Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, 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[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, 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 add a line to the top of the list:

{{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:MFDWarning|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[edit]

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

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

January 17, 2019[edit]

Draft:Kuzhur Wilson[edit]

Draft:Kuzhur Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article exists in mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 02:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16, 2019[edit]

Draft:Writer Riyas[edit]

Draft:Writer Riyas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repeatedly submitted. The actual locations for Draft:Riyas Ayiroor and Riyas Ayiroor have been deleted multiple times and salted, but since there hasn't been a discussion about it, I couldn't CSD G4 this so I'm starting one now. Is this person notable or not? He doesn't have any links to notable songs or films here. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - The nominator asks: "Is this person notable or not?" I think that's a rhetorical question. The history shows that the original author of the deleted articles was the subject of the articles, and has been blocked for self-promotion. The next steps are:
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Rock Salt in both draft and article space, in all known forms of the name. (ECP, to permit creation by a neutral editor if the person really is notable, is fine.)
  • Search for Discarded Footwear Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riyasayiroor Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Doris the Pliosaurus[edit]

Draft:Doris the Pliosaurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has no references and inline citations. See WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN to properly cite articles. You can again start creating your article by providing genuine references. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 15:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Not a valid reason to delete a draft. — CoolSkittle (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - It's a rejected draft. Let it die in six months, and the editor can start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It was nominated for deletion the day it was created, which seems very harsh to me. References can be found (eg [1], [2], [3], [4]) so it may be possible to show notability - or to merge it with Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, which has a section called Future development, under which there is currently a 2014 announcement about funding for 2015-2018. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bristol Museum and Art Gallery as one of the notable exhibitions. Add a statement like: In 2017–18, the museum ran an exhibition called Pliosaurus! which featured an eight-metre model of a Pliosaurus which was named Doris. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:GamingWithStatoke/The Ascension (professional wrestling)[edit]

User:GamingWithStatoke/The Ascension (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was userfied after a deletion discussion and has since been abandoned for five years. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ascension (professional wrestling). Not in itself a basis for G4, but we don't need crud in the dustbins of inactive users for five years. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bill Shanley[edit]

Draft:Bill Shanley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Irishjohn32/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These are two almost identical copies of this autobiography. The sandbox copy is being tendentiously resubmitted without responding to the need for footnotes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bshanley1972 Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15, 2019[edit]

User:General Wisdom/sandbox[edit]

User:General Wisdom/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Miss Littlefoot/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicates of Draft:Robin Morrissey created by sockpuppets, apparently in order to game the system.

G4 does not apply, because the sockmaster had not been blocked at the time of creation of the duplicate drafts.

Not nominating Draft:Robin Morrissey, because one copy of the draft should be assessed according to acting notability, regardless of the misconduct of the authors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2012 Semiconductors Sales Leader[edit]

Draft:2012 Semiconductors Sales Leader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally someone's leftover sandbox material recently moved to draft, it has since been abandoned and stands like someone's original research or copied material from some industry magazine. I thought about G13 but it wasn't really developed fully as a draft. There is no Semiconductors Sales magazine. It could also be potentially someone's original research as searches on the Internet point to sales figures but with foundries, and this one tries to exclude foundries. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I found this one in user space, abandoned by an inactive user. I thought that deletion might be the best action, but wanted to let another reviewer make that decision, rather than assessing it myself. Since another reviewer has made that decision, I thank User:AngusWOOF, and will concur with their recommendation to:
  • Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete yes once moved to draft space, which gives it a chance for someone to pick it up, it may also eventually go G13 but since we are looking at it and it is not a viable draft, delete. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Outdated abandoned list of no use to anyone. — CoolSkittle (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:AMST30197PublicArt/sandbox/Chaplain Corby of Gettysburg[edit]

User:AMST30197PublicArt/sandbox/Chaplain Corby of Gettysburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has been blocked for username violation for name of class. These abandoned drafts on sculptures were last edited in 2016.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:G13. They're good drafts, actually, kind of a shame to lose them. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ?? That strikes me as problematic logic. Even if they qualified for G13, which they do not, if it's a shame to lose them, why lose them, as though we are beholden to the letter of our guidelines when it's harmful rather than helpful? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Spot check doesn't turn up an AfC draft submission, without which they do not qualify for G13. They look to be reasonable drafts. That the user was blocked for a username violation (as opposed to being a banned user, etc.) does not strike me as reason to delete sourced userspace drafts. We don't even delete the userspace of someone just because they get indeffed. If they were self-serving/spammy that would be one thing, but that's not the case here, as far as I can see. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is true that they have not been nominated for AFC. In their present state, in user space of a soft-blocked user, they will simply sit until the invisible binary doomsday hits in 2038. In order for them to be considered, they should be moved into draft space. I can do that, but the MFD tag says not to move them. Is this a case where Ignore All Rules applies, since the redirects from user space to draft space will still be there? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I think that the reasoning of User:Rhododentrites is correct, I think that Keeping these pages in their current location will just result in them being ignored longer. They should be moved into draft space, with or without applying the Promising Draft tag (one of the few times that I would consider the use of that tag reasonable). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe I made a mistake in bringing them here. Maybe I should have thrown them into draft space and let them be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment move to Draft (so they come up if someone tries to start that title) and submit to AfC which gives them a chance at mainspace. If they stay abandoned they can go G13 in 6 or more months. No need to wait out the week of an MfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Close the first page was copied to mainspace in 2016 so I've redirected it. I merged the second page as a massive improvement on the page about the building the monument remembers. I accepted the 3rd, 5th and 6th pages via AfC. The Tracery page needs more attention than I have time for right now. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Close These have all been either moved to draft space or article space. No longer abandoned.--Auric talk 23:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jackmarshall052104/sandbox[edit]

User:Jackmarshall052104/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jackmarshall052104/Sandbox Whpq (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Differs from an already deleted sandbox by this user only as to capitalization, but is not a G4 unless it is the same fantasy stuff. Therefore:
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14, 2019[edit]

User:Robertinventor/Mars Surface Life[edit]


These are draft pages created by a now-banned editor. Either they should be adopted by another editor or by a WikiProject, or they should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Thanks for cleaning house NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft Delete. A brief skim tells me these are acceptable userspace notes, but are quite WP:SYNTH hazardous to leave for another unsuspecting editor to pick up. Having read the discussion on banning the editor, I think these pages should be deleted too. Should the edito be unbanned, or a Mars-expert experienced editor want access, then allow undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia does not exist to host essays. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete A lot of it he copy/pasted from Life on Mars, and he also added synthesis and POV. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jonfrmr/Ernest Element[edit]

User:Jonfrmr/Ernest Element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We already have an article on Ernest Element, which is better than this draft. This draft was for some reason tagged for AFC review because it was touched by a bot. Author hasn't edited in three years. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Abandoned dup. — CoolSkittle (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems that the bot, User:Cydebot, touched approximately 20 drafts in user space that had been abandoned for years. The editing for some reason submitted the pages for review and caused the bot to be their submitter, and they all went to AFC. I moved them to draft space and then either declined or rejected them, and they will now die of old age on 14 July 2019. However, this one could not be moved to draft space because there is already a redirect in draft space to the article, and redirects from draft space to article space are kept. So this one is a duplicate. The rest of them will go G13 on 14 July 2019. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect, do not delete. Userspace duplicates, absent some good reason to delete, should never be deleted by redirected to the superior current page, whether in article space, draftspace, or another’s userspace. Hiding the user’s edit history from them is needlessly unwelcoming to their return. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Draft:Ernest Element is redirected to the article. Please show a policy or guideline that either supports or opposes redirecting these duplicates. If the guidelines are silent, then we don't need an extra redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Garth Brooks Stadium Tour[edit]

Draft:The Garth Brooks Stadium Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was created, then moved to draft for some reason. Another user created the same article unbeknownst to anyone & that article is primary now. Thatdee69 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stadium Tour, allow anyone to merge content. There is no reason to delete. Accidental content forks should be fixed by redirecting and merging, not by deletion, and with no reference to MfD. There may be attribution requirements and/or reasons to history merge, and deleting without fully considering is an attribution failure that will never be discovered post-deletion, as well as rude and unwelcoming to the return of the author of the deleted edits. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stadium Tour. The current article has slightly better referencing, but this would at least get the other editor to the active article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13, 2019[edit]

Draft:Legal reasoning[edit]

Draft:Legal reasoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:SYN y a now-locked sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • We should have an article on this topic, but not beginning from such a dubious starting point. bd2412 T 22:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete work of blocked sockpuppet. Agree with BD2412. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No arguments here. --Church Talk 22:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:TNT AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 12, 2019[edit]

Draft:Culbin Forest[edit]

Draft:Culbin Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Culbin Forest is a redirect to Culbin Sands, Forest and Findhorn Bay which covers the subject adequately. -- a. spam | contribs 15:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Redirect to Culbin Sands, Forest and Findhorn Bay since the mainspace version is a redirect as well.CoolSkittle (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Premature nomination of a draft that doesn't need deleting yet. Are editors reviewing drafts as soon as they come into the queue and nominating a few of them for MFD rather than simply rejecting them? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: the creator of the draft was blocked for being incivil at the teahouse; MFD'd mainly for wiki-cleanliness than anything else. I don't see a significant reason to keep but I don't have a pressing desire to delete either. //shrug. -- a. spam | contribs 17:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This user is a sockpuppet of the author, who was blocked for making a death threat. Due to incivility of him, I will be changing my vote to delete. — CoolSkittle (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Struck out vote from sockpuppeteer. We don't reward block evasion here. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Incivility is not a reason to delete anything, but is a reason to WP:BLOCK. Reversion of the redirect would be a read to WP:RFPP protect, not delete. Bringing pages to mfd as retaliation to incivility is a misuse of mfd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Exhaustive list of Puffery[edit]

Wikipedia:Exhaustive list of Puffery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A copy of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery, doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Nothing links to it. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur with this page be deleted. I have moved to a page in my user space. Deletion is ok.
I have moved the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Exhaustive_list_of_Pufferythis page] into my userspace to work on it a bit more. See here. Best Regards, Barbara 21:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sandeep Nayak[edit]

Draft:Sandeep Nayak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

already declined 3 times, with no significant improvement. Will not meet notability requirements--his most cited publication has only been cited 17 times, and there is nothing else that even indicates possible notability DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

One counts 27 citations? H-index = 6
What H-index is good? I’m pretty sure 6 is not good enough. My limited experience with nominated PROF bios is that 40 is more like it.
WP:PROF is not very helpful, neither is anything I can find in the WT:PROF archives. User:DGG?
I think google scholar is a good thing to look at. What I see is few publications and quite a list of recent uncited academic promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Not clear that this needs deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This isn't AFD, is it? Do we need to delete drafts for non-notability, or only for the combination of non-notability and being a nuisance? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thecombination of not likely to show notability enough for an article, and continuing resubmissions DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
H index is in my opinion irrelevant. It's ment to discriminate between the better mediocre and the lesser mediocre. What counts for WP is not the average importance of someone's articles, but whether they have ever done really important work, Someone with a h of 10 might have publications with citations 300, 299, 298,297,296, 295, 294,293,292,10... or of 19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11, 10...The first person is extremely notability , the 2nd probably not. (Just like for an author many mediocre books is not the equivalent of a best-seller.) In practice here in the biomedical sciences which is a field with very frequent publication and thus inherently high citation figures, at least one publication with 100 or more citations is needed to show notability here; in other fields of science, like mathematics, where people publish only infrequently, it can be many fewer. .
The difficulty in interpreting these figures for someone not in the main scientific research-producing countries is that they will generally publish mostly in local publicatio nnot read elsewhere and not covered even by Google Scholar. This general problem is WP:Cultural prejudice,and it needs to be accounted for. But in science, the criteria are international DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
User:DGG, so you’re a fan of citation count from most cited paper? I’m not, because one very well cited paper will go to BIO1E. However, in any case, I think we agree that this person it an obvious failure on any publication metric. Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
For anyone where we're consideringWP:PROF, there will normally be other well cited work also. I was about to say that Bio1E is irrelevant, but that may not always be the case: consider a student whose name is is one of a number of people working on a project, and a paper is then published with his name as one of the authors. If it's an important project, it may get 100 citations ,or perhaps 500. But he still won't be notable . And either would he be if his name was on two such papers. For the actual use of citation data, the mere count is just a starting point. In the RW, if considering an appointment or tenure, the key factor would be the person's role & it can take quite a bit of analysis and even correspondence. Even at WP, we have sometimes tried to discriminate who is the principal authors. (it's conventional in most fields for it to be either the first or last, but it depends on the head of the group; sometimes it's done alphabetically, in which case the paper usually says so in order that people do not draw the wrong conclusions. The principal author is sometimes the person listed as "corresponding author", but not always. It sometimes is the person who received the grant, but not always. I have often in discussions here considered when in the person's career the best cited work was done--if in their grad student years, they are unlikely to be the principal author, but there have been exceptions. The main situation needing such analysis here is a MD who was one a group doing research as a med student, but never did much on their own later, but still lists that earlier work prominently in their article or website.)
As a very general observation, in most cases we use shorthand methods to determine notability . The usual ones we look at in detail here are the ones where there's a real question, or there seems to be arguments for notability or non-notability based on some sort of fan effect or prejudice one way or another.
As another very general observation, BL1E has exceptions--- there have been famous, not merely notable, authors who have published only one significant book & similarly in other fields. The actual conditions for using BLP1E are more complicated than it may seem--see WP:BLP1E--all 3 conditions must be met
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual...
IIf the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented .. DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 11, 2019[edit]

User:Imkailashh[edit]

User:Imkailashh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another WP:FAKEARTICLE and dup of Draft:Kailash Kavhale. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:HiTu Kmr[edit]

User:HiTu Kmr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional autobio WP:FAKEARTICLE. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • There's been zero effort to make this suitable for articlespace, nor evidence presented to give a reason to think it could ever survive there. Delete. —Cryptic 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's a fake article and its references are no good. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

User:A R NAIR Cet[edit]

User:A R NAIR Cet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE and dup of Draft:THIRUVAIROOR SREE MAHADEVAR TEMPLE CHUNAKARA. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Please leave the draft alone to let it go to G13. Otherwise we will have to debate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wizkid (disambiguation)[edit]

Wizkid (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Procedural nomination as a result of a requested move at Wizkid. Pinging participants Lazz R, Crouch, Swale, Ammarpad, Shhhnotsoloud, Narky Blert. Note to closing administrator: as this is a procedural nomination please do not count the nomination as an implicit !vote in favour, I'm abstaining in order to remain neutral for the closure made at requested moves. SITH (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

True. Actually, I'll just be bold and finish this off to make it a redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Now tagged for housekeeping purposes as {{R to disambiguation page}} and {{R from other spelling}}. Narky Blert (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe we all need to review the XFD guidelines as to what is dealt with where. On its face, this is a redirect deletion discussion and should go to Redirects for Discussion. At least, so it would appear. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    It was a DAB until around an hour ago when it was boldly merged so I don't think RFD is suitable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. Wrong forum: but it's ended up OK now the previous article has been boldly redirected. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with keeping the dab page as the term is a sufficiently distinct variant. However, this is not the venue to be discussing that, StraussInTheHouse: disambiguation pages are discussed like other mainspace pages at AfD, and there's a well-monitored delsort there that usually attracts a good amount of relevant participation. 12:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can the {{mfd}} be removed now? Leschnei (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Manchester Collective[edit]

Draft:Manchester Collective (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repeatedly re-submitted draft intended for promotional purposes; the COI editor admits that they want this in Wikipedia to raise the visibility of the organization, a complete reversal of our notability guidelines. Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Leave it unless it's toned enough as blatant advertising to annoy someone to CSD it. This hasn't been resubmitted since October. The visibility of the article is there, along with those big tags of COI and Submission Rejected. The G13 should be considered from October and not from this MFD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The MFD nomination restarts the G13 calendar, so let's deal with this now. At least, some editors think that the MFD nomination restarts the G13 calendar. Maybe there should be a ruling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 10, 2019[edit]

Draft:Spike Viper[edit]

Draft:Spike Viper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nothing here even suggests a Wikipedia article. Clearly some sort of cooperative fancruft page. Unsourced. Authors confirm it will never be sourced and have been persuaded to set up camp elsewhere - see talk page  Velella  Velella Talk   21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Fancruft, almost nominated this yesterday. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This was originally a twice-declined draft about a non-notable person, but has become something else that we don't need, but:
  • Question - User:Velella - Have you been in communication with the authors? Are they indeed multiple authors? After looking over the history, that this page is edited by multiple accounts who do nothing but edit this page, the question is whether they are really multiple people using Wikipedia for web hosting, or one person with multiple Internet identities (not to be confused with true multiple personality disorder, which is rare). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon When I first saw it I sought admin advice since my first reaction was a speedy delete but it didn't fit any of the allowable categories. I wrote on the creator talk page here and on the Draft talk page here. It is clearly multiple users brought here from a posting on Reddit or elsewhere. Whatever it is and however it came here, it needs to disappear from Wikipedia  Velella  Velella Talk   00:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe they are multiple users. I joined their Discord server, and one of them has posted a screenshot of the deletion notification. One of the users has a COI notice on their userpage (who has also told me on the Discord they will be moving to Wikia). Spike himself has also contacted me on the server and apologized. — CoolSkittle (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is Spike. I'm not in charge of this, I was simply notified my fans wanted to create a wikipedia page for me as my YouTube channel has risen in popularity to the point where they thought I would be a candidate for a page. However, I personally don't know how exactly wikipedia pages are determined, and haven't done any work on this page. It was a collaborative attempt by fans of my YouTube channel, which admittedly only has 150 thousand subscribers, so I do understand that I am likely not a large enough figure to warrant a page. I apologize for any confusion - this was just a fun attempt by fans to make a nice gesture for me and my channel. I also don't know how formatting works, so sorry about the block of text! Was definitely multiple people, who were just excited at the opportunity. They are aware we are pretty much definitely facing deletion, and I have told them to respect the decision made and to look elsewhere if things fall through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeViperYT (talkcontribs) 00:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:TNT. The current version is sourced almost entirely by his own Youtube videos and posts. Does not need a page until he is mentioned by news publications. Spike Viper can build up fandom at the Wikias but until the regular newspapers and magazines start writing about Spike Viper, this doesn't need to be recreated. Note by regular papers, I don't mean user volunteer contributors on HuffPost / Medium forums or Reddits, but actual journalists. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just do it already. Also why would you think I am a Sock Puppet? I know this article was a web source from around the 2nd day. We have almost moved everything and no more investigation should be needed. BMO4744 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects/Psyc3330 w12gp03ls/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:School and university projects/Psyc3330 w12gp03ls/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This page never had any content, and the course is now over. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Slavery[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:WikiProject HBCUIO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:WikiProject White Supremacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Duplicative WikiProjects established by editor (and sole participant) who is now topic-banned. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete All - Deleting WikiProjects is usually a bad idea, but these are WikiProjects that were unilaterally and disruptively established by an editor who has been sanctioned, among other things for disruptively creating these WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Already have other WikiProjects: Slavery goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, White Supremacy goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. HBCUIO seems to be a neologism acronym whereas HBCU has an article. Any of these could potentially be task forces or projects though in the future but should be decided at the WP level first whether to split off such a topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Harry d Cruz Beatboxer[edit]

User:Harry d Cruz Beatboxer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Harry d Cruz Beatboxer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding recently submitted draft. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - They both look like candidates for G11, but we are here so we can discuss here unless someone decides to tag G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete given so much of the information is unsourced (not surprising given it is a likely autobiography), there is too much risk of original research being introduced into Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Atherston/new article name here[edit]

Draft:Atherston/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't find many sources on him, and nothing to corroborate (according to the text he was in a Harry Potter film) the article. PrussianOwl (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • PrussianOwl, why are you reviewing unsubmitted draft pages? It is nice for you to review them for G11 or G12 issues, but "can't find many sources on him, and nothing to corroborate" is way short of a good reason to bring the page to community review at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm going through the WP:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts project. I thought I'd clear out the junk so actual content can rise to articlespace. PrussianOwl (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure the logic of that is sound. It’s nice of you to “clear out junk”, except if doing so means creating work for others, like when you make mfd nominations. Can you think of any ways to clean up using methods that comply with WP:ATD and which you can do yourself unassisted? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - When a draft has been abandoned for seven years, whether there are sources is a reasonable question as to whether the draft is worth keeping for someone else to improve and submit. In view of the conclusion that this draft is not fixable:
  • Delete as hopelessly abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Seven years!? Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The last edit to the page or by User:Atherston was 23 March 2011. Almost eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Draft abandoned, author inactive. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and move back to Userspace. This was originally located at User:Atherston/new article name here, and moved without being requested to the Draft: space (without changing the name, making the title misleading); that move is the only reason we are here. My understanding is there is no time limit for drafts in the User: space (as long as they are not submitted to AfC). UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy and replace content with {{inactive userspace blanked}} per UnitedStatesian. Some options listed at WP:STALEDRAFT are preferable to others. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

January 9, 2019[edit]

Draft:Ajay Shukla[edit]

Draft:Ajay Shukla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draftified three times, including after author was told to use AFC. Now move-protected due to move-warring. Work of probable paid editor (known paid editor of another draft). Author has been trying to game the system with disambiguators to title of article.

Recommend Extended-Confirmed Create Protection in both article space and draft space so that a neutral editor can create a draft or article as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not the paid editor at all I never take article for getting me paid. If anyone comes to me then I tell them if your notability stands then editors would pick up...--Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Mainspace and remove GSS (talk · contribs)’s pagemover privilege for the improper draftifiaction. AfC is NOT required. Forceful draftification requires WP:AfD. If deletion is required, AfD is the place to do it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: please see WP:COIEDIT and WP:PAY that state you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Those policies state "should" not "must". -- Whpq (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but still the policy doesn't want paid users to appear directly in mainspace due to their promotional efforts. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I edited the "should"s to "must"s. Where is the best talk page for this?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
User:GSS, no, the creator-author should, not you. You should put it through AfD. What you were doing was back-door deletion.
OK, Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space point 4. You are a new page reviewer, and it was an unreviewed page, and the author "clearly has a conflict of interest". In the draftifying edit, you should link to evidence of the clear COI.
WP:COIEDIT was soft-worded, so I fixed it. I edited WP:DRAFTIFY to match[5].
Note (the clarified text) "Whenever this is done the draftifier must inform the author that COI editors must submit new articles through Articles for Creation "
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe Thank you and I appriciate that. I normaly ask the creator/editor to diclose COI (e.g. here) and Neerajmadhuria72014 was advised to use the AfC process which he ignored and then tried to game the system. When I first moved this page it was in poor condition with questionable notability and had unreliable sources, but rather than improving the draft and submitting it for a review Neerajmadhuria72014 moved it back under Ajay Shukla (Hindi Journalists) and start move warring. Anyways thank you for your advice and changing the wording at WP:COIEDIT. :) GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move back to mainspace and then send to AfD - Consensus currently allows for unilateral WP:BOLD draftification per WP:DRAFTIFY. This, however, is essentially an edit war over notability, and needs to be properly handled at WP:AfD per WP:BRD. Nathan2055talk - contribs 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:EverlyWell[edit]

Draft:EverlyWell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draftified twice, once after being told to use AFC, and declined twice. Resubmission is tendentious. Author is a known paid editor. Request that this title be Extended-Confirmed Protected in both draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating the three drafts by this paid editor separately because they have separate histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based in the content, this is obviously non notable promotion. Appeared on a shark tank?! DNA analysis to reveal food intolerances. Obvious fraudulent quackery. That aside, User:GSS has here also misused his page mover privilege. This was not justifiably draftification. It should have been sent to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:COIEDIT and WP:PAY that state editors with COI should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Moving paid for articles to "draft" when they did not go through the proper processes IMO is perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I've modified the wording at WP:COIEDIT and WP:DRAFTIFY to clarify this. I would ask User:GSS, for draftification edits such as this, to use a better edit summary such as one including a link to the section contained the previously given "advice", and a link to evidence of COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It sound like a case of meatpuppetry so I have moved it back to draftspace. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
User:GSS, Mohamed Ouda is far too established a Wikipedian for you to casually assume “meatpuppt” and unilaterally draftify. I think you should reverse that action and nominate it at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Mohamed Ouda's activities are very suspicious most likely undisclosed paid editing. We are already dicussing the notability of the subject here so I don't see any point to run a seprate discussion at the moment. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I do. You are making a very serious allegation, and are seriously pushing the boundaries of WP:DRAFTIFY. Your actions could even be called move warring. You should escalate or leave it to others. You should revert your page move and use either CSD or AfD. Your message at User_talk:Mohamed_Ouda#Paid_editing is possibly good and sufficient, but my advice it to not to repeatedly draftify the same title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Done, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:LD Sharma[edit]

Draft:LD Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already deleted in article space. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LD Sharma. Promotionally written draft. Author has acknowledged on their talk page that they are a PR person for the subject. No reason to think that this version of this draft is likely to make it back to article space (after the AFD). Recommend that the title be Extended-Create Protected in both draft space and article space to allow a neutral editor to establish that the subject is notable.

I am also nominating two other drafts by this author for deletion, but will be listing them separately so that they can be debated separately, each with its own history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. While those arguments don't usually hold up in draft space, despite the author's protestations to the contrary this smells of WP:TENDENTIOUS, undisclosed paid editing on the part of the PR agent / black hat SEO. As I am not an admin I can't see the deleted mainspace article to see if it would qualify as WP:G4. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Curb Safe Charmer - Yes, and .... The author does admit on their talk page, although not in a proper declaration, to being paid as a PR person. As to what is in the deleted article that we can't see, common sense is that it is the same as the draft. We are saying the same thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged the draft as connected contributor for now. I'm withholding "paid" as the author did not get a separate contract / payment for updating the PR for their company. If someone wants to redo the tag as connected contributor (paid) that would be okay too. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


January 8, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Philip Alexander Bell[edit]

Wikipedia:Philip Alexander Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is in the wrong namespace and we already have Philip Alexander Bell so we don't need this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Dup in wrong namespace. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as no need to duplicate existing article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Draft Space and tag as needing copy-edit. This version contains more information than the article, although parts of it are in terrible grammatical condition. Put it in draft space where it can be used to expand the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge and speedy afterwardsMove to userspace If the Wikipedia-space one is better, this can replace the mainspace one / histmerge. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC) updated 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Wikipedia-space version is not "better". It contains more information, but parts of it are in terrible English. The merging needs to be done intelligently, by neutral humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking at it again, it's a possible student assignment as one of the first comments connects it to wikiedu? That said, it should probably go either in draft or their userspace. Striking previous vote. Creator intended to replace the actual article with their version. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify and perhaps partially merge per those above. That a draft duplicates an existing topic is not a reason to delete it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

January 7, 2019[edit]

User:Mvaneech[edit]

User:Mvaneech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to violate WP:UP#PROMO. Looks like an attempt to WP:SOAP for this person's pet ideas. jps (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC) jps (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Waiting a few days for a response. While this user page has been unchanged in twelve years, the editor is intermittently active including recently active. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • looks like a list of links they wanted at some point. If it is bothersome someone could just blank it but deletion is not required here. Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like intentional PROMO to me. Just looks like they didn't realize "Sandbox" existed. ApLundell (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

January 5, 2019[edit]

Portal:Current events/November 1994[edit]

Portal:Current events/November 1994 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As background: these monthly pages (which are built from daily subpages, also in the Portal space) are effectively mainspace content: list of events occurring in a given month (day), and in my opinion belong in the mainspace, (this one duplicates content at 1994#November, to which the mainspace page November 1994 redirects) and not in the Portal space. Earlier than some point in time, "Current events" is especially not the right space for them as the older and older months are (in good faith) retroactively created there. I would propose the non-current daily pages be merged with the year#month mainspace content and then deleted; the "parent" monthly portal pages should also be deleted. There was a previous 5-editor discussion that led to this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. Thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support deleting everything up to, and including Portal:Current events/December_2001, which precedes the earliest contemporary page. That and anything before was edited retroactively. All of this content is basically lost because it's not linked to anywhere and most of the early entries I checked have no sources. I don't think it makes sense to even try to merge them. As for pages created after December 2001, keep them for historical value. Isa (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
My research shows that Portal:Current events/June 2002 and subsequent were created contemporaneously, though the structure was different between 2002 and 2006.UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, my mistake. I checked the history on a few days and saw most of them from 2007, without realizing that they were migrated. I'm also seeing sources earlier than 2006, I hadn't noticed they were in a reflist at the bottom. The earliest I can find then is Portal:Current_events/January_2002. I've modified my support above. Isa (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems a good idea, but mfd is not miscellany for discussion. No solid nominators “delete” rationale over archiving (note policy WP:ATD). It seems a good idea. Just do it, but archiving what you think should be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • User:SmokeyJoe - You may have mistyped. You wrote "mfd is miscellany for discussion". Do you mean that it isn't? I thought that having MFD be Miscellany for Discussion was a perennial proposal that keeps getting voted down. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. not inserted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mashaallah Ajoudani[edit]

Draft:Mashaallah Ajoudani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

promotional draft Balkywrest (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep as badly written promotional draft that has already been declined and that is not ready for review for acceptance in its current form. Does the author have a conflict of interest? If so, it should be declared. If not, and the author doesn't know how to write neutrally, they should be given at least one chance to write a neutral draft or find another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have made changes and added as many references as possible. Could you please review and let me know. I appreciate any help you can provide, as am trying to learn and contribute to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsi advocate (talkcontribs) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2, 2019[edit]

Draft:Wayne Dupree[edit]

Draft:Wayne Dupree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable radio talk show host. Has already been the subject of a deletion discussion in article space; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Dupree.

See also User:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Author is continuing to submit drafts and has ignored the advice to request a copy of the deleted article for comparison. Time to salt the subject in article space and draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1 is the deleted article. See logs. —Cryptic 07:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have not ignored any advice, if anything I have sought additional advice. Please explain "Time to salt the subject in article space and draft space." Cllgbksr (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment' - I don't see any request for additional advice, but it isn't necessary to argue over that, only to discuss whether to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Reply If you review the talk page of Draft talk:Wayne Dupree starting in August 2018, you will see the back and forth with other users, requesting additional advice to move it forward. Wasn't sure what exactly needed to be done to get a copy for comparison, Thought I submitted the request properly, it's possible I didn't since it wasn't something I've done before. Another user provided me with User:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1, so I am curious, is that draft - the copy of the deleted article - to be used for comparison? .Cllgbksr (talk)
  • Comment - SALT means Create-Protection. If the conclusion is to Delete and Salt, creation of Wayne Dupree and Draft:Wayne Dupree will be prevented.
    • Question How exactly does that work long term? Does that mean if Dupree receives sufficient independent, secondary coverage in the future, that goes above and beyond the notability requirements for a BLP, a user will be prevented to create an article on the subject?Cllgbksr (talk)
  • Question - Does User:Cllgbksr have any financial or other connection with Dupree? See the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Answer Been over this already, believe another user asked the same question when it went through AfD in 2017. I first learned about Dupree in 2016 as an occasional listener of his show, ran into him at the RNC in Cleveland, when his radio show was covering the Trump primary. Spoke with him about his background, you can call it an interview, found his background interesting, Dupree being an African American, former liberal-Democrat turned conservative-Republican, thought he met the requirements for a BLP, created a draft that late summer, an administrator I did not know reviewed the draft and moved it to mainspace. His page seem to be no problem until he made 50 Most influential African American Republicans by Newsmax in early 2017, then his page was vandalized by an unknown ISP, subsequently the attention that drew, led to the AfD. From my end it seemed he was ganged up on by other WP users whose contributions seemed to lean left politically. I think the reason I've been so animate about seeing this page through, is because of the chain of events that occurred, that would make one wonder, if there is not some type of pushback going on within WP, to not want a black conservative featured. I certainly hope that is not the case. We all have our political views, I lean conservative and am not afraid to say so. So to answer your question, there is no COI in my opinion, Dupree is not paying me to write his page, I have no motive to publish the page other than what I've already stated. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question For Robert McClenon. In another thread you suggested I was trying to "game the system" by continually resubmitting the draft. First I wasn't trying to game the system. Second, to game the system, I would first have to understand the system, which I don't. I'm a novice at best as a WP User. Third, there are two drafts. The Draft:Wayne Dupree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that another user provided which could be a copy of the original article to be used for comparison?, that user was ready to move to mainspace and was seeking a consensus, see last paragraph on talk page heading "Readiness for mainspace" Draft talk:Wayne Dupree, that may be the original article in draft form that was deleted in AfD 2017, and I believe that is the one I resubmitted last after adding more sourcing. When I checked the history it went back to 2016 so I thought that was the one to submit again based on another users input for mainspace seeking consensus. Was that the right draft I should be working with? As it relates to the page, if Dupree doesn't have significant coverage for a BLP I can accept that and have no issue with keeping the draft updated until such time it may pass muster. It's possible when the original draft page was moved to mainspace in 2016, it didn't have the elements of significant coverage for a BLP, but it doesn't mean at a later time it won't, based on up to date sourcing. I think the salt option for a living person who may later fully meet if not exceed notability requirements, seems over aggressive to a fault.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - First, spell my surname correctly. Second, I am willing to concede that you don't know what you are doing. Third, I agree that Extended-Confirmed Create Protection rather than admin Create-Protection is sufficient, that an established editor should be able to create a draft or an article in the future. At this point, having two drafts being submitted when there has already been a deletion discussion is problematic. Fourth, not knowing what you are doing is not an argument to keep a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Reply @Robert McClenon: First, your surname was corrected. Second, reviewed your user profile. Third, impressed with your skill set and background. Fourth, your bedside manner interacting with a user like me, who is not at your level, seems "problematic". Fifth, I'm a retired road dog, in my late 50's, my skill set was arresting "problematic people". Sixth, I still have a few marbles, and will work on learning how to navigate Wikipedia. Seventh, concur with your assessment on Extended-Confirmed Create Protection. Eighth, User:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1 was provided to me 30 September, 2018, believe it was a copy of the original Dupree article deleted in AfD. I edited it after receiving it and resubmitted for inclusion, their msg to me below:

"I undeleted the previously deleted article and its talk page and moved them into your user space at User:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1 and User talk:Cllgbksr/Dupree draft 1, left a note about that at Draft talk:Wayne Dupree#Readiness for mainspace. – Athaenara 04:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)"

Ninth, asking for your help. Guessing updating/editing the copy of the original article they provided and re-submitting for inclusion wasn't the proper course of action. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Have there been any GNG news articles since the AFD in 2017 that would indicate Dupree is now notable? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The Sun isn't a reliable source, and interviews that are mostly Q&A will have portions that don't meet GNG. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post also covered Dupree [10], The Sun article wasn't the only source. Cllgbksr (talk)

Closed discussions[edit]