Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
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
Information on the process[edit]
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]
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 familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion[edit]
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions[edit]
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 35 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions[edit]
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions[edit]
- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
July 5, 2024[edit]
Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs[edit]
- Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is in clear violation of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_43#RFC:_ACE_Calcs; this is nothing but an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info if it's not going to be used in the article. Also WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:MANJESH MANN[edit]
A stupid copy of Denim, mixed with some additional text that given the broken formatting was almost certainly copied from somewhere else on the internet. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As the nominator says, this is a redundant fork, which causes attribution problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. This already causes attribution problems by being a fork of Wikipedia content, and it may count as plagiarism (or worse) as the other text seems to be taken without attribution from somewhere else. Glades12 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Walwal20/RfC Hartley Jackson[edit]
This nomination is for IP user 101.186.135.169, who stated "Abandoned RfC draft - user hasn't edited in over three years" in a PROD. PROD can only be used for actual articles and IPs can't start deletion discussions, so I'm posting it for them. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep User being inactive for some time is not a reason to delete their own productive subpages. Ca talk to me! 15:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - See the guideline on deletion of user pages of other users, which does not provide for deletion of abandoned user pages, which should in fact be retained in case the user returns. If the IP is the user and wants to delete the page, they can log on and tag it with U1 or G7. If the IP is someone else, they should leave the user alone. 16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
July 4, 2024[edit]
Draft:Chioma Avril Rowland[edit]
A non-notable figure recently appeared in the news due to being engaged to a notable singer, thus WP:INHERITED. It's unreasonable to maintain the draft, which has already been deleted through previous discussions as well as here. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but since it seems difficult to process, I am bringing it here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Drafts aren't deleted for being non-notable, and the title is salted anyways. The article was the one deleted by consensus, not the draft. Ca talk to me! 14:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ca, the draft has been deleted twice after a clear consensus at AFD. I tagged this one for salting and deletion since the subject isn't notable and I don't see that coming (though I never can tell). Since this has been recreated, it should be deleted. It doesn't matter whether the article is the one deleted. When a closely created draft to the one previously deleted is found, it better to delete and salt. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was basing my response off of Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Draft are not required to be notable, and thus an AfD decision is not relevant here. Ca talk to me! 15:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @SafariScribe Can you just let people say their opinion. How can you make a statement of not seeing people being notable in the future. Are you God. I am still wondering how you manage to get a reviewer right. I believe in Wikipedia is not just doing what is right but with WP:GOODFAITH. I saw when you created the Mfd but choose to be quite. If anyone could have said a delete you would have been quiet because they supported you. But I believe a Wikipedia admin will not just close a discussion because an editor said keep or delete. The reason for the keep or delete will be examine. Meanwhile, I have said why the draft is supposed to be keep on its talk page Draft talk:Chioma Avril Rowland. So I don’t think further reason it’s needed here for me. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ca, the draft has been deleted twice after a clear consensus at AFD. I tagged this one for salting and deletion since the subject isn't notable and I don't see that coming (though I never can tell). Since this has been recreated, it should be deleted. It doesn't matter whether the article is the one deleted. When a closely created draft to the one previously deleted is found, it better to delete and salt. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity.
- There is a critical distinction about deletion discussions that maybe needs clarification. The article was deleted from article space by an AFD, and then another version of the article with a slightly different name was created in article space, and was deleted as G4. This draft is in draft space. A draft should be deleted from draft space if it (or another version of the title) has been deleted from draft space by MFD, but a draft is not deleted from draft space simply because the article was deleted by AFD. Perhaps the wording of G4 should be clarified. This draft should be Rejected for proven lack of notability if it is submitted, but drafts are not deleted simply because they will never be accepted.
- This draft title should not be salted in draft space, because that would only result in the ultras who support the subject gaming the name with another draft title, where an AFC reviewer might not see the record of previous deletions. It is better to leave the draft title as a honey pot.
- The nominator is mostly right, but there is a critical fine distinction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Sarkarshubham[edit]
Copy of an old version of Jalebi. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Even if the appearance of the copy isn't stupid, the act of making the unnecessary copy is itself stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, but perhaps we shouldn't get into the habit of using the word "stupid." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Mutopai west papua[edit]
Stupid copy of an old version of Free Papua Movement. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Like all stupid copies, it is also a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The creator probably supports this movement, judging by their username. In any case, this seven-years-old fork serves no purpose for information, activism nor anything else. Glades12 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
July 3, 2024[edit]
Draft:FUN 2 RHYME[edit]
This article about a "meme song" has no references or citations and appears like the song is not eligible nor popular enough as a meme or trend to be recognized by the Wikipedia community. Meltdown reverter (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a draft, and should be declined or rejected. Drafts do not need to be nominated for deletion from the New Page queue for notability or sanity reasons, as explained in this essay. Is the nominator a new New Page Patrol reviewer who thought that drafts should be reviewed for sanity? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Ayesha Erotica[edit]
Proposing redirect to Ayesha Erotica. This draft cites no reliable sources and is loaded with original research and unverified information; every reliable source is covered in the mainspace article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Completely agreed, A draft with no reliable sources shouldn't be accepted to Wikipedia, according to the policies. The draft might be a copy with terrible sourcing. Meltdown reverter (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The draft predates the article by around 8 months and has a substantial number of edits again predating the article. Is a WP:HISTMERGE in order? Curbon7 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we merge? It has no sources, and its authorship has no overlap. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ayesha Erotica. I made a mistake in reviewing this draft, because I didn't check whether the references were any good. It appears that none of them are any good, and I should have included that as a reason to decline, and probably should not have tagged the draft and the article to be merged. There is no need for a history merge, because it appears that the article was created bona fide and is not borrowing from the draft. The draft should just be blanked and redirected to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2, 2024[edit]
Template:User Generation Alpha[edit]
Our article defines the oldest members of Gen Alpha as having been born in 2010 (or arguably later). Given our Oversight policy against such age disclosures, this userbox should not exist as it just invites people to disclose information about themselves they shouldn't. When the older range of gen Alpha matures into being of an age where self disclosure is not seen as so harmful this teimplate could obviously be re-created. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Back when I made the article a few years, I never considered this, a huge oversight on my part. I guess I was eager to contribute something to this site, however short-sighted I was. I suppose it is too early for the infobox to exist. I am ok with whatever outcome comes of this discussion. -Shift674-🌀 contribs 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Barkeep misrepresents policy. There is nothing wrong with minors disclosing that they are minors. The fact of being a minor is not identifying information. The suppression of clear identification of being a minor is a net negative, because it prevents most people from noticing that minors are minors, allowing predators of minors, who tune into more subtle cues, to act with reduced visibility. Children are safest open to widespread public view. Children are not safest when hidden away. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is established practice for the Oversight team to suppress disclosures of personal information and to suppress disclosures of age by minors. It is a reason in the drop-down menu and of the last 1,000 suppression entries, age-related suppressions take up around 19%. That practice started before my tenure on the Oversight team and will probably continue after my departure. Given the risks faced by minors on the internet and current Oversight team practice, I do not see how it would be responsible to let more people notice that someone is a minor and do not see how retention of this template would work. (Note that this issue came to my attention in my capacity as an Oversighter). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Think of the children? Erring on the side of overnighting minors’ ill-considered releases of personal data makes sense. Forbidding minors from self identifying as minors does not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not all minors are forbidden from self-disclosure or put another way not all self-disclousres from under 18s are oversighted. The exceptions that are made are far more common the closer you get to 18. The oldest a self identified Gen Alpha is going to be at this point is 14 an age for which onwiki self-disclosures are nearly always going to be OS'ed. In fact I am aware of more 14 year-old editors who have been OS'ed blocked in the last year than 14 year-old editors whose self-disclosures were ultimately allowed to stand (the latter category being 1). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems the oversighters have been making this stuff, pseudopolicy, up for years, without reference either to community discussion or child safety evidence. Did oversighters ever have a proper discussion, or did the practice just evolve into existence?
- For better child safety, children benefit from looking like children due to bystander security. Grooming doesn’t happen in view of other adults.
- I guess there is probably WMF assumed responsibility to protect children from revealing self-identifying information, which is probably only very good, but extrapolating this to mere identification as a minor, otherwise anonymous, goes beyond the optimum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with BK49 on this specific case but I do find it strange that we keep finding ourselves trying to make policy fit "oversight practice" rather than the other way around. Where do these rules actually come from? – Joe (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not all minors are forbidden from self-disclosure or put another way not all self-disclousres from under 18s are oversighted. The exceptions that are made are far more common the closer you get to 18. The oldest a self identified Gen Alpha is going to be at this point is 14 an age for which onwiki self-disclosures are nearly always going to be OS'ed. In fact I am aware of more 14 year-old editors who have been OS'ed blocked in the last year than 14 year-old editors whose self-disclosures were ultimately allowed to stand (the latter category being 1). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Think of the children? Erring on the side of overnighting minors’ ill-considered releases of personal data makes sense. Forbidding minors from self identifying as minors does not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is established practice for the Oversight team to suppress disclosures of personal information and to suppress disclosures of age by minors. It is a reason in the drop-down menu and of the last 1,000 suppression entries, age-related suppressions take up around 19%. That practice started before my tenure on the Oversight team and will probably continue after my departure. Given the risks faced by minors on the internet and current Oversight team practice, I do not see how it would be responsible to let more people notice that someone is a minor and do not see how retention of this template would work. (Note that this issue came to my attention in my capacity as an Oversighter). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure about Joe's idea that this userbox is a child safety tool in the face of predators who can notice children expertly, but it doesn't apparently violate any policy, and anyone is allowed to disclose their age on Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- No one is asking the children to "hide away". In fact I want them to edit and do so without issue and having your user page oversighted and having to receive a "don't do that" from an oversighter sure seems like a disinecentive to a child editing. No one needs to know anyone's age on wikipedia to be an editor - there are maybe 5 editors who knows how old I am (though many more could guess my general age). So yes let's have children editors and yes let's protect children editors from choices that they don't have all the information to make and yes let's not create a honeypot for child predators. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. As others have said, it is long-established that we suppress personal details (that's what this is, it's personal information about the age of a user) where users may not realise that such information is public or don't fully understand the potential consequences of making such a disclosure (for example, minors). This is done in policy under OSPOL#1. A template like this which (currently) can only serve to identify individuals as minors should be deleted since it misleads minors (and clearly others too) into thinking that disclosure of personal information like this is acceptable, and is useless anyway since every single transclusion of this template will be suppressed by the Oversight team when we become aware of it. Keeping it around is at best making more work for others, and at worst exposing personal details potentially forever opening them up to identity theft, stalking, harassment, etc in later life. stwalkerster (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- To the extent that what you write is reasonable, the answer is to privately give advice to the minor, to possibly request verification of receipt of advice to parents from their guardian. To simply delete the template seems more to satisfy a wish to be able deny responsibility of protection of children. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Above you suggest that children benefit from looking like children in the presence of adults. This presumes that the grooming is going to happen onwiki which is, in my experience, a faulty assumption. More likely the Wikipedia groomer is going to find their target onwiki and then do the actual work offwiki (such as via email or Discord). This template would make identifying such potential targets easier which is why I am seeking its deletion. I 100% believe you have good intentions and child safety on your mind and think it offensive that you don't extend the same to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re: where the grooming occurs. I make no such presumption, and of course, a groomer will try to take it offline. This goes to the question of whether minors should be allowed to enable email, or to do so without a guardian’s permission.
- Children are very easy to identify, by their edits, by their subject interests. I think you’re wrong about identification. This template may very well be used inaccurately. This template is much more of a problem with respect to finding minors. However, this is only a problem if only groomers are interested in finding minors, if WMF and responsibly community members take no interest in the activities of children. It’s this tendency that 8 have a problem with. Delete all evidence of children and pretend they don’t exist, is what I am accusing you of doing.
- I 100% believe you have good intentions too, but I seriously doubt your experience in proactively managing child safety. You are doing it wrong. Deletion of this template creates disingenuous plausible deniability of children in the community. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Of course minors exist on Wikipedia and I'll make my case for my experience in proactively managing child safety. However, I think your doing so in this instance reeks of lessons forgotten with Essjay and so it's pretty questionable for you to demand I do so. I interact with them all the time in colloborative ways and also have numerous instances of doing so as an oversighter after they have posted too much information about themselves. I have also had extensive conversations with Wikimedia's Trust and Safety team around policy and procedures of child safety. Leaving that aside - because truthfully I think it's a poor way to reach consensus and so I'm not going to ask you to do what I've just done - what you are saying is not "minors exist and should exist on Wikipedia" which is what I am saying, you are saying "minors exist, should exist, and should be easily identifiable as minors on Wikipedia" (and yes I know you are also arguing they already are easily identifiable which is true in some cases and others in my experience). You are also stating that this can be mitigated through parental verification and approval. The problem is that it doesn't exist and would require large scale improvements from both volunteers and the foundation in order to implement. Instead you would prefer a system where we continue a bat signal to groomers and make additional work for oversighters since, as stw points out, any instance of this template being used has and will for the next several years result in it being oversighted. I don't see how the virtues your claiming - some of which seem conditional on systems which don't exist - outweigh those costs and I hope the closer appropriately weighs participation here based on policy and guidelines as summarized by WP:CHILD
Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing any kind of personal identifying information about themselves on Wikipedia, as well as keep any self-disclosed personal identifiable information they published about themselves removed, reported, and hidden from view are appropriate.
Deleting this template is a reasonable effort and we should do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)- How does Essjay connect to this? You thought I was demanding to know your experience with child safety, beyond WP:Oversight? No, I am happy to trust and believe you. My concern is that the basis of the practice to delete these Userboxes seems to derive from old practice with forgotten origins, and it is not evidence based, or based on any child safety theory that I know of, and that on mere public discourse of being a child, the practice has got it wrong.
- Regarding the quoted text from WP:CHILD, and indeed all of WP:CHILD, I am completely onboard with that and support it. But mere identification that one is a child is not personal identifying information, it’s extremely general information.
- Yes, I wish WMF would be more proactive in providing WP:CHILD type advice to any editor that might be a child.
- Do you delete child users’ links to their YouTube channels and other social media. I am surprised that that more risky practice is tolerated more than mere identification as a child. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Of course minors exist on Wikipedia and I'll make my case for my experience in proactively managing child safety. However, I think your doing so in this instance reeks of lessons forgotten with Essjay and so it's pretty questionable for you to demand I do so. I interact with them all the time in colloborative ways and also have numerous instances of doing so as an oversighter after they have posted too much information about themselves. I have also had extensive conversations with Wikimedia's Trust and Safety team around policy and procedures of child safety. Leaving that aside - because truthfully I think it's a poor way to reach consensus and so I'm not going to ask you to do what I've just done - what you are saying is not "minors exist and should exist on Wikipedia" which is what I am saying, you are saying "minors exist, should exist, and should be easily identifiable as minors on Wikipedia" (and yes I know you are also arguing they already are easily identifiable which is true in some cases and others in my experience). You are also stating that this can be mitigated through parental verification and approval. The problem is that it doesn't exist and would require large scale improvements from both volunteers and the foundation in order to implement. Instead you would prefer a system where we continue a bat signal to groomers and make additional work for oversighters since, as stw points out, any instance of this template being used has and will for the next several years result in it being oversighted. I don't see how the virtues your claiming - some of which seem conditional on systems which don't exist - outweigh those costs and I hope the closer appropriately weighs participation here based on policy and guidelines as summarized by WP:CHILD
- Above you suggest that children benefit from looking like children in the presence of adults. This presumes that the grooming is going to happen onwiki which is, in my experience, a faulty assumption. More likely the Wikipedia groomer is going to find their target onwiki and then do the actual work offwiki (such as via email or Discord). This template would make identifying such potential targets easier which is why I am seeking its deletion. I 100% believe you have good intentions and child safety on your mind and think it offensive that you don't extend the same to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- To the extent that what you write is reasonable, the answer is to privately give advice to the minor, to possibly request verification of receipt of advice to parents from their guardian. To simply delete the template seems more to satisfy a wish to be able deny responsibility of protection of children. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever The Rules are, it's not a good idea for a child under 14 to disclose that face on the internet and this template encourages them to do so. – Joe (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Keeping this template won't change what oversighters do, it will lure people into traps. And I started editing Wikipedia when I was a minor, though I'm not one now. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:User access level changes[edit]
Single-page content with no template parameters. Copy into that page for ease of maintenance, then delete this template. [Note: It looks like this was put in MFD by Twinkle automatically instead of TFD. It's fine to discuss it here, since it's really page content for the Wikipedia space, not a real template.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep pending an explanation that I understand of why it should be deleted. If the issue is that it has no template parameters and is not used as a template, why not Move it to Wikipedia space, which will preserve history? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia:User access levels/User access level changes and let it be transcluded on the primary page. This could just as easily have been a talk page discussion or even a unilateral move, and no one would have cared. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Samrajaugustin[edit]
Copy of WP:PAGEHIST. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a stupid copy with all of the formatting, which is less stupid than the usual stupid copy, but still stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't that just make it a copy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Even if the appearance of the copy isn't stupid, the existence of the copy is stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't that just make it a copy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I have written an essay, WP:Stupid copies, because these keep being found and nominated for deletion. Other editors are welcome to cite the essay, which summarizes the policy reasons why the stupid copies are stupid, and to expand the essay if that is thought appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Abhishektamta[edit]
Copy of Hacker. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Samson Sammyrex[edit]
Copy of The Castle of Otranto. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Aakaash soni[edit]
Copy of DNA. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Ashleestrobel[edit]
Copy of Michael Jackson. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork.
User:Kassandra Fernandez[edit]
Copy of an old version of Glaiza de Castro. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
July 1, 2024[edit]
Draft:Dzelo[edit]
Clearly not of encyclopedic value. Article for Cyrillic letter dzelo already exists, draft filled with gibberish and random references. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This draft would have been deleted via WP:G13 in 2 weeks had you not nominated it. Curbon7 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
June 30, 2024[edit]
Draft:Sols rng[edit]
Attempted creation of a Roblox Wikipedia/game guide within actual Wikipedia. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not of help to building an encyclopedia. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. As a ROBLOX player myself, I have high suspicion that this game will never, ever, become notable by Wikipedia's standards, which applies to nearly every roblox game out there. This is just a copy of fandom's Sol's RNG wiki home page. mwwv converse∫edits 18:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, but this is WP:TNT material. It's even a copyvio since it is unattributed copy of the above link. Ca talk to me! 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
June 29, 2024[edit]
Draft:Love Mocktail 2 (2024)[edit]
This draft is a modified copy of Love Mocktail 2 except it is for the Telugu language release of the film. I've repaired the attribution but there is no need for a separate article on a different language release. Normally, I would redirect the draft to to the main space article but feel that the disambiguated title is actively misleading as this is a film that was released originally in 2022. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Love Mocktail 2. The incorrect date in the title in a draft is not worth worrying about. If someone wants to change it, RFD is thataway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Old business[edit]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 02:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 6 July 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. |