Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared. |
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:, 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
[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 | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 8 |
FfD | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
[edit]A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
[edit]- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
October 12, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:George Yannis |
---|
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I have searched for sources it couldn't find any coverage about this person. The submitter/creator has kept resubmitting after various decline from different reviewers. Although there is a slight meeting of WP:NPROF based on the citation rates, I doubt this person is ready to have a Wikipedia page. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
|
- TimedText:It's just a burning memory - sample.ogg.en.srt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is the subtitle track for the song "It's Just a Burning Memory", which samples the song "Heartaches". Though the latter song does have lyrics, the former does not, making this TimedText page rather confusing. The syllable-by-syllable additions are also rather poor for accessibility, but that can be handled through regular editing even if this is kept. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
October 11, 2024
[edit]- Draft:List of candidates in the 1918 Dutch general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I'm not going to work on it anymore, I give up Dajasj (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Dajasj If you're really sure, you can add {tl|db-g7}} to the page and it will be speedy-deleted. Cremastra 20:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep for 6 months unless the originator tags it, in which case it can be speedily deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
October 8, 2024
[edit]Blatant WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as web hosting. It appears that something very similar to this was speedily deleted on 10 September 2024 as WP:U5 by User:Jimfbleak. The edit summary says it was copied from Survivor 47, in which case it would be a copy from mainspace, but it does not look much like Survivor 47, and so it may have been made up. User pages that imitate articles on television shows are created more often than is appropriate (because they are not appropriate), and are usually deleted here, at MFD, and this is no exception. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a web not for your fantasy games. -- Whpq (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
October 7, 2024
[edit]Another blatant hoax. Someone should talk to this editor. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mvcg66b3r - The follower of Genseric has been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is an old page. It was a redirect in 2006. It was converted to a dab page is May 2023. User:Dan arndt improperly draftified it today, Wikipedia:DRAFTNO. What should have he done? I think the problem is disruptive edits by Oseangov (talk · contribs), and the answer to this is not draftification and mfd of the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: you are absolutely correct in that I should have more diligent in checking the article's history. For some reason it came up as newly created on the NPP. I'm prepared to take your guidance on this one - the fact that it is now a MfD makes it harder to revert the draft status. Dan arndt (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- You caught a bad page, which is good. Disruptive edits of redirects is a problem and can be hard to sort out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: you are absolutely correct in that I should have more diligent in checking the article's history. For some reason it came up as newly created on the NPP. I'm prepared to take your guidance on this one - the fact that it is now a MfD makes it harder to revert the draft status. Dan arndt (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Restore this version, a redirect, in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Optionally delete subsequence versions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Restore Redirect to KXLB in order to revert vandalism by blocked editor. Whether KYHT should be a redirect to KXLB or something else such as a dab can be decided by normal discussion, but the redirect was the last status before the page in question was created as vandalism, which should simply be reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
October 5, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Turbonegro2012 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Old userpage which is just a copy from the article space from a user with no other edits. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
|
September 22, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC) WikiProject Aramea was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself is almost an exact carbon copy of WikiProject Assyria, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 05:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC) ended today on 13 October 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. |
October 3, 2024
[edit]AI written draft. No clear evidence of notability and makes a lot of false claims. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Concur with JalenBarks; no evidence of the hurricane's notability and the draft is overflowing with AI generated nonsensical claims. Drdpw (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Drafts are usually not checked for sanity or notability unlike mainspace articles, and drafts rarely gets deleted for stuff like this, but I'm inclined to the Delete side because you know, AI generated texts are a big no-no in Wikipedia. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --ZZZ'S 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Shouldn't this be closed now? Tavantius (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Keep per the death in Europe and other impacts. Tavantius (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This draft should not be deleted for lack of notability, but it should be deleted as the output of a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Kirk is not going to have impacts noteworthy enough for its own article. I'll remove the false claims.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Kirk may go to UK
- https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/204925.shtml?tswind120#contents HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE as it might be notable in the future. Please, let’s wait until it dissipates. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just because a storm may go into the UK doesn't necessarily mean it will. Please see WP:UPANDCOMING for related info. Tavantius (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @HurricaneKirk2024: In addition to what Tavantius said, please also stop WP:SHOUTING.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Pretty much a maritime concern for the most part--and that's coming from someone who's currently contributing to the seasonal traffic of nhc.noaa.gov, especially through Helene and a bit before that. Next course of action is tantamount to merging it into 2024 Atlantic hurricane season § Hurricane Kirk. (My decision here began as a normal comment.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. HurricaneEdgar 04:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete– I sympathize with the creator because, as a hurricane nerd, it's always exciting when an apparent "fish storm" gets as powerful as Kirk has. I would love to have articles for storms like Kirk. But intensity in and of itself is just not how we determine whether a tropical cyclone is notable enough to get its own article. If Kirk winds up being sufficiently impactful for Europe and/or the Azores after it turns extratropical, then the idea of creating an article for Kirk should be revisited, but, especially given the apparent use of AI-assisted writing, this draft should probably be TNT'd. Sorry, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)- Switching to keep per IrishSurfer21 below. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
TNT, The subject maybe of notoriety soon, however, the current state of the draft isn't really salvageable (or at least I'd rather just have a blank slate). ✶Quxyz✶ 23:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)- Keep, Problems have been fixed and notability is likely. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW delete. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E68A:C7BB:CE25:1AE2 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: trivial info at best, fails WP:TOOSOON since literally nothing has come of this as of October 7. SirMemeGod 12:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: with new updated information I would like to oppose the deletion of this draft. Kirk has now had significant impacts and a reported fatality in Europe, a region not typically impacted by tropical cyclones. Thus, it has proven it can be notable for an article. The question now is whether this draft can be expanded enough.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the article was cleaned up significantly. Also, it now probably has enough impacts to stand as its own Wikipedia article, given the damage in Europe.74.101.118.218 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep; it appears the AI-written content has all been removed, and unclear notability is not a reason for MfD deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Storm has been sufficiently covered by its sections in the 2024–25 European windstorm season and 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season articles. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is not a valid reason for deletion of a draft. Noah, BSBATalk 12:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
September 26, 2024
[edit]This article has been the subject of WP:DEEPER and was on hold during the subject's election for the potential for the subject to meet assumed notability under WP:NPOL. However, this was not the case and now the article has been kept in the draft space. However, every so often new changes will be made, thereby resetting the draftspace 6 month timeline. But it is clear that the subject does not meet the Wikipedia threshold of notability for biographies, something that has been confirmed via multiple different and repeated avenues. In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace (see {{Db-draft-notice}}), I think this draft ought to be deleted manually lest it continue to languish in the draftspace only sometimes attended to, forever on hold. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Very important record and point of reference. Deleting would be a net negative. This is blacklisted and mainspace is mostly safe from intrusion of new pages on this topic. —Alalch E. 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alternative to deletion, if the page history record is the important issue: maybe the article content ought to be {{intentionally blank}}ed but the AfC declination/rejection history left? Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I suspect the title blacklist entry is a bigger cause of mainspace being "safe" then the existence of this draft. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This page's existence is, and has always been, nothing other than a beacon of false hope. It is time to snuff it out, and send the signal that we are not interested. And that proposed alternative to deletion does not satisfy me. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- The ATD wasn't my preference, I offered it as I thought it would be a roundabout way of addressing what my current issue is, it is the expected continued treatment as though the article is in the mainspace. See this edit just recently, that doesn't even begin to address the actual subject of the draft. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- No we need to send the signal that we *are* interested but the problem is with the topic's eligibility for an article, not with us. By saying that we are not interested (based on what? subject could become notable, active politician, not an insignificant figure) we make ourselves appear partial and situate the problem in our midst, when the problem is not here, it is there in the outside world, and the lack of recent submissions maybe means that some people have finally understood this. —Alalch E. 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator has not explained why there is anything wrong with this draft lingering in draft space, sometimes attended to, forever on hold. If the draft is deleted, a new draft will probably be created, spelled differently, to try to sneak it into article space. The edits to the draft are doing no harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think the only reason it isn't in mainspace is the blacklist after one of the recent DRVs. Let it stay as a honeypot. It's not taking up meaningful space. If a newer reviewer doesn't know the history, they'll have to go through an admin who will end a move to mainspace. Star Mississippi 14:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Maybe I don't understand the argument by User:Alalch E., unless they are saying what I am saying. What is this a record of, and what is it a reference point for? I support keeping this draft, but I don't understand. Is Alalch E. saying that the draft is a honey pot? If so, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a honey pot, and the chronology of submission attempts and declines+rejection together with the AfC comments and also the state of the draft and the sourcing are all helpful to someone who doesn't know what is going on with this topic to form a fuller picture. If it is deleted, a new draft will be created, and then? G4 in draftspace, recreations in draftspace under various titles, new socks, blacklisting in drafstpace. All work that is not needed. —Alalch E. 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: because of the long-running shenanigans around this subject (including, but far from only, at this title), I'm as fed up with this as the next guy and would like to draw a line under it... but somehow I doubt deleting this draft will achieve that. I also see no compelling policy-based reason to delete. Conversely, while I get the honey-pot-argument, I think it's the title rather than this particular version that is the honey-pot, so retaining this draft for that reason seems unnecessary. All of which is another way of saying I don't particularly mind either way. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As a candidate politician who has come very close, and holds party positions, but fails NPOL, this is exactly the sort of thing that belongs in draftspace, and it being kept alive by edits is exactly a desirable feature of the system. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Pppery. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 21:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
September 23, 2024
[edit]- User:Michael Jester/St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster (I–J) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete; abandoned project already covered by St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a reason to delete someone else’s usersubpage. Redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - See the guideline on copies of articles in user space, which says:
Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted.
. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)- This page, via copy-paste, came from the user’s userspace, years later to be userfied back by someone else. It is not a copy of the article, but a userfied old article. The guideline you quote doesn’t apply to this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael Jester/St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster (A) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete; abandoned project which is already covered by St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a reason to delete someone else’s usersubpage. Redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe, thank you. I'm still figuring things out here. I'm not as familiar with articles discussion policies; I'm more involved in Templates and Categories. If you think that is the best course then I agree with you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:Omnis Scientia. Thank you. You’ve got a lot of edits in your two years here. Deletion is much more readily done with templates and categories, in my view because they are not real content but transitionary support of content.
- I advise you to get experience at WP:AfD, it’s a good place to learn stuff, from the other volunteers there. At AfD, things that don’t belong, in any form, in mainspace, get deleted.
- At MfD, addressing userspace content, there is no need for the content to ever belong in any form in mainspace. I see MfD as only usually deleting deleting things that should never have been created in the first place, like a copy of something else serving no purpose and potentially creating future confusion. In this case, the page has a long history of edits, and was in mainspace for a long time. The edits are content edits, and we usually don’t delete content edits without good reason. If we consider the old content to now be redundant to something better, redirecting is a nice neat way of packaging it, without restricting anyone’s access to their past edits. As redirecting is easily undone, it doesn’t require a formal discussion to consider doing it. If it’s old and redundant, just redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe, thank you. I'm still figuring things out here. I'm not as familiar with articles discussion policies; I'm more involved in Templates and Categories. If you think that is the best course then I agree with you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - See the guideline on copies of articles in user space, which says:
Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted.
. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)- It’s not a copy of a mainspace article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
September 19, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a horrible "template" that makes the simple process of adding or following discussions on a talk page, extremely hard. It's also a duplicate of the Wikipedia:Tip of the day for no reason at all. Compare the current version of Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day to this version. While projects can style their project pages how they want (within reason), the talk pages should be as simple as needed. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Have you raised this on a talk page anywhere? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
September 18, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All prior XfDs for this page: |
Unclear what has changed since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. The few new editors that just signed up to Wikipedia is hardly a sign this project will survive. At best that needs to be a task force (if even that). Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep due to no deletion rational proffered by the nomination. This should be a talk page discussion. The claim, This project has now attracted about 20 editors, and we've made a significant contribution to wikipedia. Please see the campaign here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/southern_african_music__sound/programs, should be discussed on the talk page, not at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The deletion rationale is the same as for the first deletion nomination in March 2024, which was closed as delete. The work of a WikiProject is normally done at its talk page. The talk page of this project had 159 pageviews in the year 2024, which is less than 1 daily pageview, and 113 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024, in connection with the previous MFD. The project page itself shows 399 pageviews in the year 2024, or approximately 1 daily pageview. and 117 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024. The activity for both the project page and the project talk page is in two clusters, the first between 13 March 2024 and 1 April 2024, and the second between 18 September 2024 and 20 September 2024. It appears that this project and its project talk page were entirely unused between 2 April 2024 and 17 September 2024. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the deletion rationale or the circumstances are the same. The March 2024 MfD was not closed as delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
September 8, 2024
[edit]WP:RFORK, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep unless the nominator provides a link to the other draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Earliest edit I could find. Please note that that sandbox was moved to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.[1].
- Weak Delete this is older than the article that was created is (2017 vs 2023), and this editor has been inactive over 7 years and non-responsive to their talk page. All appearances of being abandoned. TiggerJay (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Blank. The article and the much older abandoned draft don't have a shared history. The draft is about a living person and is poorly sourced and mildly promotional. There was no need to nominate this for deletion because involvement of administrators and other editors is not required.—Alalch E. 19:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not a reason to delete someone else’s usersubpage. Consider redirection or blanking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or blank, not an RFORK and no reason to delete. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
September 6, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Popular pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Useless only has 1 page and apparently only has ever had 1 page as per page history Isla🏳️⚧ 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mark historical' and revert to last functional version, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of garbage in, garbage out as, until my actions at Talk:Winter Storm Helena (which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the assessments special page search results. I've removed it from the bot's config page. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading the documentation and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the templates were merged/deleted. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with the soft redirection proposed below. Graham87 (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Historical. No evidence that there is consensus in the WikiProject to delete. Does the nominator represent the WikiProject? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, or soft redirect to Massviews.
The bot malfunctioned…
The bot is doing exactly as it was programmed to :) The issue here is apparently WikiProject Severe Weather was merged to be a sub-project of WP:WEATHER, and no one updated the bot's config. Compare Special:PageAssessments for "Severe weather" versus "Weather/WikiProject Severe weather".So it is one simple change to the config and the bot will start updating the report again. However I agree that there's likely little interest in this report, judging by the pageview data and the fact that no one noticed the report broke in all this time since 2021. Also, as this WikiProject is quite small (~2,000 articles), the bot-generated report is redundant to live querying with a tool like toolforge:massviews. This example shows the exact same data that the bot would if the config is fixed. For such a small project, I advocate we don't need the bot-generated report. Just put a link to Massviews at WP:WikiProject Severe weather or even soft redirect the popular pages page to Massviews results for the previous month. — MusikAnimal talk 16:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Massviews per above.—Alalch E. 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)