Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

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.

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

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:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
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

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Aug	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	2	0	2
MfD	4	0	0	4
FfD	0	2	3	5
RfD	0	27	20	47
AfD	0	0	3	3

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

Archived discussions

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

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.

September 2, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikipeep 494/sandbox

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipeep 494/sandbox

WP:COPIES from List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2014 (2014-12). Paradoctor (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A redundant fork of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deniabilities74/sandbox

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deniabilities74/sandbox

WP:COPIES: Somewhere between the last edit to the content here and the start of The Two Sisters (TV series) there must have been a copy paste move. I'm not completely sure about what actually happened, someone with better sleuthing skills might be able to work out what actually happened, but to me, deleting seems to be about the right place. Paper9oll might be able to shed some light on this. Paradoctor (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor Pinged to response, can clarify what is the queries about? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From their talk page, it is clear that you have been involved with Deniablities74's draft. Can you confirm that the sandbox content is actually the initial version The Two Sisters (TV series)? Paradoctor (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor Nope, the initial version of the mainspace article is unrelated to the user draftspace. Thanks and regards, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

So we have a stale draft obsoleted by someone else's unrelated draft having been draft.

So, lurkers and passers-by, what now? Paradoctor (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a stale draft obsoleted by someone else's unrelated draft having been draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MarkusKing130

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarkusKing130

Copy of Formula E. Flounder fillet (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This sort of copy is a redundant fork, which is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ujfjfjikdlsj7

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ujfjfjikdlsj7

Text dump copy of Għallis Tower. Flounder fillet (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a useless dump copy. We don't know why the originator used their only edit to do this, but we do know that it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wywyit/sandbox/FIRST Steamworks

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wywyit/sandbox/FIRST Steamworks

WP:COPIES from FIRST Stronghold, 2017-01. Paradoctor (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant fork of an article. Sometimes these sandbox copies are created temporarily in order to edit the article. If so, that use has lapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Whit3Mamba10

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whit3Mamba10

Copy of List of equipment of the French Army. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant fork of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2024 (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.

September 1, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhilippineFootballHistoryMaker/sandbox/YCO Athletic Club

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: delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PhilippineFootballHistoryMaker/sandbox/YCO Athletic Club

WP:COPIES, from YCO Painters. Paradoctor (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a redundant fork of an article that either never had a purpose or no longer does. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ygarrix/sandbox

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: delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ygarrix/sandbox

WP:COPIES, from Star Wars opening crawl. Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only edit made by this editor was to make this copy of Star Wars opening crawl. There are two questions, one of which cannot be answered, and one of which can. Why did the editor do this? What should we do with it? The answer to the second question is the opening bold statement of this entry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jfordbaer/sandbox

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: delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jfordbaer/sandbox

WP:COPIES, taken from List of You're the Worst episodes. Paradoctor (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a redundant fork of You're the Worst, which is no longer the same as the article (which is why such copies are not permitted). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yudkoff.c/sandbox

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: delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yudkoff.c/sandbox

WP:COPIES Paradoctor (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:Copying within Wikipedia DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The copying within Wikipedia was legitimate, because the editor was using the sandbox to improve Adenosine A2A receptor, but this sandbox has now become a redundant fork that does not reflect updates to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2024 (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.

August 30, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hampshire

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: no consensus. asilvering (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Hampshire

Portal not broad enough in scope to necesitate a portal, not updated since 2022, and entirely encompassed by Portal:South East England DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — perfectly functioning portal, it doesn't matter that it hasn't been updated recently; there's plenty of pictures and content to get cycled through. No reason to delete.

Cremastra (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something being functioning doesn't necesitate keeping it. It had a total of 6 daily pageviews in 2023, sometimes being 0 views a day. DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this reasoning. Just because people aren't looking at something all the time isn't a reason to delete it. It's a reason to link it from more places. Even if it is maximally linked (which is unlikely), there's still no actual reason to delete it. Maybe people will use it more in the future. It is still a net benefit to the encyclopedia. There's plenty of information about Hampshire. There is absolutely zero benefit to deleting this; this nomination amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cremastra (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are three problems with this portal. First, it is little viewed. It had 6 daily pageviews in the year 2023, while the lead article had 765 daily pageviews. Second, it is not maintained. It relies on subpages in Portal:South East England, specifically on those that apply to Hampshire, and there is no indication that this list is maintained. It includes 68 articles, which is a reasonable number. Third, it uses the obsolete architecture of subpages that are partial redundant forks of pages, and so are not updated when the pages are updated. This can lead to discrepancies such as biographies of living persons being displayed for persons who have died. We don't need portals that display information that is no longer correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain further why low pageviews is a reason to delete? Cremastra (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's functioning, it is regularly monitored and maintained (by me). The fact it hasn't needed updating in the last couple of years shows that it's a low maintenance portal thanks mainly to automation, that's not an indication that it isn't being looked after. And a county like Hampshire is plenty big enough and broad enough in scope to warrant a portal. Page views are irrelevant, we don't delete stuff on Wikipedia based on page views. And ultimately it does no harm - deleting it would take up more disk space than leaving it alone, it's not using loads of processing power, it offers readers a great way of discovering content, so deleting it would be a net loss to the project. Really sad to see nominations like this happening again, I thought the idiotic "war on portals" was behind us. Waggers TALK 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's not true to say it hasn't been updated since 2022. Winchester College was added to the selected articles just a few months ago in November, after reaching Good Article status, for example. Waggers TALK 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "war on portals"? Portal:Hampshire isn't helping readers discover content (as evidenced by the low pageviews) and it's essentially a smaller duplication of Portal:South East England. Something being "functional" doesn't mean it should be kept. I disagree that it's reguarly monitored and maintained – consider that for WikiProjects (there's no criteria for Portal deletion), they should be marked as inactive if there haven't been any major edits to the main project page in four months. There haven't been any edits to the main portal page since 2022, and no major edits since 2021. So we have a portal maintained only by one person and automatic actions, low pageviews, and another portal that encompasses all the content of this portal.

The "selected article" section literally comes from Portal:South East England's selection page for its articles. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main portal page is a framework, it does not need updating. The content is set from elsewhere and I updated some of it just today. Waggers TALK 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia editors will happily delete portals for entire countries but not subregions of English speaking countries. Too narrow for a portal, and it seems that there is another portal with a broader scope. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors will happily delete portals for entire countries but not subregions of English speaking countries. Is this not WP:OTHERSTUFF? Cremastra (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, it's not a valid deletion justification. I trust the closing admin will take note of that. Waggers TALK 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. But the point still stands about this being significantly too narrow for a portal, and low page views. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why low page views is a reason to delete? Cremastra (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 18,000 articles in Category:Hampshire and its subcategories (up to the first 10 levels, might involve a small amount of double counting but enough to change the fact the scope is actually very large); what's your criteria for "too narrow"? What's the net benefit of deleting this portal? What's the harm that it does to the project to keep it in place? I'm sorry but this discussion just reeks of portalgate all over again with its spurious references to a narrow scope and low page views - one of which simply isn't true and the other simply isn't a valid deletion reason. The portalgate nominations followed exactly the same pattern; they drove me away from the project once and frankly, this is likely to do so again. Waggers TALK 08:34, 16 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame

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: redirect to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 03:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame

I marked this as historical [1] eight years ago, as it was not being used, but that was removed nearly a year later when someone decided to start editing it again. I simply do not think this page is appropriate. A self-selected hall-of-fame, with no clear criteria for inclusion, no apparent rules of any kind, no new entries in over three years, and a talk page that has not been used for discussion of the scope and purpose of the page in fourteen years.

Additionally, there are a number of entries in this list of supposedly great people who turned out to be truly awful people, one of whom still actively trolls Wikipedia on a regular basis, and several others who were socking and vote stacking. In fact, it was two of these offenders that created the hall of fame in the first place. These people do not need a memorial to their deceit or dishonesty hosted on Wikipedia.

There's just too many problems here for WP to continue hosting this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Case not nearly made. Even assuming that all that is really asked for is blank and archive, keeping the history available, the case is not not nearly made. It is not nearly good enough to delete Wikipedia history on the basis that some are alleged to be awful. It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.

There is no attempt to substantiate ongoing harm. There is no attempt to argue that all involved, especially the modern editors, are awful, let alone an objective net negative contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it. I'm not sure I understand. I have to write an essay explaining why two banned trolls, one of whom is still actively harassing people over grudges from like 10-15 years ago, are not good people? I mean, that isn't even my only point but to be required to write an essay to justify one deletion discussion is an entirely new concept to me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS Well, that's odd because the ARS is still active and I have not in any way proposed shutting the whole thing down. I just don't think we ought to host this one specific page, which has no criteria for inclusion and is therefore just a randomly selected list of AFD discussions that random people have decided to highlight.

and here's that executive summary you asked for

Of course I did also mention that it was created by two people who turned out to be awful trolls. I didn't mention their names but here they are: A Nobody, since banned by ArbCom for faking a crisis to avoid discussing their own behavior, and banned by the community for socking and votestacking.Continued socking from 2009-2021. They also childishly pre-emptively banned people they didn't like from a wikia site that they were an admin on, regardless of the fact that the people they were banning had no edits there and were mostly unaware it even existed. Wikia yelled at them for that.

So that's pretty toxic, but not as bad as Ikip, banned by the community for socking and votestacking, years later, globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for relentless ongoing harassment of users he has a grudge against. To be transparent, that does include me, I am one of his many chosen victims ho chooses to focus on when harassing people. Malicious socking and harassment from 2010-present.

The first several hundred edits are these two.

And then there's Benjiboi, blocked for... wait for it... confirmed socking, later banned by the community for the same, continued to sock for over a decade.

They were all in good standing when they created this monstrosity, but they didn't bother making it clear how it is supposed to work, and nobody else has ever bothered to do so either.

There are people listed here who were and are simply good faith members of the ARS trying to save content from deletion, but why some debates are listed and the vast majority are not is as clear as mud.

It simply has no value, no context, no reason to be hosted here.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, why? What process decides what debates are hall of Fame material? As far as I can tell it is entirely at the whim of literally anyone and there is no process.

And by "more recent" we are talking about three years ago. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. The page was not created by socks or trolls, people should use chronologically precise language when speaking of past users who contributed substantially. I found these people admirable in some ways. They got frustrated and behaved badly, and admittedly I was not targeted or involved with responding to bad behaviours, and I don’t want to lionise them, but neither do I want to see once well meaning and often constructive Wikipedians disappeared. I think it is interesting to see how they saw themselves, together. Also, not everyone named or in the history is now in bad standing. There are important things to be learned from history. Keep the history available behind the blanked page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I, for one, hardly see the listing of an editor here as glorifying them, but only as indicating the the ARS glorifies them. If the ARS continues to exist, it can continue to have its heroes, and other editors can ignore the list. If someone wants to delete the ARS itself, I am willing to take part in yet another vote to delete it as not serving any purpose in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no value at all in maintaining this page created by socks and/or trolls that lionizes many of the same, particularly when it lists no guidelines or methods of selection, and is not actively edited or curated. Wikipedia is not social media. Page is highly problematic as it appears to perpetuate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with comments like "Proved that an article that doesn't have a NPOV stance doesn't mean it isn't valuable", like a list of victories over "enemies". Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. This seems a reasonable compromise between those considering it historical and those considering it inappropriate. If I can offer a broader suggestion, perhaps we should BLAR all ARS pages and then WP:ESPERANZA it. As part of the "newer generation" of editors (c. 2022), I've only ever heard of ARS spoken in the tone of a horror story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer deleting it outright for the reasons I've already detailed, but I could live with this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:ARS per the discussion between Just Step Sideways and SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:ARS per the discussion above. I lived through the entire ARS mess and happily joined ARS in the double naught era thinking I was doing something affirmative. I quickly realized the emphasis was about participation in AfD, not adding cites to unsourced articles. ARS was largely defenestrated over 2011-12 Winter in a wide-ranging discussion which I was happy to miss entirely having just moved across country. Many of the core group are still around. We should keep intact all the evidence of that ARS we can, for future wiki-historians' sake. It took a lot of boldness to eliminate the ARS as a threat to Wikipedia. Benjiboi turned out to be a bad actor, but in the day even Benjiboi was trying to curb the ARS's abuse of a Template:Rescue tag used during formal processes (eventually deleted). BusterD (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (3rd nomination)

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: move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Schleswig-Holstein

Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make this easier on a closer, I support moving to projectspace. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a well-known portalista I'm generally inclined to keep the portals which are left as examples of type (like old ships kept in "mothballs"). This is a portal of a very odd style; like User:Robert McClenon, I find this unusual construction compelling as a menu. I'm also interested in the intact digital artifact. Because of the coding, many older-style portals fall apart when moved from portalspace, but this one should move to project space fine. FYI, while pagecreator User:Bermicourt self-reported as retired in January, they've edited as recently as two months ago. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't odd, it's German. This is how they make them over at dewiki. Essentially they are outlines with some added visual structure. —Alalch E. 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, as per part of the outcome from the previous MfD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to project space per nom, previous MFD, and other supporters. Not a viable portal topic. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2024 (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.

August 29, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/WikiProject Brandy userbox

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/WikiProject Brandy userbox

Project was deleted here and per that discussion, was never really a real project from the start. Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete userbox for a non-existent WikiProject. —Alalch E. 11:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete as G8. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2024 (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.

August 27, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HansWobbe/template:templateH

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: delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:HansWobbe/template:templateH

This is a deprecated page that seems to have been moved somewhere else. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am not sure what this is, but we do not need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Articles by quality statistics

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: no consensus. Alternatives to deletion do not require MFD. ✗plicit 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Articles by quality statistics

Transcludable non-template page redundant with User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Palaeontology, which uses a Toollabs tool instead of categories and is regularly updated by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A template that is used only on this page has been TfD'd at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_27#Template:Assessment_row. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. Simply replace the page content with a transclusion of the WP 1.0 bot table, which I have seen in many other projects. This will save fixing the many incoming links. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented that transclusion, in order to update links between category pages. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Is the alternative implemented by Fayenatic London sufficient to address your concern? I can close this as withdrawn if you are satisfied. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just redirect? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a question best addressed to User:Fayenatic london. I'm hoping to find a consensus among the participants in the discussion, not to become a participant myself. --RL0919 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: does that have the same result? If so, by all means redirect instead of transcluding. I used transclusion because that's what I've seen before on these table pages for other projects. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 6 September 2024 (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.

August 26, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Donald Trump

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: delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Donald Trump

The project does not exist anymore as it was redirected per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above discussion DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Close to being G8. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2024 (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

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 01:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC) ended today on 10 November 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 24, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover (2nd nomination)

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: blank. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover

I nominated this 12 years ago and it was closed as a speedy keep. The fact that this is not historically useful to the workings of the encyclopedia plus the Mediation Committee since closing up shop should justify this page being deleted. Thebirdlover (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage courtesy blanking, but no objection to deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blank and keep – we just don't delete nominations like that. The more you draw attention to it, the more it will be seen. Graham87 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Mark Historical - No reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chaetodipus/mentor/2

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: delete. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chaetodipus/mentor/2

Has not been edited in over a decade other than moves and provides no useful purpose to the encyclopedia. Plus the mentee requests deletion. Thebirdlover (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or mark historical. It's in userspace. It's harmless. No benefit is created by deleting this. Cremastra (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Mark Historical~~ - Who was mentoring whom, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am the mentee and requested deletion because it is not useful to the encyclopedia and unfairly prejudicial towards my on-wiki reputation. Plus, I was 12 years old at the time of the creation of the page in 2010 so there are also COPPA concerns because my parents did not give me permission to edit on the website prior to my 13th birthday. There is precedent for this, numerous user page edits I made before my 13th birthday were previously suppressed under WP:CHILD. I am not saying all of my contributions before 2011 should be removed, just certain pages that due to my age at the time give a deceptive impression of my abilities as a contributor. --Thebirdlover (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in light of the more detailed explanation, I think this is a reasonable request (and indeed a request that Chaetodipus would probably support if he were more active). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Cremastra and Robert McClenon would like to reconsider given Thebirdlover's additional comments? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, sure. Weak delete? I don't care too much, but I do understand the nominator's worry. Cremastra (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as requested by the nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2024 (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.

August 19, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living/Article Guidelines

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. Whatever prompted the nomination notwithstanding, the other participants appear to prefer keeping. RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living/Article Guidelines

No useful content. This page was written in 2009 and has gotten no attention since. There's nothing here worth keeping. Daask (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listed as a member of the WikiProject. Why are you trying to manage a WikiProject that you are not a member of?

If the WikiProject is inactive, maybe it should be archived wholesale. Selective archiving by deletion is not a good idea.

How did you come across this page? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical page of an inactive WikiProject. There's nothing here worth discussing.—Alalch E. 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator appears to be ragpicking. Maybe the WikiProject should be marked historical. Is that what SmokeyJoe means by archived, or do they have a different concept of archival? If the nominator had some reason to come across the page other than ragpicking, maybe they should explain, or maybe not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2024 (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.

August 13, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Premier League (cricket)

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: delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Premier League (cricket)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete per the nom's opening statement. Recreate if there is consensus to add it as a taskforce.—Alalch E. 15:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:16, 31 August 2024 (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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates