Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
Information on the process[edit]
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion[edit]
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions[edit]
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 22 | 24 | 46 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 37 | 40 | 77 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 |
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.
May 12, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell[edit]
- Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Page seems to be a manual listing of articles that has not been maintained for years. It seems that using an auto generated category from Template:being merged or similar would serve the purpose much better than the holding cell. Soni (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
May 9, 2024[edit]
User talk:216.15.18.224[edit]
Talk page for IP who has never edited. Only has a help me request from a logged in editor. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. No harm. I’ve followed the help request poster. Deleting their edit history is a negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're confused, I said
Talk page for IP who has never edited
thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're confused, I said
- Speedy delete as WP:U2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlwoodwa (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as WP:U2, No reason for the talkpage to exist given the IP's not made one contribution here. –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tagged. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Speedy Delete as U2. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm with SmokeyJoe on this. It is a perfectly legitimate request for help, posted by a new editor who accidentally posted it in the wrong place. Moving it to somewhere else, such as that editor's user talk space, would make sense, but deleting it would confer no benefit whatever, and would lose editing history of the editor's attempt to get help. JBW (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and tag with {{moved to}}. Per JBW, deleting the page would lose the edit history of the editor who posted there for help, while deleting it wouldn't provide a benefit that I can see. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 23:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge and Delete this is the talk page of an IP user that hasn't edited. U2 says it needs to go. History shouldn't be an issue when WP:HISTMERGE is an option Nickps (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. As per Nickps, the history can be merged. This seems to address the primary concern for those who want the page kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Question (my opinion may change based on the answer but I think I have no opinion on histmerge). Mostly for full context and future cases: Does the IP have any deleted contributions? (I think an admin is needed to answer that question.) Does that change if U2's IP clause,
except user pages for IP users who have edited
, would exclude this page? Skynxnex (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrator help needed
|answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template. |
Please answer the question from Skynxnex. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (delete this when done)
May 6, 2024[edit]
Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh[edit]
The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:UfD[edit]
The first item has had its target changed to the second item, so this is now virtually a two-item disambiguation (the third item is a proposal to split userboxes from MFD which was the previous target). I think this should be redirected to the Users for deletion joke page. Xeroctic (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. April fools jokes should not lead to preserved redirects or WP DAB pages.
- Original this was for Wikipedia:Userboxes for discussion, a serious proposal that failed in 2006. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This page was viewed 40 times in calendar year 2023, which is less than one view per week. It has been viewed 56 times in calendar year 2024, but 17 of those views were on 6 May 2024 because of this nomination. There is very little attention paid to this page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:ANI without a hatnote per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Userboxes for deletion only has gotten 31 views in the last 2 years and has no relevance today. Ca talk to me! 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The redirect to ANI was retargeted last month, which now redirects to the recurring April Fools' joke page; the discussion mentioned that the Users for deletion redirect going there may not have fitted well. Xeroctic (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and SmokeyJoe. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
May 5, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khadija Serraf |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC) User:Khadija Serraf[edit]Spammy, untranslatable Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words[edit]
- Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there is the RfC where the thing had been talked through and out, nothing more to say.And thank you for reminding me of a Soviet cartoon of my childhood, The Bremen Town Musicians, where the stress goes ambiguous intentionally:
“ | Тем, кто дружен, не страшны тревоги,
Нам любые до́роги доро́ги! |
” |
- This is exactly what is mentioned in the essay as "very special cases".
- And, as I've already told you, if you think that the RfC was "malformed and an imprpoperly closed" you are always welcome to open your own one. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Resolve this on the talk page and update the project page to make it correct. MfD is not for resolving policy dispute, including this page, whatever the tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- It’s an essay on how to do things, in mainspace. That’s definitely on the small p end of policy.
- Project-related essays should not be deleted, but fixed. If only the author supports it, it can be userfied.
- Project space essays do carry weight and will influence editors. If the essay is wrong, it is important to fix, but mfd is not the forum for fixing essays. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, disagreed. There is no "conflict". The page is based on the provably false premise, see the top here; hence, MfD. - Altenmann >talk 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- What about the 2021 MoS RfC—@Altenmann:? Is the essay mostly inconsistent or mostly consistent with the RfC?—Alalch E. 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in WP:MOSPRON nor in MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement- Altenmann >talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. - Altenmann >talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- This good? Special:Permalink/1223236130? —Alalch E. 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. - Altenmann >talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement- Altenmann >talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in WP:MOSPRON nor in MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I was reverted with the edit summary of WP:OWN : "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - which reaffirms my strong opinion for deletion of an essay which is not an explanation of any wikipedia guideline, just an opinion of a single strong-hanged person. - Altenmann >talk 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy, as a disputed single-author essay. Noted WP:OWNership issues are serious and will be solved by userfication. —SmokeyJoe (talk)
- Please note that the essay has been successfully edited by many users, passed a WP:RM with discussion, and had a consensus version from September 2023. Then suddenly Altenmann appeared with this in January. — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: I think we're good now actually.—Alalch E. 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this has no business in wikispace and given the author of it was banned for civility issues around this topic i don't really see the point of userfying it—blindlynx 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Who was banned? Where? Around what? — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Shit sorry i thought Taurus Littrow wrote most of this, i didn't realize i wasn't looking at the earliest history—blindlynx 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Who was banned? Where? Around what? — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The essay, in its current version, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1223433915 is consistent with the 2021 RfC and can't be described as a "disputed single-author essay". The problem is located in the previous wording: "Stress marks don't belong ... and should be removed on sight". And while that language was not fully consistent with the RfC result, it was not very far from it either. But now the wording has been tweaked to truly match the RfC, and that is how it should be. If someone wants more flexibility than the RfC allows, start a new RfC. If someone wants more rigidity, start a new RfC. In my opinion the existing RfC is satisfactory, and this essay is okay.—Alalch E. 10:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Legitimate explainer of extant consensus and past discussions akin to WP:RSP. Nardog (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Old business[edit]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 04:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC) ended today on 13 May 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. |
April 29, 2024[edit]
Draft:Pact Coffee[edit]
This draft appears to be an unambiguous advertisement. Samoht27 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Probably could be G11, but we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Has good looking referencing (though on examination they look nonindependent). It definitely is not g11-eligible. It is written up like a fair Wikipedia article. It merely fails WP:N. This is not a reason to delete from draftspace, and never should be. Advise the proponent to use WP:SIRS, and that two or three sources need to meet the WP:GNG, and if two or three do not, no number of additional worse sources will do. But, MfD is not the forum for this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks very promotional to me with lines such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness." Draftspace should not be a permanent repository for unacceptable content. AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luckily for you, its not permanent. Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- G11 is not for things that could be fixed, like a promotional tone.
- Your concern is taken care of by the implementation of WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- What if it's not abandoned? AusLondonder (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then it stays. Short of it being tendentiously submitted, or submitted after rejection, draftspace is for people to try to improve drafts for as long as they choose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not so easy to be sure that an article on this topic is impossible in the foreseeable future. I did some superficial work on the draft and it was trivial for me to increase the encyclopedicity of the content using additional, not-so-bad, sources. —Alalch E. 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- What if it's not abandoned? AusLondonder (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks very promotional to me with lines such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness." Draftspace should not be a permanent repository for unacceptable content. AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
WeakKeep: If this had no sources, it would probably be a delete. With the sources, I think it's just enough to meet the minimum of being a suitable draft. Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete The draft has been submitted and
rejecteddeclined four times, it's clearly unsuitable. Per this RfC, the community consensus is inappropriate drafts repeatedly submitted may be deleted by MfD. The language used in the draft, such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness" is unencyclopedic and promotional. Simply keeping an inappropriate draft in hope it will eventually be abandoned so it can then be deleted makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)- If you have a problem with specific sentences, just delete those sentences; no need to blow the whole thing up. 4 declines but with improvement in between is not tendentious, it is a new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're so passionate about this after your "weak keep". "A new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best" is not the way I'd describe a paid contributor. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually exactly how I'd describe a *disclosed* paid contributor. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I firmly disagree. I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for paid advertorials about non-notable companies rejected at AfC four times. I'm surprised you do, but we'll have to agree to disagree. AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll leave it at this. At AfC, we get a lot of slop; practically every third draft submission is WP:UPE garbage, and there is usually no improvement between instantaneous resubmissions. So it is refreshing to see a draft like this where the creator is actively improving the draft after each decline ([3][4]), and where the draft has actual sourcing. Even the sentence you cite above has already been cleaned ([5][6]). As a draft, it doesn't have to be notable and doesn't have to be accept-worthy, it just has to not cross the line into requiring early deletion. And while I do share your detestment for paid editing - I find it contrary to the entire point of this website - it is currently allowed if they are transparent and disclose properly. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I firmly disagree. I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for paid advertorials about non-notable companies rejected at AfC four times. I'm surprised you do, but we'll have to agree to disagree. AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually exactly how I'd describe a *disclosed* paid contributor. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're so passionate about this after your "weak keep". "A new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best" is not the way I'd describe a paid contributor. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:AusLondonder, I see no rejects. Reject is different to decline. Declines imply that it can be improved to become good enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with specific sentences, just delete those sentences; no need to blow the whole thing up. 4 declines but with improvement in between is not tendentious, it is a new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Changing stance to Keep, I know I nominated this for deletion, but as i've become a bit more accustomed to draft space, i've become more accustomed to its very loose requirements, one could likely just let the draft run its course if it is not improved. Samoht27 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per nom. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I took a look and even if this were cleaned up for promotional tone, it does not meet notability guidelines. The references fail WP:ORGCRIT and I cannot see this surviving an AfD discussion should it go that route from the main space. I would actually reject it as a reviewer. Nothing wrong with keeping it in draft space but a WP:BEFORE shows there isn't anything available that can improve the notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, so for MfD purposes it doesn't matter if it is notable or not. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the sources are not good enough, primarily due to non independence. I agree that it would be deleted at AfD. I disagree that it should be REJECTed, as there is a claim to notability, and qualifying sources may exist or may appear in the future. In the meantime, I recommend that the topic proponent go to the advice at WP:THREE, and do not simply keep adding sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep probably not suitable for article space as is, but that's not a valid reason for deleting drafts. Pinguinn 🐧 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - If it's not notable now chances are it won't be notable in 2 years time, This has been declined 4 times already and so at this point it's just wasting page reviewers time which could be better spent reviewing new articles. Delete. –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I too think it will probably never pass WP:CORP, but why not let AfC process work as they should. “Decline” means the reviewer believes there is potential to make it good enough. If not, the reviewer uses “Reject”. MfD is supposed to be reserved for tendentious resubmission, or resubmission after rejection. If every bad draft were put through MfD, it would swamp MfD, and for no benefit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep average declined then rejected draft about a company. People who have seen many drafts should notice the commonness and normality of this situation, which does not need special attention from multiple people over a period of seven days. —Alalch E. 00:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Since we're here, there's no point in this page's continued existence, but I agree with Alalch E. that this MfD was pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
April 11, 2024[edit]
Template:User hate CCP[edit]
WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC. Divisive userbox. Broc (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The word 'hate' should not appear in userboxes.—Alalch E. 09:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I lean to supporting this, but not without limit. A userbox might mention hate without expressing or advocating hate.
- There are several transcluders. The transcluders should be advised of this discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to the transcluders of this userbox: SunDawn Moreno Ardan1 EnverTheHero Magnatyrannus Partyfrittata R09a21045 TeddyRoosevelt1912 Carlinal Michigander901 PoisonHK Delta2571 -- Broc (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Broc, SmokeyJoe, specifically pinging people who are likely to !vote in a certain way is WP:VOTESTACKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not. The proposal is to alter these people’s userpages, altering their self-introductions, with an allegation that they are doing something wrong. There are therefore key stakeholders. Their contribution here is not to vote, but to explain, or defend. If the userbox is deleted, they may be accused of disruption if they put a similar back. This outcome is an obvious failing of natural justice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Broc, SmokeyJoe, specifically pinging people who are likely to !vote in a certain way is WP:VOTESTACKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to the transcluders of this userbox: SunDawn Moreno Ardan1 EnverTheHero Magnatyrannus Partyfrittata R09a21045 TeddyRoosevelt1912 Carlinal Michigander901 PoisonHK Delta2571 -- Broc (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- If like to ask them, what is it about the CCP that they hate. Then, I’m sure it can be improved by an edit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Hate of a political class of tyrants should not be equated with a group of individuals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Dislike towards an organization (that has done "things") is different than hating millions of Chinese. I didn't think the word "hate" should immediately be construed as divisive. I didn't think "hating" the Nazi Party or ISIS is violating WP:UBCR.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: My usage of the anti-CCP infobox isn't of any malice towards Chinese culture or society at all, but as a protest against the party's omnipresent dominance and human rights violations that led to a moral decline within the country's political state, if not with China altogether. This includes but is not limited to Mao Zedong's cult of personality (similar with Joseph Stalin's), several massacres (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and Red August, the Tiananmen massacre and suppression of its discussion and the related), declining human and Internet rights, and other forms of crimes against humanity. That's what I hate about the party and its impact; I believe other users with the infobox aren't drastically different in motive. The party's slogan is "Serve the People", but it only serves itself, of a code not revealed to anyone with any sympathy. I wouldn't be anti-communist in the first place if all of this never happened. My use of this infobox is not light, and it speaks out for the preservation of common sense and human dignity. Carlinal (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wording Change: I am a Hong Konger, and this template sums up a large part about my childhood in the city, so I'm definitely against deleting the template entirely (please see Hong Kong-Mainland China conflict). I personally have no problem using the word "hate" towards a political organization that has no respect for human rights whatsoever, but I can understand why some would feel problematic about this. So, I would be fine if the template is re-worded to take out the word "hate" but keep much of the meaning, something along the lines of: "This user strongly condemns the CCP (for its gross violations of human rights)". TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It is disruptive to use userspace or projectspace as a WP:SOAPBOX. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Not to move away from focus on this infobox, but with several more examples and an entire category's worth of similarly politically charged infoboxes, how exactly does this one cross the line? Carlinal (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- This userbox being nominated doesn't mean it's special, it was just the one that happened to be nominated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Not to move away from focus on this infobox, but with several more examples and an entire category's worth of similarly politically charged infoboxes, how exactly does this one cross the line? Carlinal (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not the place for this; WP:SOAPBOX per above. Uhai (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a venue for expressing hate. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Pppery. No opposition to articulated nuanced criticisms, but clumsy hate is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not the venue for this divisiveness, and there is nothing positive that can come from this crude criticism. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) - Keep Hate is a strong word, so in the state it was nominated in, i'd have to agree! But this userbox is not unfixable! We are wikipedians! We can edit!. I think it would be a good choice to change the wording on this userbox, and change the name of the template. Possibly to something along the lines of "This user is opposed to the policies of the Chinese Communist Party" and the template name to "User oppose CCP"? Samoht27 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reword. Most just have a problem with the word "hate". Change it into "strongly condemns" or even "dislikes" would fix it. If you genuinely think all political userboxes violate WP:SOAPBOX, it would be more prudent to start a discussion on the talk page of the policy first. Northern Moonlight 00:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reword: Easy to fix with "rejects", "dislikes", "condemns" or whatever. Cambalachero (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment CCP-related discussions tend to make highly heated Chinese language debates, more so when it's between a Mainlander and a non-Mainlander. NasssaNser 11:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment to those suggesting a rewording: is it fair to reword userboxes? The user who added it to their user page might not have meant it with the new wording. Broc (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's usually fair unless the changes are sweeping, most suggested rewording would change it in a way where the meaning is retained. I think this scenario rewording would be a viable option. Samoht27 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Changing "User hates X" to "User dislikes X" is not the same as "User hates X" to "User loves X". Cambalachero (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:SOAPBOX. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 02:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reword "Hate" to "Opposes" per User:Winhunter/Userboxes/CCP. If you have those that support then there are going to be those who oppose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I was going to support rewording however Broc's point regarding the user may not wanting this is spot on, Someone can easily recreate this with "opposes" instead of "hate". –Davey2010Talk 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody "owns" the content of Wikipedia, and that includes userboxes. If a larger community discussion decides that a userbox should be phrased some other way and the original maker does not like it, too bad for him. Deleting a userbox to create a similar userbox elsewhere would require to replace all uses of that userbox, and why go with all that trouble when it can be simply rewritten? Cambalachero (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reword per above. It's unnecessary to recreate. It would also be more disruptive for this box to suddenly disappear from multiple user's pages into an error message than for its wording to just change. Meanwhile, we should just notify all users of this userbox through their talk pages. Air on White (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)