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 | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 41 | 43 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 42 | 17 | 59 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
August 14, 2024
[edit]Project about a singer with 1 member and 1 talk page discussion about how this project shouldn't have been created and the creator agreeing. The 9 articles (according to the project) it has are not even worthy of a task force. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
August 13, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Premier League (cricket) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unnecessary WikiProject that was created in spite of the objections of a number of users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Wikiproject WPL notice. As predicted there, this WikiProject has immediately become dormant, because it is a tournament that runs for less than 1 month a year (and so WikiProject will be dormant for most of the rest of the year). Women's Premier League (cricket) is a cricket tournament, and so a breakaway WikiProject from WP:WikiProject Cricket is not required. Note: I do not support any of the existing breakaway WikiProjects (WP:IPL, WP:PSL, WP:BPL, WP:LPL etc), and will be considering nominating them for merging with WP:CRIC too. As per WP:OSE, the existence of these other WikiProjects is not a reason to keep this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Joseph and also, accept that I made a mistake as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Wikiproject WPL notice. I have been thinking about this for a while and was actually going to make a proposal this weekend, which would've been for these WikiProjects to be superseded by respective taskforces of WP:CRIC. Current WikiProjects can be renamed and reworked into new taskforces as shown below.
- Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have just started a discussion about these taskforces at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Merge WikiProjects back into this project, and would personally be more than happy for WPL to have a representative task force. (I was drafting the text for that discussion before I saw Vestrian24Bio's reply here, but agree with what they have said). Please anyone feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Joseph2302 just summed up what's wrong with Wikipedia as a whole with the statement
because it is a tournament that runs for less than 1 month a year (and so WikiProject will be dormant for most of the rest of the year).
There's a shit-ton more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than merely regurgitating yesterday's headlines and trending topics. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Interwiki corrections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This WikiProject hasn't had any activity and has only ever had one member. toweli (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, under-used and probably under-appreciated, still, no point keeping Wikiprojects that don't/won't ever get used. –Davey2010Talk 17:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks like it could've been useful but the one member and creator has not edited since 2013. No attempt to revive over the past decade. C F A 💬 17:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
August 11, 2024
[edit]I nominated this as a violation of NOTWEBHOST; Explicit declined this, saying it wasn't a clear violation--but this user has 5 (five) main space edits. Something similar applies to other sandboxes, which the user blanked as soon as I tagged them, and U5 was declined there too.
- User:Nate.beisheim/sandbox9
- User:Nate.beisheim/sandbox10
- User:Nate.beisheim/sandbox11
- User:Nate.beisheim/sandbox14
Drmies (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all. If this user had any sort of editing history I'd urge good faith courtesy blanking as an AtD. In these cases, it's unclear what purpose these sandboxes serve to Wikipedia even if they serve some unknown purpose to a barely here account. BusterD (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all: the user is an apparent non-contributor with 5 edits outside userspace, so this would've been textbook U5 if they weren't blanked to avoid deletion. C F A 💬 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete All as U5, web hosting. Delete 9, 10, 11, 14 as G7, blanked by user. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete All per everyone above, clear U5 violation, appreciate the good faith by the declining admin but you don't need 5 sandboxes for little and random things. –Davey2010Talk 17:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
August 10, 2024
[edit]Spam page Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. We should not be encouraging ragpicking, or the reviewing of new drafts to delete. This is a biography of a living person with no reliable sources, and would be a candidate for deletion in its present state. But with new drafts, which the originator might (even if it is unlikely) be about the improve, do not bite the newbies applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: It was just created yesterday. They may well have been working on it until the deletion notice popped up. I agree, I can't find any sources that would establish notability, but deleting it seems excessively harsh. C F A 💬 02:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Move to draft and let the creator continue expanding it, if they don't it can then be deleted after x amount of months. No valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Project created in 2015 and has ever had only 2 members interested in it. The banner itself has only 19 transclusions. This is extremely low even for a task force. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The activity of a WikiProject takes places mostly on its talk page. The talk page had zero posts in 2024, and 5 pageviews in the year 2024. That is 1 pageview every 44 days. The project page had 28 pageviews in 2024. I haven't looked at activity in previous years, but I don't think that is necessary to show that this WikiProject either has died or was stillborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - In the year 2023, there were 2 pageviews of the project talk page in the year. 1 of them was the one post to the talk page, and was about quality assessments, and so appears to have been a message to all WikiProjects. Other than that, there was 1 other view of the project talk page in the year. Nobody is paying any attention to the project talk page, which means that nobody is taking part in the project. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. C F A 💬 01:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. –Davey2010Talk 17:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- User:2A00:1370:8133:3B03:A924:85EF:7F1E:445C/Userboxes/OMORI NPCs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This userbox was created by a user in a userspace that wasn't theirs. Also, IP addresses are not typically supposed to have pages in their userspace. The edits creating this userbox were the only edits ever made by its creator. It does not seem to be in use on any page at the moment, and it is not linked to. There is no reason we should keep this. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Delete. Bduke (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I looked for a guideline stating that user pages should normally not be edited by other users, or that editing another user's user space is improper. I didn't find such a guideline. Maybe I overlooked it. If so, will someone please point it out to me? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: See this link. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- That needs strengthening. It says
In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful.
That is mealy. Maybe there needs to be a specific statement that creating subpages of another user's user or user talk page is disruptive. But thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That needs strengthening. It says
- @Robert McClenon: See this link. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - In the absence of a guideline, the rule to Use Common Sense applies, and using the user space of another user, or of an IP address, seems just wrong, as is the existence of a user space for an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No transclusions and creating this userbox was the creator's only edits before going inactive. If they were ever active or there were transclusions I'd just move it into their userspace. C F A 💬 01:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- weak delete: per CFA. I assume this user accidentally created this as a subpage of their IP, and I'd say move it to their userspace, but this is their only edits and it has no transclusions. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per above - no objections to restoring if the creator ever returns, –Davey2010Talk 17:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
August 6, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia South West |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Peel |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Mid West |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussions (other than one automated one unrelated) and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Great Southern |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Goldfields–Esperance |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Gascoyne |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 4 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and only two editors in project (if you can call zero edits other than in the main project page, being part of a project). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Pilbara |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 5 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and no other editor in project (one other edit fixed typos in project page). This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Kimberley |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
A WikiProject created 5 years ago for a region in Australia. 0 (zero) talk page discussion and no other editor in project. This is even less than what a task force would need to be useful. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 11:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ended today on 14 August 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. |
August 6, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Register |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned outline of a draft supplement to MOS that was created on 17 January 2010 and never progressed. The creator has not edited WP since May 2017. Nurg (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Herd mentality |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Newly created. POV from an editor with an axe to grind. Can be in userspace but should probably just be deleted. Star Mississippi 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|
July 27, 2024
[edit]- User:TalkSubject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems to be a misuse of the "User:" space. I was original considering nominating this page for WP:U5, but I'm not sure. However, I'm really thinking the U5 is appropriate as the user has a username I would consider reporting to WP:UAA since the username structure makes it seem as though it's something official with Wikipedia, and the purpose of the page seems to be advertising WP:SEO. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, see related WP:RFD nomination: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the original revision of the page, they appear to declare themselves as an alternate account of User:Vanished user 1428570, which is now retired and vanished. Both accounts have stopped editing for more than three years, so there isn't any immediate disruption at least. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the "Vanished user 1428570" had a questionable user name before they retired as well. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep pointless but within the constraints of what is allowed on userpages. And I don't see the problem with either username. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as harmless. Not really anything wrong with it. C F A 💬 02:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as likely not harmless because, as per nom, it appears to be advertising Search Engine Optimization. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RFD discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden, was closed as "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
July 22, 2024
[edit]Stale unfiled RfAs
[edit]- Group of stale unfiled RfAs – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DebashisM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Watcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D4135t~enwiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoBlackhawksGo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atomicthumbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OliveTree39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobsmith319 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Countryboy603 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shonyx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JASDVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr.Mani Raj Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LewisT34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmanlucas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chikukiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ToadetteEdit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
All prior XfDs for this page: |
Each of these has either been languishing since before 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all, obviously per nom. It's a shame they're not CSDable; if they were drafts they'd be dead already. ——Serial Number 54129 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as
records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics
. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of thehistory of the project governance
? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)
- LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.
- Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.
- If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?
- LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.
- Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe's idea to userfy them seems pretty smart, so I would be fine with keeping the ones that are significant-in-some-vague-sense, and then userfying the ones that would otherwise be deleted. jp×g🗯️ 22:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as
- Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all as none are serving any sort of purpose. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and ignore. No harm in keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19. I responded to the 'Requests for adminship are now being considered' type notice the only way I knew how. Was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 the wrong way to apply? I received no response, positive or negative. I sometimes struggle with editing but seek to improve. Though I still aspire to be an admin I realise that I may not yet be as technically able or have enough dedicated time as the role demands. The intention of my request for adminship was genuine even if the method of my application was incorrect, therefore Keep. AndrewSE19 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 11:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do not keep at current titles, but do not delete. The option was presented above to "userfy", so that may be an option. Either way, these RFAs never went live, so keeping them at their current titles is misleading since the structures of these titles assume they are the 1st time these editors were subject to a live RFA, which never happened. Maybe the creation of a page such as Wikipedia:Requests or adminship (drafts) may need to be created to allow these never-live RFA pages to become subpages of it, in addition to potentially being a landing page for potential RFA candidates to post their draft RFA statements prior to moving them as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship when they go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Turns out one of these pages, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand, was previously nominated for deletion previously in 2021: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand. The discussion resulted in "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all except AndrewSE19 as obsolete useless cruft. If a specific user wants a specific request userfied, I have no objection, otherwise these pages' existence is pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as harmless and to preserve the page history. C F A 💬 02:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)