Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business. 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 this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Files 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	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}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
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. Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

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.

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

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.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.

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.
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:MFDWarning|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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
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[edit]

XFD backlog
	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	TOTAL
CfD	0	30	113	62	205
TfD	0	0	0	10	10
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	10	15	25
AfD	0	0	0	31	31

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.

March 18, 2020[edit]

Draft:Shovansundar Bosu[edit]

Multiple copies of this were created in article space and in draft space by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer and self-promoter. Not eligible for G5 because created before any of the socks or the master were indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Luca Rubino[edit]

We should not just be declining drafts like these. Unless we want draftspace to be turned into a place for personal advertisements, we should remove them. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any personal advertisements since I took references from reliable business newspapers such as Forbes. The articles are independent and written by Forbes journalist, why should Wikipedia remove resources like that?Khiro17 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete as promotion. Tell Khiro17 (talk · contribs) to get experience editing existing articles before trying to write a new one. I am suspecting a WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 17, 2020[edit]

Draft:Anitaduraku[edit]

Just realized that this is a foreign language version of Metacognition, making this page unnecessary as we do not attempt to create foreign language articles on the English Wikipedia, but rather do the opposite translation direction to get articles on here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep I see nothing wrong with this being in draftspace unless I'm missing something (like repeated submissions or moves to mainspace). If it were to be submitted it would just be declined with the appropriate boilerplate inviting them to contribute to the Albanian wiki. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that as an article, if it were translated and published, it would be eligible for WP:A10. (In other words, this draft technically has no mainspace potential, which is the primary function of drafts' existence.) In addition, from comparing the two pages (the draft was created after the article), the translated version is a duplicate of the English article. I suppose what I'm getting at is if this needs to be retained, the content should be transferred over to the Albanian Wikipedia, given that per the subject's applicable Wikidata entry, there currently is no article on the Albanian Wikipedia for this subject. (The prefix for the Albanian Wikipedia is apparently "sq", and the Wikidata entry has no "sq" entry currently.) The English Wikipedia is not a host for foreign language content that already has an English equivalent; the editor who created this page should have posted this content into the Albanian Wikipedia, not here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
For additional reference, as of this moment, sq:Metakonjicioni (the way the author of this draft spells it ... I'm not sure if that's right or not since translation services for English to Albanian for the word "metacognition" says the word has no Albanian translation) and sq:Metacognition do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And also, here is the list of contributions by the draft's creator on the Albanian Wikipedia for reference. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep. This appears to be a missing article at sq.wikipedia.org. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have made that clear in my previous comment, but that would not be a reason for this page to be retained on the English Wikipedia. I know that edit histories can be transferred from the English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons, so hopefully there's a way for that to happen between Wikipedias. Either way, the English Wikipedia is the wrong Wikipedia to host this page, especially considering that the article already exists, the draft is a partial translation of the existing article, and the translation had no value on the English Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  - What’s with the xenophobia? En.wikipedia.org is the main Wikipedia, and it make sense that it will tend to be used as a central point for translations. Deletion here would be destructive. What is the advantage of deletion? This is a perfectly reasonable use of draftspace, although personally I recommend people use userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    - ...I don't think I have any more to say since I've already presented my case, and the "xenophobia" accusation seems like a WP:AGF failure. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Lasonchang/Tom Akeya[edit]

no evidence of notability in his own right--the article , and almost all the references, is mainly about the general subject of Inuit ivory carving. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a page Tom Akeya, why delete the user space version and not the one in mainspace? They both use the exact same sources. Vexations (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect the user space page and the sandbox to Tom Akeya for now. The article in article space can be tagged for Articles for Deletion for notability. If the article is kept, the redirects to the article are all right. If the article is deleted, any redirects can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete only because it's a copy of the user's sandbox. Keep that sandbox. Notability is explicitly not a reason to delete someone's sandbox/userspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:BMX On WheeIs[edit]

Absolutely no need for this page to exist, per WP:DENY and WP:SNOW. According to the long-term abuse case page it says

Suspected socks should be reported to SRG and not tagged, per WP:DENY. Do not report to SPI. When reporting, please link to this long-term abuse report. When the active abuse has been taken care of, please update this report with the latest information.

I think that every page containing tags of sock puppets should all be removed from Wikipedia, like the SGK one. This LTA has been disrupting and vandalizing several pages related to Falun Gong, the coronavirus, and rich second generation stuff. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: Hello. This is a Miscellany for Deletion page for a long-term abuser. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep - sockpuppet tags serve important administrative purposes. No benefit to deleting these. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I will leave it to User:Ivanvector or another CheckUser to decide whether the posting IP is one of the sockmasters or is only a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 16, 2020[edit]

User:Riora Football Club/sandbox/Riora FC[edit]

Abandoned personal article. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Misusing Wikipedia as a web host. Clearly non-notable computer game club; only reference is a now-defunct Google Plus page. Completely out of scope of Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Submission by blocked promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Question - User:ToBeFree - Are you looking at the same draft as I am? I am looking at a football club. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, in which league in which country? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:ToBeFree - Thank you for asking what country. If you are saying that they invented the league and the country, yes. I had already agreed to the deletion before having the unreality explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  Well, to be fair, it does appear to exist – in a computer game. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - I cut a lot of slack to the way people use their sandboxes, but I see no good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia here, nor a desire to learn how to do so. It's somewhere between WP:MADEUP and spam. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 15, 2020[edit]

User:Tali64^2/Square root of 10[edit]

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, the userspace is not for keeping alive content deleted before, namely that of Square root of 10 (AfD). Not sure if this meets G4. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that it is interesting that √10 and ³√10 are equal to $π$ and $π$ -1, respectively? I do.Tali64^2, always top quality. (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Interesting. It is ok to keep interesting things in userspace. No serious concern about something thinking it is an article, readers will never find it, but just in case, tag with {{Userpage}}. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Not when it is to keep alive a deleted article, deleted by the duly-created consensus of the community, per the linked userpage policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  - It depends on the reason for deletion. This topic is not inappropriate, just not suitable for an article, not notable. That is not a reason to delete from userspace. This page is within reasonable leeway for the user. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, a search for possible sources in the Square root of 10 generates a lot of hits. There is an abundance of mentions, and historical connections of sqrt(10) with Pi. The AfD may not the final word. I don't see any problem with keeping this userspace note. There is no offensive or disruptive inappropriate effort to recreate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

- Recommend the user or an interested editor to merge and redirect to Approximations of π. No time limit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep - As User:SmokeyJoe says, the deletion from article space doesn't mean that it needs deleting from user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak merge to Approximations of π. That it's not even on that article leads me to believe it is not notable, not like 22/7 or Approximations of pi#Non-mathematical "definitions" of π where they talk about pi = 3 and other government approximations. This is conditional on external news sources that give this some treatment. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep - I would have a problem with someone having an article about a previously redirected topic in userspace if it were at all promotional or problematic, but there's absolutely no harm in allowing this user to use their sandboxes this way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 13, 2020[edit]

Draft:Farhan Wilayat Butt[edit]

Draft subject has requested deletion via OTRS #2020031310001547 (see also #2020031310001547, #2019120910002585, #2017103110002675, #2017042010016246). Argument for deletion is that the draft appears on a number of wikimirror sites. Starting discussion on subject's behalf, no opinion from me either way. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Nawab Afridi (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC) I am agreed for removal of deletion of that page. This is true that I uploaded the profile/ article about that person without his prior consent and permission. I am afraid he can also sue me for this. I therefore request you to please remove that draft and relevant discussion about that subject.

The mirrors. If you delete the page, the mirrors will preserve the last version. Better to blank it for a week or two, then delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Anyone have insight on how credible the claim is that the Gusi Peace Prize is Asia's counterpart to the Nobel Peace Prize? If it truly is that notable, that might be enough to warrant keeping the draft if someone is willing to reword it. A look at the Gusi page shows that the vast majority of people who have won that prize don't have wiki pages which indicates it might not be that notable of an award. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notable awards have articles, or a section in an article, they are not redlinks. Gusi Peace Prize. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - On the one hand, I can't log on to OTRS to view the ticket. It appears to be asking me to use my WMF unified login ID, but it then says that either my user ID or my password are not recognized. This isn't an OTRS help forum, or a help forum in general. On the other hand, I can see the draft that I saw and declined three months ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - I don't have any objection to deleting this draft, either after blanking it or without blanking it. I haven't changed my evaluation that it isn't ready to be accepted into article space, and there is no reason to keep a draft that isn't being worked on, and I will take the word of the requester that we should get rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Nawab Afridi (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC) I am already agreed to delete this draft. I also admit the fault at my end that I should have taken a permission from the subject before writing anything about him on wikipedia. Of course, his consent and willingness was mandatory. Now, I also request you to delete this draft. This draft should be either approved or should be removed from wikipedia. I have a very humble request to please remove it on priority basis. The subject is already unhappy to see the unapproved draft and people asks him instead why wikipedia has not approved your draft. This problem has been caused by me and I therefore request you guys to please remove it on immediate basis please.

March 12, 2020[edit]

Draft:INTERLOCKING EARTH ANCHOR[edit]

I consider this a pure advertisement, and placed a G11,but no one deleted it so I'm here. Assuming other people make the product, it could be edited to omit any mention of the company, but first that would mean checking every reference and illustration to make sure it didn't apply just to this company's product, and also rewarding the undoubtedly coi paid editor who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Well, User:DGG, if you had left it alone, it would have died of old age in April 2020, but you had reason to try to get rid of it, so here we are. If it is close to G11, then it can go into the MFD bit-bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete surprised that G11 didn't accept it, but yes, it reads like a product webpage. I can't find the particular site with the same verbiage though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

March 11, 2020[edit]

Draft:Analysis of civil aviation accidents and incidents in the twenty-first century[edit]

The subject this draft is seeking to cover isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The very title "Analysis of civil aviation accidents..." gives it away as a blatant violation of WP:OR. While this independent analysis is interesting, it's still a violation of WP:SYNTH and there is no way to improve the draft because the topic it's seeking to cover isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.

I get that this is rather harsh to say, but we shouldn't be encouraging further work on this draft by maintaining it indefinitely in draftspace. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Userfy for User:Tina diuuuu, and advise her to get more experience editing related mainspace articles. This page can be consider notes to assist mainspace editing, but it is not a viable draft for a new page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The user in question hasn't edited for nearly a year, so it's unlikely that this'll be worked on by them FYI. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Chess, if you are not trying to teach the user something via MfD, then why did you bring it to MfD? It would have been deleted via G13 in due course. Are you doing this to give us busywork? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's still being occasionally edited/worked on by others. I brought it to MfD because there's no possible chance it'll be an article and the fact that the article might be subjected to G13 in 6 months isn't a reason not to delete it under MfD. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - It isn't a topic for an encyclopedia, but pure WP:OR and doesn't even come close to covering the subject, which would be a very long book. No point in userfying it, no potential to become an article, no matter how much work is done on it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Delete - The other editors who are working on it appear to be just tweaking a draft that isn't worth tweaking by a former editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of research articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 10, 2020[edit]

Draft:Madhu Guruswamy[edit]

Multiple resubs without improvement and multiple removals of previous AFC comments. Has not shown any significant roles in major productions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. Plausibly notable. Many ghits. Many film credits. First decline was about removing self-published sources, which I am not sure is a reason to not accept and otherwise ok stub.

User:AngusWOOF, when alleging “multiple resubs without improvement”, please give some diffs. Unfortunately, submissions do not register a useful edit summary. I want to know who did the repeated resubmissions. In this case it looks like a 14 month editor with a good number of mainspace edits. I would prefer to see regular editors warned with blocking for disruptive resubmissions than to see deletion of plausibly notable drafts, especially where the early declines were exacting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Here you go: AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

29 September 2019 last rejection with AFC comment [2]

25 January 2020 2 edits, removing comment and resubmitting [3]

25 January 2020, AFC reviewer Cyphoidbomb restore comment [4]

10 February 2020, decline by Praxidicae [5]

10 February 2020, resub by 223.226.117.22, resubmitting without any updates [6]

10 February 2020, decline by myself, no improvement [7]

10 February 2020, deletion of AFC comments [8]

10 March 2020, deletion of comments [9]

10 March 2020, resubmit [10]

That's three strikes. That's why I sent it to MFD. If you want to keep and then create-protect so that serious editors can clean it up, I'm amenable to that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that there is a Need to do Something. "Delete the draft" is a common outcome where there are IP and SPA editors doing it. In this case, I recommend: Warn then Block Playlikeastar (talk · contribs). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep as he has a prominent role in Bhajarangi and the main villian in another film, Vajrakaya, he also has an upcoming film that could make him more notable. I don't see the problem with keeping this in draftspace but I advise the creator not to resubmit until the actors next film has been released so that extra references are added, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306, I would have to watch out for star billing on the later films since some of these were stuffed into the infobox so those films need to be scrubbed to see if he indeed has poster billing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep and Warn Looks as if the subject may be notable so it wouldn't be eligible for deletion. I've sent a 4im warning to the user to not remove rejection or decline messages. If he does it again then it should be reported to an admin who can handle it. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Neutral - This is really a conduct issue, and this is a content forum. ECP will not be useful, because the draft should be available for a neutral editor to work on if the subject becomes more notable, and the editor in question already is extended-confirmed. As the previous editors have noted, a warning is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 15:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC) ended today on 18 March 2020. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. 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.

March 9, 2020[edit]

User:Salvadi Actor/sandbox[edit]

Spam created by blocked spammer Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Including another version on the same person by another blocked account. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Topic looks plausibly notable. Redirect the sandbox to the draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect is enough. Leave it for interested editors to merge from the redirect history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep draft he's known for the 2019 Diksoochi film, and that has a bunch of coverage in the major newspapers. He was a notable child actor prior to that. I would continue to scrub out the edits from SPA editors and sockpuppets though. ~~Delete~~Merge Salvadi Actor's sandbox version as he is sock blocked and doesn't need to maintain a separate copy of the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox version can be merged to the draft as it has a little bit more information that can be verified with news sources. It would still need to be scrubbed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

G5? This was a sock puppet creation, so why not just G5 it? If someone wants to take responsibility for it, they can just move it elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- G5 doesn't apply retrospectively to sockpuppet creations, only to creation post-block. The accounts weren't blocked when this was created. That's the rule, but I would support giving SPI the discretion to delete sockpuppet creations when they block all the accounts. I do not support deletion due to sockpuppetry unless there is input from at least an SPI clerk supporting deletion, largely because MfD should not be presuming to understand SPI business. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  - Ah right. My mistake. Confused with WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Don't know why we wouldn't have an easy way to address this though, as any illegitimate sock creation is necessarily against policy (assuming confidence it really was socking). I guess plain ol' Delete then by default, unless someone else wants to take responsibility for it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 7, 2020[edit]

Draft:Manish Bhargaw[edit]

Misuse of Wikipedia as free webhost, including selfie. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. No sign of notability. It is a NOTWEBHOST violation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Would need to be declined if submitted to AFC. No evidence of satisfying cricket notability; not required to satisfy notability in draft. Would need BLPPROD in article space, so don't move to article until properly referenced, and until it satisfies notability. If this is an autobiography, then it calls for a reminder that autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep Notability requirements do not apply to drafts per WP:DMFD, and no WP:BLP concerns as currently written. Unlikely to ever become an article, but can harmlessly rot in draftspace for six months pending G13. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 6, 2020[edit]

User:TypographyFixer/sandbox[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 15:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The page not related to Wikipedia's goals. User made little contribution in mainspace (xtools edit count). Hddty (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I Can't Copy the Text, Because it Freezed it; So, it would All be Lost. TypographyFixer (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
[Looks at edit summaries, too] - Well that's... something. :) Ok I'll bite. @TypographyFixer: what is it you're working on? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep - These are sandboxes with weird content that are the sort of weird stuff that sandboxes can be used for. It looks more likely to be related somehow to Wikipedia than to be improper. In the absence of a reason to delete, allow the user to play, even if they are just mostly playing in their sandboxes. We don't need to discuss at this time whether they need cat repellent. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Fix this so the sandboxes don't freeze because of the page length. It's not worth deleting by any stretch, but at the same time, these are causing technical problems on the client side of things. I'll leave it to the closing administrator or editor to find away to declutter the sandboxes. AWB, perhaps might be a better way to fix this, @Robert McClenon and Rhododendrites:? Doug Mehus T·C 18:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I Think I Could make Parts of it Into Different Articles. TypographyFixer (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Meh; weak keep – having fun in sandboxes is allowed and isn't causing anyone harm. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The main sandbox is cluttering up many maintenance categories, and much of it, along with most of the other sandboxes, consists of unattributed copy/paste of actual WP articles which have been altered in incomprehensible or frivolous ways. I see no way—and TypographyFixer certainly hasn't provided one—for this activity to have any encyclopedic purpose or any value with regard to learning about WP editing. Personally, if these were tagged for U5 speedy, I'd have no problem deleting them. Deor (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 15:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

March 5, 2020[edit]

Draft:Alan Roger Currie[edit]

This draft was submitted less than 24 hours after an article on this person was deleted following a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie (3rd nomination). The closing admin, User:KaisaL, wrote in the close, "This is the third deletion for this topic, perhaps any future recreation/pitch for inclusion should go through AFC?" I doubt that KaisaL meant within 24 hours, when nothing has changed and there is no reason to think that this draft would survive a fourth AFD.

I haven't seen the deleted articles and don't know whether this draft is the same as the third deleted article. Also, G4 doesn't apply to drafts when the deletion was by AFD in article space. But there is no possibility that this draft will become an article; the article has already been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This version is not exactly the same as the previous versions that were deleted. The #1 complaint of the previous articles was that they contained too much "promotional advertising." I have since, removed large portions of the article that were considered representative of "promotional advertisement" Chicago Smooth (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment This version does look very similar to the version that was deleted at AFD, some information has been removed as explained above but nothing has been added. Abstaining from further comment on the MFD as the closing AFD admin. KaisaL (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie (3rd nomination). Do not allow any recreation attempt before six months after the close of the AfD. Draftspace is not for content that has already been decided to not belong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]