Skip to:
Table of contents /
current discussions /
old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your
user page (or
subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{
db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an
administrator will then delete the page. See
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed 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
What may be nominated for deletion here:
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, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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.
|
V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 44 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Junk draft copy and pasted from Playboi Carti. Coop ( talk) 06:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This page consists of crude copy-paste WP:COPIES of several articles (at least Sōke and Martial arts) with some nonsense that looks like an attempt at self-promotion added. Flounder fillet ( talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
An attempt at a WP:FAKEARTICLE that seems to be at least partially copied from Toronto and altered to describe a fictional location. User stated intent to use Wikipedia as a web host and create a hoax in the page creation edit: "We are the municipal council of the Raccoon City and we are in here to let the whole world know us through wikipedia." Flounder fillet ( talk) 02:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete to make space for a proper GA review. It seems like one of the editors has blanked the page so it's most likely that they also want it to be deleted. Okmrman ( talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a political screed
coatracking as an essay. People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive. The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to
the same level as Nazism is an abuse of
WP:ESSAYS and also of
WP:NOTADVOCACY and
WP:NOTFORUM. It smacks of an attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seems like a good place to start.
Ad Orientem (
talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic.This discussion will establish whether or not the essay is problematic; I am proposing the first option as an alternative to the second, if that is indeed found to be the case. Girth Summit (blether) 17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributorsor the sheer number of pages in Category:Wikipedia essays, for evidence that the community has historically not seen consensus as a prerequisite for putting something in projectspace.
a political screedis an insult without justification. If you don't like the essay, you can suggest improvements, be bold and make them, or write why you don't endorse it.
Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazismwhere does it do this? NONAZIS was the first essay of this sort written, but we also have WP:No racists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.- they are not subject to the same scrutiny as mainspace articles and do not represent all editors views, but as has already been proven by multiple people having endorsed the essay, it clearly does represent the view and consensus of some editors on Wikipedia. One last point I'd like to make is that this essay captures some of the essence of the disruption that LGBTQIA+ topics and editors often experience, which is why we even have a mainspace article on LGBT and Wikipedia as this kind of disruptive editing has even brought large attention of reliable source media on multiple occasions. It is most certainly not just a coatrack, but very much a valuable essay on itself as the topic of LGBTQ coverage and the harassment that users trying to improve its content do have to regularly experience as the article in the NY Times from 2019 has summarized quite well. Raladic ( talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
the relevant policies that applyexplained to them. ——Serial Number 54129 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis. This was explicitly addressing a gap NONAZIS doesn't fill because one can be disruptively queerphobic without being a Nazi: we have 3 essays on why racism and openly identifying with racists is bad, one on general reasons we don't tolerate bigotry, and this single essay on queerphobia. I think a deletion discussion about the solitary one on queerphobia instead of all of them is misguided at best as many editors' arguments include dislike of the type of essay as a whole. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
There are over 2,000 essays ... Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints ... Many essays ... are obscure, single-author pieces.Wikipedia:Essays (itself an essay!) indicates that essays can be moved to userspace or deleted if problematic, typically because they contradict existing community norms. I do not believe this essay does so. It outlines some information that is uncontroversial (e.g. medical fact or Wikipedia behavioural policies) as well as some opinion by the author about how Wikipedia policies should be enforced and what queerphobia looks like in the context of Wikipedia. None of it violates a core policy such as WP:NPOV. Though I support its contents, I would object to it being upgraded to an explanatory supplement or guideline etc.The highly referenced WP:NONAZIS is a contentious essay that some Wikipedians disagree with (for instance, those who believe somebody should only be blocked for actions, not beliefs). It lists views that are widely held e.g. supporting forcible sterilisation of disabled people (which is done on a large scale today) and describes them as beliefs that characterise modern-day Nazism. Nonetheless, it has enormous support and consensus at MfDs have found that its status as a Wikipedia-space essay is appropriate. This is because there has been widespread disruption to Wikipedia caused by neo-Nazis and Nazi-adjacent editors and it is an ongoing problem that requires a high level of knowledge and organisation among the community to combat. A similar analysis applies to "No queerphobes". — Bilorv ( talk) 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBT community" -- what in the world does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? There is then the non sequitur claim that these groups "
and affiliated groups" should be avoided as sources. Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad? This is silly. jp× g 🗯️ 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice- have examples?
Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad- The list, since deleted, concerned multiple groups people have tried to cite as sources which are known for misinformation. Off the top of my head, here's the last time somebody tried to cite one [2] (who cited the groups dozens of times on other wikis and is a pretty good example of who the essay is talking about). These are groups which reliable sources concur are known for misinformation about the LGBT community, which is not only confirmed by a quick read of their articles but by RSN itself. [3] [4] [5] Which of the deleted ones do you think actually counts as anything close to a WP:RS? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That cisgender or heterosexual people are "more oppressed than" or "actually oppressed, unlike" LGBT people. What does this even mean? "Pete Buttigieg is more oppressed than Malala Yousafzai"? "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank"? Is it about aggregates across populations? How can that even be measured? Is this sentence also saying "oppression from war and famine is directly comparable to oppression from homophobia, because this is a single quantity that exists along a single axis, and also the second is worse than the first"? Is the essay saying these sentences are true? Is it saying that they're true and also somebody who disagrees with them should be removed from the project? Ignoring, for the moment, that most LGBT people are either one or the other of those things (e.g. most homosexual people are cisgender) -- the sentence just does not make sense. It's either meant to be read at face value, in which case it's utterly ludicrous, or it's meant to be read as a hashtag-like statement of vibes where the words do not actually mean what the words say, in which case it is a vague activist tweet. I understand that writing stuff that doesn't have a coherent literal meaning for the purpose of signaling political coalitional allegiances is important. However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant". jp× g 🗯️ 00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
groups known for spreading misinformation..was just a week ago the center of such a focus in light of the Cass Review, there was a discussion of some sources from the UK that contribute to it, directly linked to LGBT topic on the Talk:Cass Review#Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times, which has now led to an RFC prep to discuss the limiting of them as RS for transgender topics due to their regular coverage spreading of misinformation. This is not just a theoretical topic, but the lived reality of people trying to uphold Wikipedia's values and trying to improve LGBT content on Wikipedia and the uphill battle that it often represents. As you can see from there, editors are now collaborating to collect the evidence and will subsequently bring it for discussion, following the processes we have in place for such discussions.
This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.right at the top, like all essays in wp-space. So I'm not really sure what the reason for deletion is here. The idea that WP:HATEDISRUPT already covers this topic doesn't make much sense to me as a deletion reason either. Look at how many redundant essays we have on notability! -- asilvering ( talk) 04:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
See also User:Khaled Tarabey/sandbox, which shows that this is the output from a large language model, and is web hosting by an editor who is not otherwise contributing to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the same as Draft:Shaheedallll and is U5, Wikipedia is not for web hosting. No other contributions by author. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This page was created by a now blocked sockpuppet who has a history of writing paid BLPs, potentially as an attempt to WP:GAMING. Given this context, this is not a legitimate and does not reflect community consensus. Deleting it would prevent any confusion and ensure that unreliable sources are not mistakenly defended using this page as a reference. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
An open letter to rep Kevin Hern doesn't belong here. Coop ( talk) 09:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
GPT-generated entry that does not belong on Wikipedia. Coop ( talk) 04:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Her life experience can be interesting, but the content of this is not suitable for Wikipedia at all. Coop ( talk) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Not a real topic, as the author mentions. Coop ( talk) 03:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Would work well in a blog. Coop ( talk) 02:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
A personal diary-like entry about WritingDearly written by WritingDearly. Coop ( talk) 02:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is a literary essay." - according to the creator. Coop ( talk) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need a GPT-generated draft of Cheese? Cooper ( talk) 02:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this is true or not, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. Cooper ( talk) 02:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Part of User:Khaled Tarabey/sandbox, GPT-generated fiction. Cooper ( talk) 02:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
GPT-generated story. Cooper ( talk) 02:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This should be removed as Draft:Colourblocks already exists, and the current topic lacks notability. — 48JCL Talk 12:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 00:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Fictional short story? Cooper ( talk) 01:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I think someone wrote a short story here... Cooper ( talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:SALT Admins with the relevant privileges will be able to see this car-crash of past deletions. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Windows Deployment Image Customization Kit |
---|
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nom. There is a clear consensus to keep this draft. As such, I have closed the discussion as I see no point in keeping a discussion where there is a unanimous "keep". (non-admin closure) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Draft:Windows Deployment Image Customization Kit
Reads like an advertisement. Also, sources are not reliable. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
|
We're told that this is about "a personal artistic constructed language", and we are warned "DO NOT SUBMIT THE DRAFT FOR REVIEW AT ANY POINT IN TIME FOR ANY REASON."
"Seemingly created solely for the creator's personal amusement" isn't a speedy deletion criterion, so I bring the matter here. Hoary ( talk) 00:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's been a minute since I made this, and I can't say this is a proud accomplishment of mine. Back then, "nominating a well-respected bureaucrat for adminship" was a funnier idea in my head, perhaps, and my young self wasn't sure how to deliver. I don't feel strongly about deleting it entirely, so if people would rather move this to an April Fools subpage that's fine, but I'd prefer this not have to keep this as a user subpage. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Speedy as an A11 was contested (courtesy @ CanonNi and Whpq:), but it's a G5 ( Editer344 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Rather than re-tag, bringing here for more eyes. I don't see a path toward article space for this draft. Star Mississippi 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 03:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (default edit summary) WP:COPIES of West Garo Hills district. Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (no edit summary) WP:COPIES of Labor union. Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (default exit summary for page creation) WP:COPIES of Ajax (programming). Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (edit summary consists solely of the word "ALL") WP:COPIES of PL/SQL. Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of Johnstown flood. Flounder fillet ( talk) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of the Beatles. Flounder fillet ( talk) 13:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of NASCAR. Flounder fillet ( talk) 13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of Love Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This draft, written by a paid editor about a non-notable BLP, has sucked too much community time; it is time for this draft to be deleted. I will also note an article about Bishop has been deleted at AfD and is currently salted at William Bishop (performing artist), William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer).
This has been declined at AfC six(!) times before I rejected it yesterday. Since the rejection, the author has tried to improve the article and asked a plethora of questions at the AFC help desk, resulting a ~35 comment discussion in just over 24 hours. Responding to these questions is consuming volunteer time to satisfy a paid editor (and besides the paid author I have seen zero evidence of anyone finding this to be a notable topic).
At the request of the article creator, I have previously prepared several SATs; I have included an updated one below. As you can see, we have identified one (1) possible SIRS candidate, but we would need multiple for notability. UPDATE: that source is not independent; see
comments by
Cleo Cooper.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:HouseBlaster
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.abc.net.au/triplejunearthed/artist/william-john-titus-bishop/ | Does not appear to be independent of Bishop (the website says it has has kicked off the careers of thousands of Australian musicians, which seems awfully promotional. Furthermore, it shares much of the same text with source 2. |
~ It has two paragraphs, which is not nothing but certainly not enough to base an article on | ✘ No | |
https://www.chinaimx.com/545/ | Appears to be sourced from https://www.williamjohntitusbishop.com and is essentially close paraphrasing of the above source | ~ It has two paragraphs, which is not nothing but certainly not enough to base an article on | ✘ No | |
https://theplayground.co.uk/listen-to-william-john-titus-bishops-latest-i-dont-remember-you-at-all/ | Three sentences about Bishop himself | ✘ No | ||
https://www.viberate.com/artist/william-bishop/ | |
? Not sure if this is reliable? | See the "More about William Bishop" section | ✘ No |
https://www.emptymirrorbooks.com/literature/shakespeare-sonnets-alchemy | By Bishop himself | Not much about Bishop as a person | ✘ No | |
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2020%2F09%2F11%2Fdeclanmckenna_tdhc_thumb-439b84365ce19df2b1c95758b0571c37ed67047b.jpg&tbnid=0FubSYJYdNm8kM&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2020%2F09%2F14%2F912004072%2Fdeclan-mckenna-tiny-desk-home-concert&docid=6CzqE-UFeDmeAM&w=1438&h=1078&hl=en-GB&sfr=vfe | A video which features Bishop himself | No coverage of Bishop at all | ✘ No | |
https://ethicalinfluencers.co.uk/william-bishop/ | Not independent of Bishop; also copies the same bio from sources 1 and 2 | It has three meaty paragraphs | ✘ No | |
https://intellifluence.com/blog/william-john-titus-bishop-influencer-spotlight | An interview with Bishop is not independent of Bishop | ✘ No | ||
https://theopinionpages.com/2022/10/modern-music-collaboration-influencer-marketing-and-independent-labels/ | Written by Bishop himself | ✘ No | ||
https://www.cultr.com/news/interview-william-john-titus-bishop-people-can-expect-to-be-moved-by-my-music/ | An interview with Bishop is not independent of Bishop | ✘ No | ||
https://www.reverbnation.com/williambishop | It contains the phrase I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it, which is written in the first person. Even if we grant that it is a typo (and that is a massive assumption), it still contains insights into Bishop's thoughts (e.g. He didn’t think anything of it at the time). Occam's razor is that it was written by Bishop himself. |
? I had a long discussion about this source with the author, Topg1985. To counter the fact that it contains Bishop's thoughts, Topg1985 stated that independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article.If we accept that it is an embellishment (read: made-up BS), the source is not reliable. |
✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the note about Viberate—I have amended the SAT accordingly.
Interviews with Bishop are certainly not independent of Bishop, and thus cannot contribute to notability (which requires significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL we should not keep an article because it will be notable in the future. In fact, we have a list of articles which were (correctly!) deleted at one point—in many cases due to lack of notability—only to be (again, correctly!) recreated later once they qualified. One great examples of this include iPhone ( discussion).
G4 applies if someone recreates the same page with essentially the same content. If someone recreates this page with different content—in particular, with additional sourcing—that would not qualify as G4. Let me know if you have any other questions, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ElChinoAntrax |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) User:ElChinoAntraxIncomplete unattributed copy of José Rodrigo Aréchiga Gamboa. Flounder fillet ( talk) 21:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ended today on 29 April 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC. Divisive userbox. Broc ( talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Skip to:
Table of contents /
current discussions /
old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your
user page (or
subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{
db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an
administrator will then delete the page. See
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed 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
What may be nominated for deletion here:
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, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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.
|
V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 44 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Junk draft copy and pasted from Playboi Carti. Coop ( talk) 06:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This page consists of crude copy-paste WP:COPIES of several articles (at least Sōke and Martial arts) with some nonsense that looks like an attempt at self-promotion added. Flounder fillet ( talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
An attempt at a WP:FAKEARTICLE that seems to be at least partially copied from Toronto and altered to describe a fictional location. User stated intent to use Wikipedia as a web host and create a hoax in the page creation edit: "We are the municipal council of the Raccoon City and we are in here to let the whole world know us through wikipedia." Flounder fillet ( talk) 02:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete to make space for a proper GA review. It seems like one of the editors has blanked the page so it's most likely that they also want it to be deleted. Okmrman ( talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a political screed
coatracking as an essay. People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive. The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to
the same level as Nazism is an abuse of
WP:ESSAYS and also of
WP:NOTADVOCACY and
WP:NOTFORUM. It smacks of an attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seems like a good place to start.
Ad Orientem (
talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic.This discussion will establish whether or not the essay is problematic; I am proposing the first option as an alternative to the second, if that is indeed found to be the case. Girth Summit (blether) 17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributorsor the sheer number of pages in Category:Wikipedia essays, for evidence that the community has historically not seen consensus as a prerequisite for putting something in projectspace.
a political screedis an insult without justification. If you don't like the essay, you can suggest improvements, be bold and make them, or write why you don't endorse it.
Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazismwhere does it do this? NONAZIS was the first essay of this sort written, but we also have WP:No racists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.- they are not subject to the same scrutiny as mainspace articles and do not represent all editors views, but as has already been proven by multiple people having endorsed the essay, it clearly does represent the view and consensus of some editors on Wikipedia. One last point I'd like to make is that this essay captures some of the essence of the disruption that LGBTQIA+ topics and editors often experience, which is why we even have a mainspace article on LGBT and Wikipedia as this kind of disruptive editing has even brought large attention of reliable source media on multiple occasions. It is most certainly not just a coatrack, but very much a valuable essay on itself as the topic of LGBTQ coverage and the harassment that users trying to improve its content do have to regularly experience as the article in the NY Times from 2019 has summarized quite well. Raladic ( talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
the relevant policies that applyexplained to them. ——Serial Number 54129 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis. This was explicitly addressing a gap NONAZIS doesn't fill because one can be disruptively queerphobic without being a Nazi: we have 3 essays on why racism and openly identifying with racists is bad, one on general reasons we don't tolerate bigotry, and this single essay on queerphobia. I think a deletion discussion about the solitary one on queerphobia instead of all of them is misguided at best as many editors' arguments include dislike of the type of essay as a whole. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
There are over 2,000 essays ... Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints ... Many essays ... are obscure, single-author pieces.Wikipedia:Essays (itself an essay!) indicates that essays can be moved to userspace or deleted if problematic, typically because they contradict existing community norms. I do not believe this essay does so. It outlines some information that is uncontroversial (e.g. medical fact or Wikipedia behavioural policies) as well as some opinion by the author about how Wikipedia policies should be enforced and what queerphobia looks like in the context of Wikipedia. None of it violates a core policy such as WP:NPOV. Though I support its contents, I would object to it being upgraded to an explanatory supplement or guideline etc.The highly referenced WP:NONAZIS is a contentious essay that some Wikipedians disagree with (for instance, those who believe somebody should only be blocked for actions, not beliefs). It lists views that are widely held e.g. supporting forcible sterilisation of disabled people (which is done on a large scale today) and describes them as beliefs that characterise modern-day Nazism. Nonetheless, it has enormous support and consensus at MfDs have found that its status as a Wikipedia-space essay is appropriate. This is because there has been widespread disruption to Wikipedia caused by neo-Nazis and Nazi-adjacent editors and it is an ongoing problem that requires a high level of knowledge and organisation among the community to combat. A similar analysis applies to "No queerphobes". — Bilorv ( talk) 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBT community" -- what in the world does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? There is then the non sequitur claim that these groups "
and affiliated groups" should be avoided as sources. Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad? This is silly. jp× g 🗯️ 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice- have examples?
Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad- The list, since deleted, concerned multiple groups people have tried to cite as sources which are known for misinformation. Off the top of my head, here's the last time somebody tried to cite one [2] (who cited the groups dozens of times on other wikis and is a pretty good example of who the essay is talking about). These are groups which reliable sources concur are known for misinformation about the LGBT community, which is not only confirmed by a quick read of their articles but by RSN itself. [3] [4] [5] Which of the deleted ones do you think actually counts as anything close to a WP:RS? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That cisgender or heterosexual people are "more oppressed than" or "actually oppressed, unlike" LGBT people. What does this even mean? "Pete Buttigieg is more oppressed than Malala Yousafzai"? "Ellen DeGeneres is more oppressed than Anne Frank"? Is it about aggregates across populations? How can that even be measured? Is this sentence also saying "oppression from war and famine is directly comparable to oppression from homophobia, because this is a single quantity that exists along a single axis, and also the second is worse than the first"? Is the essay saying these sentences are true? Is it saying that they're true and also somebody who disagrees with them should be removed from the project? Ignoring, for the moment, that most LGBT people are either one or the other of those things (e.g. most homosexual people are cisgender) -- the sentence just does not make sense. It's either meant to be read at face value, in which case it's utterly ludicrous, or it's meant to be read as a hashtag-like statement of vibes where the words do not actually mean what the words say, in which case it is a vague activist tweet. I understand that writing stuff that doesn't have a coherent literal meaning for the purpose of signaling political coalitional allegiances is important. However, I am opposed to an essay that goes way out of its way to emphasize "Muslims/Catholics/Presbyterians aren't welcome on Wikipedia unless they recant". jp× g 🗯️ 00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
groups known for spreading misinformation..was just a week ago the center of such a focus in light of the Cass Review, there was a discussion of some sources from the UK that contribute to it, directly linked to LGBT topic on the Talk:Cass Review#Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times, which has now led to an RFC prep to discuss the limiting of them as RS for transgender topics due to their regular coverage spreading of misinformation. This is not just a theoretical topic, but the lived reality of people trying to uphold Wikipedia's values and trying to improve LGBT content on Wikipedia and the uphill battle that it often represents. As you can see from there, editors are now collaborating to collect the evidence and will subsequently bring it for discussion, following the processes we have in place for such discussions.
This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.right at the top, like all essays in wp-space. So I'm not really sure what the reason for deletion is here. The idea that WP:HATEDISRUPT already covers this topic doesn't make much sense to me as a deletion reason either. Look at how many redundant essays we have on notability! -- asilvering ( talk) 04:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
See also User:Khaled Tarabey/sandbox, which shows that this is the output from a large language model, and is web hosting by an editor who is not otherwise contributing to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the same as Draft:Shaheedallll and is U5, Wikipedia is not for web hosting. No other contributions by author. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This page was created by a now blocked sockpuppet who has a history of writing paid BLPs, potentially as an attempt to WP:GAMING. Given this context, this is not a legitimate and does not reflect community consensus. Deleting it would prevent any confusion and ensure that unreliable sources are not mistakenly defended using this page as a reference. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
An open letter to rep Kevin Hern doesn't belong here. Coop ( talk) 09:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
GPT-generated entry that does not belong on Wikipedia. Coop ( talk) 04:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Her life experience can be interesting, but the content of this is not suitable for Wikipedia at all. Coop ( talk) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Not a real topic, as the author mentions. Coop ( talk) 03:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Would work well in a blog. Coop ( talk) 02:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
A personal diary-like entry about WritingDearly written by WritingDearly. Coop ( talk) 02:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
"This is a literary essay." - according to the creator. Coop ( talk) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need a GPT-generated draft of Cheese? Cooper ( talk) 02:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this is true or not, but this does not belong on Wikipedia. Cooper ( talk) 02:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Part of User:Khaled Tarabey/sandbox, GPT-generated fiction. Cooper ( talk) 02:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
GPT-generated story. Cooper ( talk) 02:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This should be removed as Draft:Colourblocks already exists, and the current topic lacks notability. — 48JCL Talk 12:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 00:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Fictional short story? Cooper ( talk) 01:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I think someone wrote a short story here... Cooper ( talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:SALT Admins with the relevant privileges will be able to see this car-crash of past deletions. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Windows Deployment Image Customization Kit |
---|
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nom. There is a clear consensus to keep this draft. As such, I have closed the discussion as I see no point in keeping a discussion where there is a unanimous "keep". (non-admin closure) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Draft:Windows Deployment Image Customization Kit
Reads like an advertisement. Also, sources are not reliable. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
|
We're told that this is about "a personal artistic constructed language", and we are warned "DO NOT SUBMIT THE DRAFT FOR REVIEW AT ANY POINT IN TIME FOR ANY REASON."
"Seemingly created solely for the creator's personal amusement" isn't a speedy deletion criterion, so I bring the matter here. Hoary ( talk) 00:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's been a minute since I made this, and I can't say this is a proud accomplishment of mine. Back then, "nominating a well-respected bureaucrat for adminship" was a funnier idea in my head, perhaps, and my young self wasn't sure how to deliver. I don't feel strongly about deleting it entirely, so if people would rather move this to an April Fools subpage that's fine, but I'd prefer this not have to keep this as a user subpage. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Speedy as an A11 was contested (courtesy @ CanonNi and Whpq:), but it's a G5 ( Editer344 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Rather than re-tag, bringing here for more eyes. I don't see a path toward article space for this draft. Star Mississippi 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs) 03:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (default edit summary) WP:COPIES of West Garo Hills district. Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (no edit summary) WP:COPIES of Labor union. Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (default exit summary for page creation) WP:COPIES of Ajax (programming). Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Unattributed (edit summary consists solely of the word "ALL") WP:COPIES of PL/SQL. Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of Johnstown flood. Flounder fillet ( talk) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of the Beatles. Flounder fillet ( talk) 13:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of NASCAR. Flounder fillet ( talk) 13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of Love Flounder fillet ( talk) 23:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This draft, written by a paid editor about a non-notable BLP, has sucked too much community time; it is time for this draft to be deleted. I will also note an article about Bishop has been deleted at AfD and is currently salted at William Bishop (performing artist), William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer).
This has been declined at AfC six(!) times before I rejected it yesterday. Since the rejection, the author has tried to improve the article and asked a plethora of questions at the AFC help desk, resulting a ~35 comment discussion in just over 24 hours. Responding to these questions is consuming volunteer time to satisfy a paid editor (and besides the paid author I have seen zero evidence of anyone finding this to be a notable topic).
At the request of the article creator, I have previously prepared several SATs; I have included an updated one below. As you can see, we have identified one (1) possible SIRS candidate, but we would need multiple for notability. UPDATE: that source is not independent; see
comments by
Cleo Cooper.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:HouseBlaster
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.abc.net.au/triplejunearthed/artist/william-john-titus-bishop/ | Does not appear to be independent of Bishop (the website says it has has kicked off the careers of thousands of Australian musicians, which seems awfully promotional. Furthermore, it shares much of the same text with source 2. |
~ It has two paragraphs, which is not nothing but certainly not enough to base an article on | ✘ No | |
https://www.chinaimx.com/545/ | Appears to be sourced from https://www.williamjohntitusbishop.com and is essentially close paraphrasing of the above source | ~ It has two paragraphs, which is not nothing but certainly not enough to base an article on | ✘ No | |
https://theplayground.co.uk/listen-to-william-john-titus-bishops-latest-i-dont-remember-you-at-all/ | Three sentences about Bishop himself | ✘ No | ||
https://www.viberate.com/artist/william-bishop/ | |
? Not sure if this is reliable? | See the "More about William Bishop" section | ✘ No |
https://www.emptymirrorbooks.com/literature/shakespeare-sonnets-alchemy | By Bishop himself | Not much about Bishop as a person | ✘ No | |
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2020%2F09%2F11%2Fdeclanmckenna_tdhc_thumb-439b84365ce19df2b1c95758b0571c37ed67047b.jpg&tbnid=0FubSYJYdNm8kM&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2020%2F09%2F14%2F912004072%2Fdeclan-mckenna-tiny-desk-home-concert&docid=6CzqE-UFeDmeAM&w=1438&h=1078&hl=en-GB&sfr=vfe | A video which features Bishop himself | No coverage of Bishop at all | ✘ No | |
https://ethicalinfluencers.co.uk/william-bishop/ | Not independent of Bishop; also copies the same bio from sources 1 and 2 | It has three meaty paragraphs | ✘ No | |
https://intellifluence.com/blog/william-john-titus-bishop-influencer-spotlight | An interview with Bishop is not independent of Bishop | ✘ No | ||
https://theopinionpages.com/2022/10/modern-music-collaboration-influencer-marketing-and-independent-labels/ | Written by Bishop himself | ✘ No | ||
https://www.cultr.com/news/interview-william-john-titus-bishop-people-can-expect-to-be-moved-by-my-music/ | An interview with Bishop is not independent of Bishop | ✘ No | ||
https://www.reverbnation.com/williambishop | It contains the phrase I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it, which is written in the first person. Even if we grant that it is a typo (and that is a massive assumption), it still contains insights into Bishop's thoughts (e.g. He didn’t think anything of it at the time). Occam's razor is that it was written by Bishop himself. |
? I had a long discussion about this source with the author, Topg1985. To counter the fact that it contains Bishop's thoughts, Topg1985 stated that independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article.If we accept that it is an embellishment (read: made-up BS), the source is not reliable. |
✘ No | |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the note about Viberate—I have amended the SAT accordingly.
Interviews with Bishop are certainly not independent of Bishop, and thus cannot contribute to notability (which requires significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL we should not keep an article because it will be notable in the future. In fact, we have a list of articles which were (correctly!) deleted at one point—in many cases due to lack of notability—only to be (again, correctly!) recreated later once they qualified. One great examples of this include iPhone ( discussion).
G4 applies if someone recreates the same page with essentially the same content. If someone recreates this page with different content—in particular, with additional sourcing—that would not qualify as G4. Let me know if you have any other questions, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ElChinoAntrax |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) User:ElChinoAntraxIncomplete unattributed copy of José Rodrigo Aréchiga Gamboa. Flounder fillet ( talk) 21:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ended today on 29 April 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC. Divisive userbox. Broc ( talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)