Hosta

Current discussions

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

May 29, 2022

Draft:Marvel vs. Star Wars: Which is better?

Draft:Marvel vs. Star Wars: Which is better? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I didn't know an opinion warranted a draft. — SirDot (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - It's a draft, and drafts are normally kept unless there is a reason to delete them. Needing declining or rejecting is not a reason to delete a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Just let it be G13'd after six months. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious violation of WP:NOTESSAY since its been brought here, but this really should have been left for WP:G13. This has no chance of ever making it to article space since it is just someone's personal essay on which of two franchises is better, and it fundementally violates WP:What Wikipedia is not 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lando

Draft:Lando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Copy/paste of the German de:Lando (Graffitikünstler)
No single reason, but multiple non-fatal reasons taken together means this is already a stale draft:

• no attribution of original .de WP
• not English, and no attempt or request to translate
• bad title - will never reside at target, but just annoys me editing the dab
• 4 months stale, so in 2 more it's a speedy
  • not even clear this isn't a test edit Widefox; talk 17:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Two, maybe three of the sources are acceptable and one of them is big enough to add toward notability. But there's also pure spam, here, and as Widefox says, there's all kinds of other problems. I looked at it to see if it's worthwhile working on it, but I don't see that. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete only because the MFD nomination has restarted the calendar, so that it will now run for another 6 months unless we delete it. It had needed declining in January when I declined it, and it needed leaving alone, but wasn't left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Southafricannews/sandbox

User:Southafricannews/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Seemed like self-promotion or hoax, But not sure. PAVLOV (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#U5. Also, delete as an unsourced WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete as roughly equivalent to U5. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as doesn't appear to fall foul of WP:UP#PROMO. Amisom (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced BLP on a non-notable person, I can find no real coverage of this person, but after a bit of searching I managed to find their youtube channel which has 22 subscribers and 165 views. Created by an account who's only other contributions have been hijacking an article to promote this person.

User talk:Gay b1itch

User talk:Gay b1itch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

• Disruptive
• username not widely appropriate Volten001 ^☎ 03:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:DENY. Has not been used as a talk page except for the notice of this mfd. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no point in deleting the user talk page. Maybe the nominator was trying to tag the user page for deletion, but there isn't a user page, and deleting a user page is not how admins deal with inappropriate usernames. It appears that the user has been blocked, probably for a username violation. I think that a deleted user talk page may be recreated by various actions anyway, which is a reason not to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t disagree with this argument. If kept, then blank. Per WP:DENY, it should have been blanked and should not have been listed at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and WP:BLANK per WP:DENY. There is no need to have this thing come back to us at a later date through recreation, blanking the page would indeed be the better option here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 28, 2022

Draft:Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki

Draft:Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Mr. Gopal Chandra Budhathoki

I was in the process of writing an AFD for this page, and then it was moved to draft space. The author appears to be trying to spam with articles about a Nepalese politician who may be himself or his employer. A check of the references is normally not relevant to a nomination to delete a draft. But in this case the references are about someone else and a different office, so that this draft is a non-obvious hoax. It doesn't qualify as G3, but it needs deleting.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Kathmandupost.com	About the office of mayor rather than a person	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	Yes
2	English.onlinekhabar.com	About the office of mayor of Kathmandu	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
3	Kathmandupost.com	About someone else in a different office	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
4	Wikipedia article	A circular reference	No			No

The subject is supposedly the mayor of Mechinagar, which is being redirected to Kathmandu, but there is no indication that Mechinagar is an alternat name for Kathmandu. The mayor of Kathmandu appears to be Balendra Shah, and not the subject of this page. This is an non-obvious hoax, and should be deleted.

There appears to be a conduct issue, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SegaSonic the Hedgehog (spin-off franchise)

Draft:SegaSonic the Hedgehog (spin-off franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Fails WP:GNG. And plus there is only one game and one canceled game that barely anyone knows about in this "Franchise". THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 17:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - GNG is a reason to decline drafts when submitted, not to delete drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Fails GNG is not a deletion reason for drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mario Versus Sonic

Draft:Mario Versus Sonic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I HIGHLY doubt that this is going to happen. And plus WP:CRYSTAL. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 17:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NDRAFT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With no references and no GNG information, would need declining or rejecting if submitted. None of the reasons to delete drafts apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not

Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Delete per WP:G5 as WP:SANCTIONGAMING which is skirting very closely (too closely, IMHO) around the edges of a topic ban. Was CSD'ed but that was removed by an editor who has since gone on to post a long WP:BATTLEGROUND rant at ANI coupled with WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page. Plus most of this is just bad advice that occasionally goes directly against policy and shouldn't be in project space (along with some broad-ranging but obvious ASPERSIONS against groups of editors, like for ex. Some editors go by an ultra-orthodox approach to implementing MEDRS, blanking articles and deleting text they consider to be in violation of the guideline and refusing to participate in subsequent discussions.). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This essay is random bad advice written by someone who has consistently found themselves in conflict with core policies. It is a place to bitch about editors they are in conflict with (conflict that has resulted in a topic ban which has just been widened). We already have a page that describes community consensus on what MEDRS covers and may be used for: Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which has long been the semi-official description of MEDRS's scope. -- Colin°^Talk 15:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this qualifies for G5 speedy delete, especially as editing occurred before the TBAN was expanded to all COVID. But in the context of this essay being part of the disruptive behavior that caused the TBAN to be expanded, I do believe the result of this delete discussion should be to delete. Particularly as almost all of the essay creator's edits involving MEDRS sourcing have related to COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my concern is not that the essay is merely incorrect or invalid advice. It's that it's indicative of being WP:NOTHERE. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but that tells us about a property of the author (not here), not of the essay itself. I agree though, it's rubbish - but Wikipedia has lots of rubbish essays. If things go the way they have with similar efforts, the essay will be allowed to stay but the project space shortcuts will need to go, which needs to be done via a separate process. O what a load of work this monkeying-around creates. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent may dictate otherwise, but my comment remains that without a clean start from scratch, the provenance means it will continue to attract WP:NOTHERE editing. Can't build a stable house on a faulty foundation. I wouldn't be opposed to an inclusionist essay on this topic, but think the only way it will prove productive is a fresh start. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is good advice for editors trying to navigate the pitfalls and traps of MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in medical and political topics. Gimiv (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Help me interpret navigate the pitfalls and traps of MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in a way that isn't WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because re-writing it to say something sensible – something that would actually help editors navigate MEDRS and FRINGE, and not just set them on a path towards getting blocked and TBANned – would require blowing it up with WP:TNT and starting over. If we can't agree to just get rid of it, then I'd suggest as my second choice to stick it in the editor's userspace and to delete the shortcut, because (a) that kind of shortcut gets misunderstood, especially by less-experienced editors, and (b) we might want it to point to a section in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Biomedical information. I am particularly concerned about the shortcut being confused with a section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - basically per WAID. It's an essay which is, at its core, three things: a statement that MEDRS is sometimes misapplied, an argument that we should include fringe or low quality biomedical information as long as it's attributed, and aggrieved finger-pointing. I completely agree that MEDRS is sometimes applied too broadly, but any attempt to address that is thoroughly undercut by the essayist's own arguments and behavior, which come out in the other two components of the essay. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There seems to be a pattern of this user making controversial essays in projectspace during disputes. Does WP:CRYNPA also need some eyes on it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to have been created as the content was ejected from WP:NPA. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like the order of events was CP added it to NPA, it was reverted, then CP made a projectspace essay about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, that's what I meant. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Userfy —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important policy discourse. To the extent of it being (in parts) bad advice or wrong, that can and should be solved by WP:EDITCONSENSUS and discussion on the talk page. The discourse is very important noting that WP:MEDRES is a specialist almost credentialed authority that most editors are unable to engage with. Even if this essay is poor, suppression of an essay is more evil. I agree with deletion of the shortcuts. I don’t support userfication because multiple editors, including me, support its continuation in project space. I support renaming to add the suffix “(essay)” to the title. Essays are allowed to be wrong, but essays looking like policy, by url or linking, can be misleading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t support TNT of the page, but I do support extensive editing to respond to the alleged wrong ideas. Use the current text as seed information representing what some people might think, and improve it, even to the point of a complete rewrite, but this does not require deletion of the original versions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SmokeyJoe, the essay isn't so much a "poor" attempt at making a valid point, albeit perhaps a minority one on Wikipedia. What makes it irredeemably bad is that it purports to be a clarification of the scope of MEDRS, but is in that role a fork of the longstanding and semi-official essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information (which has more text dedicated to what MEDRS does not cover, than to what it does cover). If we are to discuss views of MEDRS scope then surely BMI is a better location than allowing topic-banned editors creating their own deviant variations. If there is a place to discuss how Wikipedia should handle fringe theories, then surely Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the place, and not a fork by an editor who pushes fringe theories and has got topic banned for doing so. The point about your suggestion that it can be improved is that editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia based on consensus policies and guidelines can already do that on other pages, without wasting their time fighting a battle on two fronts. If most editors feel the entire content of the page actively harms the project then what really is the point?

  I'd support keeping a somewhat contrarian essay if created by an editor in good standing and which clearly indicated that it was advocating a viewpoint that did not currently have consensus in policy. But this is neither of those things. -- Colin°^Talk 07:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You make the argument to redirect to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, aka WP:BMI. I wasn’t sure what the BMI stuff was about, Body Mass Index? I really dislike discussions with essential points in jargon.

  Forks should be fixed by redirecting, not deletion.

  I support a merge and redirect, but not “delete” and not “pseudo delete by redirection”. This essays raises issues that I don’t see addressed at WP:BMI.

  For WP:BMI, I don’t think the fringe elements are valuable, but do think that MEDRES-interpretation disputes is an important issue to document.

  I see that there is definitely a problem with the page as it stands, but I don’t agree that it is delete-worthy, and nor that the decision on how to fix is an MfD matter. If the page is continue, it most definitely should reference WP:Biomedical information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That WP:BMI is the shortcut to Wikipedia:Biomedical information is mentioned in the lead paragraph of the essay we are discussing, and is highlighted at the top of Wikipedia:Biomedical information, the page I've explained already exists to document consensus on what MEDRS is or is not for. I don't know, I think indicating a lack of familiarity / careful reading of the subjects of the deletion discussion wasn't a good move.

  Wrt whether the essay raises issues not at WP:BMI, you don't give specifics. What are they? Perhaps they could be included? Perhaps they are mentioned already on endless talk page discussions and they just seem novel to you. You now recommend "merge" but what would be merged, if most of the comments here are of the "nuke it" variety? Most of it seems to be an explanation of why the author has earned their topic ban. -- Colin°^Talk 11:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I hold MEDRES in very high respect, but have never engaged with it. Yes, “BMI” is throughout the page, I guess I expected it to be bluelinked, and I disliked the piping style that hides “WP” prefixes. I did read it through, but on a third read I note that I dislike it and can barely help skipping ahead. The writing annoys me in that is reads as self-asserting policy, and not as an essay. I see why it is nominated for deletion, but I think an effort should be made to capture the minority complain, not delete it.

  What is in the essay that is not in BMI is discussion on editor disputes. I see some considered opinion there. I have no experience with such disputes, but it is this, editor’s opinion on editor disputes, is the sort of thing that shouldn’t be deleted.

  If MEDRES editors can tell me that the author’s efforts are worthless, then maybe it should be userfied. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  SmokeyJoe, for what it is worth, I created MEDRS, though am not the author of most of its content. And you already know WhatamIdoing, who created Wikipedia:Biomedical information in order to document the limitations of MEDRS scope (IIRC). -- Colin°^Talk 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I now lean Userfy and delete the shortcuts. Userspace is exactly the right place for users to challenge guidelines and policy. I have read nearly none of the user’s TBAN history, but I don’t see anything in this page that is delete-worthy from userspace. I do agree that it does not belong in projectspace, where it is prone to mislead. It’s talk page looks like reasonable discussions can be had, and these can continue in userspace, subject to the scope and duration of the TBAN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The essay was clearly intended as a response to their TBAN. I have no opinion as to whether that triggers the G5 deletion rule. (I don't usually look at MfD.) IMHO, Nothing of value would be lost if it was deleted, to me it just reads like thinly veiled pro-fringe apologism. ApLundell (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: (a) The essay includes multiple statements implying / imposing action on editors such as "editors must consult the WP:BMI page", "editors must consult the WP:FRINGE page" and " If a dispute persists, ... editors should escalate it to a noticeboard or seek arbitration." rather than using "should consider" and other more neutral phrasing.
  (b) I agree that having an essay / workflow on dealing with WP:MEDRS related discussions would be good but I think WP:TNT would be the best way of starting with it.
  (c) If it is kept then I like the removing of the shortcuts and adding "(essay)" to the page name sounds like a good idea.
  (d) We should remember that some people will use Wikipedia as one of the inputs for medical decisions which means that we should hold those pages to a higher standard than, for example, Harrods Christmas Bears which are unlikely to have peer reviewed articles about them (which is a pity).
  (e) At the risk of being tagged for WP:OR this article talks to the impact of tv and newspaper stories on health topics and says "Studies of local TV coverage of crime, politics, and health, however, have typically concluded that its content suffers from sensationalism and frequently contains little substance". and finally
  (f) others are better placed than I am but I am not sure that I would agree that "The WP:MEDRS guideline was created to uphold the WP:NPOV policy on biomedical information (WP:BMI)" rather than talking about the importance of providing accurate information. Gusfriend (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just a note that WP:G5 does not apply, as speedy deletion criteria are only valid when they apply unambiguously and need no discussion. Specifically, "For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban...", not "skirting very closely". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in mind that I wrote this essay after an editor claimed that only MEDRS could be used to WP:INCLUDE allegations that the Chinese government was/is undercounting COVID-19 infections and deaths, despite the fact that those allegations are attributed to Chinese CDC and public health officials speaking off the record to Caixin. After the editor responded comparing these whistleblowers to "Dr Woo" and their allegations as "Woo pills" [1], I decided to write this essay and posted it on WP:VPP to get input, but instead this editor and others attacked me personally, labeling me a proponent of conspiracy theories pump (policy)#What MEDRS is NOT. This essay deals almost exclusively with a behavioral problem, and does not challenge WP:MEDRS, or usurp WP:BMI in any way. The accusation that I violated my TBAN in writing it is completely unfounded, just like the allegation that I am "anti-MEDRS" and it is telling of a personal vendetta against me. The persistent abuse of MEDRS is well documented on Wikipedia, and during the VPP discussion on this essay, the same editor claimed Havana syndrome is a conspiracy theory, despite the latest report providing very little certainty, just like the reports before it. I intend to write another essay as a guide for editors to communicate scientific uncertainty, and put it through the rigours of an ARBCOM case, if necessary. CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  More falsity. I gave an example about attribution of quackery, and it has nothing to do with any "whistleblowers". At this point, I am thinking this user needs a site ban because, either through intention or severe lack of competence, they are nothing but a blight on the Project. The promised new essay and arbcom drama strengthens the case further. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you give an example of quackery? It was clearly in response to my post about the whistleblowers. If there is no behavioural issue here, then surely the case request would be thrown out and you would have nothing to fear? CutePeach (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said. Your wheeze of "when attributed anything is allowed as it's no longer biomedical!" is something that's been tried (wrongly) in the past to try to inject quackery into articles. I am thinking of the good of the Project as a whole and not hyper-focusing on lab leaks, bioweapons etc. I guess you can't see that's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you said. You were advocating for MEDRS as a sourcing restriction to delete political allegations, as you have in many topic areas, now including Havana syndrome. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More falsity (and I have opposed attempts to extend MEDRS beyond its biomedical focus - which was another stunt arising from the COVID lab leak mess). Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: I see you are now topic banned from "all of COVID-19, broadly construed". Considering that this essay does specifically include Covid-19, it might be an idea to check with the admin who extended your ban (@Tamzin: courtesy ping) whether you are still allowed to discuss this. (I'm not saying you can't, just that it's possibly worth checking). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: it is traditional to allow a few days for a newly TBANNED editor to unfurl things. I am in the process of responding to Tamzin and preparing an appeal via WP:ARBCOM. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: Sure, and I think it is reasonable for you to be able to defend your own creations in discussions such as this - I just didn't want you to be caught out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed site ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a misrepresentation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a good-faith attempt to improve policy understanding, it is a WP:Pointy essay that attempts to legitimize OPs personal views, which are in direct conflict with the community. Alternative is userify and remove the shortcut.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without userfication per AndyTheGrump. Essay space is not license to contravene standing policy with invective.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per multiple experienced editors, and me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:POLICY, [e]ssays 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. I disagree with a number of editors who take the view that the only legitimate essay is one that explains the current policies and guidelines. It is the case that we should userfy essays the author does not want others to edit, or that contradict widespread consensus, but the former is clearly not true (I edited the essay without objection from the author) and the evidence given by delete !voters for the second is not persuasive. As such, I don't really see evidence that this meets WP:DEL-REASON#13. The arguments for deletion argue that the whole essay was written in bad faith, which I take some offense to given that I substantially edited portions of it. No argument seems to touch another deletion reason given in the WP:Deletion Policy, so the arguments from WP:TNT could only draw support from WP:IAR. And to argue that this is TNT-worthy, per the text of that essay, would require that all the content—including all edits in its history—be useless, which seems like a bit of a stretch. Editors are allowed to write essays that do not directly contradict policies; if other editors find the essay either unwise or poorly written (as I do for this essay), they are free to write a counter-essay or to improve the rhetoric respectively. But deleting an essay because we either do not agree with it or find the rhetoric to be imprecise lacks a strong policy basis. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody here has said the "the only legitimate essay is one that explains the current policies and guidelines". And I think if users edited the essay to effectively neutralise CutePeach's viewpoints, they would object. Your argument is not persuasive given that there exists a forum whereby essays can be deleted. If CutePeach had written an essay about why they think current policy and guidelines are wrong and how they should be changed, that might be fine. But they have written an essay that misleads readers about policy and guideline, which is meritless. -- Colin°^Talk 09:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, came here via the ANI discussion and after looking at it all together, surprised this wasn't speedy deleted. Would support a snow delete, and also against userfying. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WhatamIdoing. starship.paint (exalt) 01:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022/Britisth Rail Class 420

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022/Britisth Rail Class 420 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I just don't get how a mildly vandalised copy of a page is needed, or helpful. It's just vandalism, and it was a long time ago that the decision was made that stuff like WP:BJAODN was not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd speedy it, but I am not certain that it meets G3 as it is (supposedly?) a "joke". I have got a fairly broad sense of humour, but I still don't see how this is funny. If they'd rewritten the whole article, maybe, but they haven't even gone past the lead. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No reason for deletion articulated by the nominator. Consider archiving. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Members of Interstate 196

Draft:List of Members of Interstate 196 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:LISTCRUFT. Has no way of actually becoming an actual article as the content of this list is entirely made up and the two references are unrelated, with one of them not being reliable. The helper5667 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - On principle I will vote keep on MFDs for drafts. If deletion was necessary, it would be done through G13.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy Delete as a Hoax. Some of the listed current members are dead, in one case for more than 16003600 years. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The list also contains unsourced and untrue information about living persons, which is another result of being a hoax, and more reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nonsense silly joke or hoax, incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. No project-related angle of humour. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is somewhat funny but it is a obvious hoax and should be deleted LockzZ (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27, 2022

Draft:Sonic the Series

Draft:Sonic the Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No use in having this draft when we have an even better draft at Draft:Untitled Knuckles series THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 20:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you find redundancy in drafts, fix by redirection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sonic CD Sound Tests

Draft:Sonic CD Sound Tests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:FANCRUFT and has possible no chance of becoming an article. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cruft should be declined when submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Characters in the Mario Tennis franchise

Draft:Characters in the Mario Tennis franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Another "Characters in the Mario ______ franchise" draft. Unlike the other two drafts I just nominated, I think that this draft could be sort of useful if we added citations and merged it to the Mario Tennis Series Article (Wait we don't have one). I'm not sure if we could do that since this could be WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 20:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As the nominator says, it could be useful. In any case, we don't delete drafts for being cruft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Shaking my head. You obviously didn't look at the page history or you would have known that this draft was due to be deleted RIGHT NOW as a CSD G13. But because you started an MFD about an expiring draft, it will likely be kept around for another six months. Please do not do this again. If you believe a draft should be deleted and it is due to be expiring the.very.next.day, do not start up a week-long MFD discussion on whether or not it should be deleted. And if you didn't want it to be deleted and the content be used elsewhere, then why on earth tag it for a deletion discussion? Just work on the draft then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, you didn't tag the draft article correctly, there should be an active link so that editors can come to this discussion. I recommend using Twinkle when you tag pages for deletion instead of just guessing on what the tag should be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did tag with twinkle but I'm not sure what happened with the link. Also looking at your advice I think I should stop doing Deletion stuff for now and focus on anti vandalism. I'm so sorry about my mistakes and I'll try to learn from them. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Draftspace does not need this sort of management. Attempting to manage draftspace like this defeats the purpose of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:HBO Kids

Draft:HBO Kids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Redirect to HBO Kids is now being re-created by sockpuppets of User:Jeremiah Caquias. Storchy (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Redirect Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Characters in the Super Mario series

Draft:Characters in the Super Mario series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Both WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT. We also have a way better article like this in mainspace. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 13:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless a redirect is possible. Is there a redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters

Draft:List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Mostly WP:LISTCRUFT. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 13:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Would need declining if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 26, 2022

Draft:Percy Jackson & the Olympians (TV series)

Draft:Percy Jackson & the Olympians (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is essentially a duplicate draft of Draft:Percy Jackson and the Olympians (TV series), and it is bypassing community consensus to maintain the subject matter at the draft level until more information becomes available. The submission was probably done in good faith, but this draft needs to be deleted and/or the namespace needs to be merged to prevent this from funneling potential editors to the wrong destination and creating general confusion ahead of the Disney+ show. Plus, the show uses "and" not "&" TNstingray (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect for now. BD2412 T 21:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect no need for two drafts. Whenever the article's creator is around he can contribute to the already formed draft. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 @WikiVirusC Is there any way to remove the draft's pending submission? That's the mainly concerning part at this point when you consider the consensus on the actual draft for the series. Will redirecting/merging it to the actual draft solve that issue? TNstingray (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirecting, per a consensus here, will entail removing everything else currently on the page. BD2412 T 21:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 I can go ahead and do that since I submitted the draft for deletion discussion. TNstingray (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think this is basically a speedy case. BD2412 T 01:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Merger completed. TNstingray (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close as already redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This appears to be a case of gaming of titles by using an ampersand instead of the word 'and'. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of most popular Mario characters

Draft:List of most popular Mario characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Same as: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of most popular Super Mario Maker 2 characters THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 16:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Incomprehensible WP:SYNTH based solely on Nintendo's financial reports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also fails WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Would need declining or rejecting if submitted. May be fixable with edits, or will die in six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of most popular Super Mario Maker 2 characters

Draft:List of most popular Super Mario Maker 2 characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This really makes no sense to me. Why is this article acting like the characters are products? And why Super Mario Maker 2 of all games? THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient context to discern the topic of the draft (somehow linked to Super Mario Maker 2), and WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Would need declining or rejecting if submitted. Created by a blocked user, but not a G5 case, so that is not a deletion reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mario Party 6 (Full)

Draft:Mario Party 6 (Full) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This already exists in main space. It is also written like an ad. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 16:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Redirect to Mario Party. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sketmario

Draft:Sketmario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Would need declining or rejecting if submitted. Could be reworked into a better draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2022

Draft:Surack Enterprises

Draft:Surack Enterprises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This article should probably be deleted -- if you look at the name of the user "bertehrmann", you can find that he is a contributor for one of the websites listed in the article (https://www.sweetcars.com/blog/author/bertehrmann). Not to mention the external link spamming, all of the companies listed on the article are already listed under the article for Chuck Surack. In my opinion it's clear this guy was just trying to promote the various websites/companies that Chuck owns by trying to make an article, but it was automatically a draft cause he had no previous contributions. ~XyNq^t_c 04:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not reasons to delete a draft. With no independent references, needed declining, and was declined. Some nominators are too eager to delete drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some nominators are too eager to delete drafts No, I think you just have too much good faith in things that are clearly just junk. Do you really think someone who has a clear COI is going to be willing to delete his external link spam on a draft? No. It's just gonna sit there and rot for 6 months until it's manually cleaned up then. ~XyNq^t_c 06:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:XyNq - So what? You referenced an essay that supports the deletion of articles that are junk. This is not an article. Junk in draft space is allowed to sit for 6 months in case someone comes along and adds content to it. Drafts are not deleted simply because they are junk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Robert McClenon: Even if it can't be deleted for simply being junk, anything that could potentially be put into this draft would be much better served just being put into the article for Chuck Surack. Surack Enterprises does not have any notability on its own, as it seems to just be a holding company containing various insignificant companies, other than Sweetwater Sound. WP:PAGEDECIDE - Sweetwater Sound and Chuck Surack deserve to be separate articles, but Chuck's personal holding company can easily be incorporated into the article he has, as it basically already is. ~XyNq^t_c 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - On principle I will vote keep on MFDs for drafts. If deletion was necessary, it would be done through G13. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 23, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:YTLiamStoneback/sandbox/Dani

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] User:YTLiamStoneback/sandbox/Dani User:YTLiamStoneback/sandbox/Dani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Copyvio of the Dani article from Wikitubia. Jurta talk 08:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Wikitubia is released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 Licence, which is the exact same licence that we use. The content here is therefore completely compatible with Wikipedia. All that this needs is appropriate attribution adding, using something like {{Fandom content}}. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Noting for the record that I removed a G12 tag by @Plutonical since this content is under a compatible open source licence. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] I have now added the required attribution to the article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] My apologies for the CSD issue, IP. I wasn't actually able to access Wikitubia because fandom is blocked on my school network, so I took Jurta's word for it. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Plutonical If you're going to tag something for speedy deletion then at least put the bare minimum amount of effort in and check that the page actually falls under the criteria you've tagged it for deletion under! What happened to your commitment to stay out of Wikipedia space until you have the experience to avoid being disruptive? [2] 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] I thought I did have the necessary experience, although I should probably reconsider that now, and maybe refrain from anything that I'm not completely certain about. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Not a copyvio, and the content is properly attributed now. Glades12 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Keep although I'm not too hot on the idea that this will ever make it to mainspace. casualdejekyll 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates