !vote Neutral and give the originator six days to complete an unfinished portal. I was assuming that the originator was a good-faith editor, and might be planning to create a portal. I now see that the originator is not a good-faith editor, but has been blocked for vandalism, and so will not be finishing the portal, but probably either was never planning to finish it, or was planning to display hoax content.
  - I am very skeptical of portals, but as long as Wikipedia supports them, we should consider them on a case-by-case basis at MFD.
  - If another good-faith editor wants to create a portal, they should be allowed to do so, subject to another MFD, but not to speey deletion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to me we do not need portals for individual singers. Catfurball (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ambasing

While Ambasing is a real place, this page is mostly vandalism. The demographics section appears to be real, but is taken entirely from another page (I can't post a link to it because of the spam blacklist), word-for-word. Tymewalk (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The page is not a genuine draft. The content is not a good faith contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Vandalism obviously has no place on the English Wikipedia. –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Who requested that this draft be refunded? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 398#Draft:Ambasing —Alalch E. 22:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 14, 2024

July 12, 2024

Talk:Khaled Mashal/Third intifada

The content of this page was merged here in 2007 after an AfD was closed with disposition to merge the content into Khaled Mashal (mentioned on the talk page here). Unless it was later removed (I haven't checked super thoroughly), that doesn't seem to have ever actually happened. But especially looking at this 17 years later, I'm not sure there's anything worth merging in here. The arguments for this were basically already made in the AfD. And if no one's actually ever going to merge this content, this page has no reason to exist. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't exactly G4, but it is essentially a draft for consideration after the merge. As a draft, it is an expired draft. To the extent that it is something else, it is not something else that needs to be kept. (Events have changed so much for the worse in the region.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom misstates the facts. A move to a talk subpage is not a merge. The AfD was closed as “merge” which is not a “delete” and cannot be used here to delete. If consensus has changed from “merge”, then archive, eg by redirection to the article. Also note that there are no time limits, if anything the AfD close was wrong. I note the closer is eight years inactive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]