Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
 |
Skip to current discussions · Skip to old business · |
|
 |
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 |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Centralized discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||
| Proposals: policy | other | Discussions | Ideas |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive. |
|||
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.
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:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description pages 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 |
|
| Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
| Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
| WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
| Alternatives to deletion |
|
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 – whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- 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:
| Click to view 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]
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Contents
Current discussions[edit]
- Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
September 26, 2016[edit]
User:Tscroot/sandbox/Foreflight[edit]
References are highly questionable. Notability itself is questionable. Article is written like company product catalog. It might do something different but to be here need to be something more. Uniqueness alone cant be part of notability. Not enough coverage. Light2021 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Opinions about references seem highly subjective... what is questionable about using a company's own website as a source for information about the company? On the contrary, writing style is neutral. Company is a notable; the company is already mentioned on an active Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system... does a mention on another article not constitute notability? ForeFlight has 144,000 Google hits, 980 on Google News, and has been featured in major aviation industry publications. It's notable, though the article may fail to convey its notability, but wouldn't doing so make it sound more like a "company product catalog?" Lastly the article was based on content and structure of similar companys' approved Wikipedia entries, so claiming this one does not meet a standard that other articles have been approved for is groundless. Tscroot (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
From Light2021's user page: "I am here to make the Wikipedia What Truly it is? what it stands for? Definitely not some place for companies or people to place their own content for their own promotion and gratification. In the past you missed lots of companies and people to be verified or tested the water of authenticity. Here it is. I am here to put the Light on it. No More Self Promotion or past wont be spared if missed. Go to your blog to write the self -Nonsense. This is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not some people or company directory where people can list themselves or their companies for purpose of being on Wikipedia and nothing else.
Notability clearly states the companies, people or any events should be on Wikipedia because they are enough notable to be covered by independent media not once, twice or repeated popular media but they should have been covered by various media significantly.
Wikipedia is becoming Blog-Spot or some content medium to write about themselves or their insignificant startups or companies who just got coverage because they got seed funding from notable investors or either started by some elite family. These startups comes from Tech background and knows almost everything about how to be on Wikipedia either by listing themselves by few media coverage or being missed by community because there are few only who can manage it. and definitely its not possible to verify each and every articles intensively."
Clearly Light2021 has an agenda against companies on Wikipedia and sees him/herself as an agent against commercial entities. I agree that Wikipedia should not be used for shameless commercial promotion but Light2021 is trying to make ForeFlight (a company with which I am not affliated), which is a legitimate, sizeable, notable, and well-covered enterprise, pay for the sins of others who were not. Perhaps ForeFlight does not seem notable to Light2021 because its notability is mainly in the specific niche of aviation. Tscroot (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Rpettid2[edit]
User page made by other editors that outs the user. Originally created as an attack page. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Rpettid2 & User:Jsp1399 appear to have been on-serious users who made joke attack userpages for each other, and in the process outed each other. Although they may have consented in real life, there is no record of consent to outing by either party, and so it should be deleted. I have G10-tagged both pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jsp1399[edit]
User page made by another editor that outs the user. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Analytical drawing[edit]
Stale draft with no promise of moving into mainspace. The notional topic is very briefly mentioned in an image caption in Frank Ching's book, and not developed any further. The notional topic is not found in any other works, so it fails WP:GNG. All of the images seen here are original research rather than common or well-known examples. Since there is no widespread use of the term, no examples can be found. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Neither age nor notability/GNG are reasons for deletion of drafts, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F where the community was very clear on this. WP:NOR does not apply to images, see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. So, not valid reason for deletion has been offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Nova1666/William Novak[edit]
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not convinced this is even meant to be a Wikipedia article. Looks more like some people having fun. Not a lot of effort being pit into showing notability. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Blank at worst. No offensive enough for WP:CSD#U5, it does look like some few people having fun. Fun is allowed, as is testing in userspace. The external links may look promotional, but they are all jokes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
September 25, 2016[edit]
User:Luke de paul/sandbox[edit]
The entire article sandbox consists of templates all added by various IPs, Could blank but it'll only be recreated so to save time being wasted IMHO it should be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Page is being edited off and on by various IPs who add non-free logos and other content with edits like this, this, this only to remove them almost immediately with a subsequent edit such as here, here and here. Not sure if this has to do with the user being advised not to add non-free content to their userpages at User talk:Luke de paul#Non-free image use on userpages and in various edit sums by others or is just some random IPs goofing around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Book:US Coins (esad58)[edit]
Inexistent user book. Normally, I wouldn't care but the talk page appears at multiple categories. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
September 24, 2016[edit]
Draft:Cocobot[edit]
Advertising by blocked account. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
BESM (disambiguation)[edit]
2-item DAb page. Chances of getting more are extremely slim. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
September 23, 2016[edit]
Draft:Keith St John[edit]
The author of this draft is blocked for a username violation.
There is a better draft at User:Melissa Kurland/sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Singh Prince World Entertainment[edit]
This article, about a non-notable company, was created by a now-indeffed spammer and sockpuppeteer. We don't need it unless anyone is planning to rehabilitate this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, too promotional and unsourced (counting only independent reliable sources) given repeated requests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Sean Frederick Forbes[edit]
This is duplicated by Sean Frederick Forbes in article space, which has been nominated for deletion. Either the subject is notable, and the article can be kept (but the AFD is running for delete) or the subject is not notable and we don't need this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to the mainspace article, delete per G8 if the mainspace article is deleted, unless the AfD close provides otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Ipsita Pati[edit]
The author has created Ipsita Pati in article space. As a result, this draft is redundant. Either the article should be nominated for deletion, in which case this draft can go, or the article should be kept, in which case this draft can go. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect is the best thing to do for multiple reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Kok Heng Leun[edit]
Kok Heng Leun has been accepted into article space. No need for this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
September 22, 2016[edit]
User:Gregaga/sandbox[edit]
Sandbox is being used as a web host for a fantasy version of Big Brother. See article history where there is an attempt to evade notice by blanking the article. Whpq (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per NOTWEBHOST - This sandbox was nominated a week ago and deleted 4 days (I never looked at the 2nd noms history so have no idea if it's the same content) .... Needless to say I've given them a final warning for disruptive editing which this is what it is, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete NOTWEBHOST. This does seem to be a setup for the possible continuation of this user's fantasy article. Pinging BDD who closed and dealt with Gregaga's reality show material (on a different user's page) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Holidayroad92 Meters (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jerry E. Smith[edit]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL - another user "memorialized" for doing nothing but editing their own article page. Someone also saw fit to lock the page, so the template can't be posted. MSJapan (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The user was a contributing Wikipedian. Wikipedians may have a userspace memorial. The page as is is appropriate for the level of contributions. Editing his own article is not so great a crime, we judged him notable, and he contributed to a notable topic, and did so without any deceit. He did nothing wrong, he contributed, his userpage is fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines Thincat (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - that's my point - By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. Emphasis on the latter half. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't understand what is the issue? This Wikipedian didn't do any editing except their own page? I've never encountered these types of pages before? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- He edited the page on a notable subject. He was connected, but disclosure was implied. If every subject of a Wikipedia biography were to register under their own name and make small edits, that would be a good thing. Many edits to their own biographies means a review of WP:COI advice is in order, but a few good edits, WP:IAR, is a good thing. There is no issue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the appropriate guideline and serves the useful purpose of letting other editors know there's no point in trying to contact the user. Meters (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an appropriate userpage for a deceased user. Contrary to the nom, the user did not edit only the article about himself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jacques-laporte[edit]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL - 8 edits on three separate days, all to add links to his own webpage. No reason to memorialize this user to the community. MSJapan (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- None of his edits were reverted, as there was no reason to revert them. They were (are) quality links about a (technical/historical) topic where he was (and is) recognized as an expert in the community (CORDIC algorithm and its implementation in Hewlett-Packard calculators), not SPAM. The links are still present in the Calculator, CORDIC and HP-35 articles - ten years after he added them. It was removed from the Logarithm article years later in a general cleanup. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Matthiaspaul. Keep. Was a productive contributor. Contributed a little, in line with project goals. Was a Wikipedian. Some contribute a little. Some contributed a lot. All contributors are valued. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm a bit puzzled about the nomination. I added the template to indicate that this is a dead account and any attempts to contact the account owner would be pointless, because the account owner is deceased. Users could have wanted to contact him because he was an expert on the subject and recognized in the community for this. I certainly didn't add him to a Wikipedia hall-of-fame. How should adding this purely informal tag aid in "memorialize this user to the community" - after all, it's seen only by those who end up at his user page for some reason? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The longer I think about this nomination, the more I find it embarrassing. It is clearly derogative in tone at the borderline to being frivolous. WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply, and adding the tag is even suggested in our behaviour guideline at WP:DWG. In fact, it should also be added to the user talk page. Hence: Keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines Thincat (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - From that guideline, By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. Tell me how 8 edits, not enough to even autoconfirm, meets that criterion. Second of all, it's not the template - it's the fact that he's been added to a category of users, the majorty of whom were long-term contributors and actually contributed to the community in a meaningful way over that time. MSJapan (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- You are referring to WP:RIP ("Welcome to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. This is a memorial listing of English-language Wikipedians who died.") and are citing a section in WP:DWG named "On WP:RIP and memorial pages", which does not apply, as he wasn't put into that "Deceased Wikipedians" (obiturary) list at WP:RIP or any other WP hall-of-fame.
- What applies to the template on the user page is the section "On the userpage" in WP:DWG: "A standardized and secular template, {{Deceased Wikipedian}}, is available to be placed on the user talk pages of deceased Wikipedians. Its placement is at editors' discretion, and should be considered on a case by case basis."
- You are also complaining that the template put him into the category "Category:Deceased Wikipedians", because this category also contains deceased editors who contributed more or over a longer period of time. While I don't care if he's put into that category or not, that's how the template was designed, and according to the name of the category this appears to be a perfect fit. I find it only natural that such a category also contains editors who contributed more.
- Trying to understand your motivation for the nomination, you seem to seek for a new category "Deceased veteran Wikipedians" or something along that line. Feel free to propose such a category, but I would be against it as it would create a two-class system, whilst one of our basic principles here at Wikipedia is that we should all be treated the same. In my book, creating such a new category would actively "memorialize users to the community" and thereby violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I don't care if an editor made 1 or 100000 edits, for as long as it was a good-faith contribution to the project.
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the appropriate guideline and serves the useful purpose of letting other editors know there's no point in trying to contact the user. A history of quality COI edits should not disqualify an editor's page. Meters (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Irelandd[edit]
Another NOTMEMORIAL issue - user has less than 20 edits on two days (on his own article only, no less, which we don't allow), there was no content on his user page to begin with, and it's memorial templated for all eternity? We used to have activity requirements for these things. MSJapan (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. We should welcome people wanting to contribute to their Wikipedia biographies, especially welcoming when they do so under a registered username overtly disclosing their identity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines and "Consider archiving any unseemly disputes, warnings or deletion notices" Thincat (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. Tell me how 20 edits on one's own article is "active enough to be part of the community" MSJapan (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- A single useful contribution makes a contributor. All contributors are valuable to the project. A userpage memorial tag is the smallest show of respect. It also happens to be useful to other wikipedians, even if you don't care to show respect for the dead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- We are an encyclopedia, not a place to "respect the dead". You clearly misunderstand the function of Wikipedia, and I have no reason to "respect" a random person I've never met and never heard of, and you don't either. You simply have no standing to make your argument other than the fact that "I'm a bad person" because I don't agree with you. Disingenuous nonsense, by the way. MSJapan (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Editors matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- We are an encyclopedia, not a place to "respect the dead". You clearly misunderstand the function of Wikipedia, and I have no reason to "respect" a random person I've never met and never heard of, and you don't either. You simply have no standing to make your argument other than the fact that "I'm a bad person" because I don't agree with you. Disingenuous nonsense, by the way. MSJapan (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the appropriate guideline and serves the useful purpose of letting other editors know there's no point in trying to contact the user. Meters (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Gulker[edit]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Deceased Wikipedian who made all of one edit to the encyclopedia, and that was to start the user page - someone else added the other material. There is absolutely no reason to keep this. MSJapan (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, as he also uploaded quality images to commons, and which are used on this and other sister projects. He was clearly intending a proper userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines Thincat (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Three pictures on one day; that's the extent of it. As for the guideline, By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. 4 edits? That's not even enough to get autoconfirmed. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- It is enough. It is more than most do. The images are actually quite good. We should thank him, not insult him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Really? Most people don't ever contribute. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Moreover, he's dead; I don't think he cares either way as to whether there's a page for him or not. It's not like he checked part and participated in the community; he uploaded 3 things to Commons on February 9, 2009, made one edit to his user page on enwiki in September 2009, never did anything else, and died over a year later. Nobody thanked him then, so it couldn't have been such a big deal, could it? He clearly didn't invest in the community, either. You're grossly overstating the matter, and what's "insulting" is that there are contributors in that cat with thousands of contribs for years, and this guy's on par with them as a "contributor", apparently because "he's dead." Think about that. MSJapan (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
September 21, 2016[edit]
Draft:Agustin Ganot Mendez[edit]
This draft is being repeatedly resubmitted tendentiously, but doesn't make a case for notability, and the author doesn't appear to be capable of putting the article into good English. No need to continue to waste reviewers' time. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - unsalvageable attempted hagiography by an editor with little grasp of English and an obvious agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and thanks for the continued AfC curating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:IAAS[edit]
The version of this page that was in article space has been deleted as WP:A7 and WP:G11. No need to keep this draft for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Part of a spam cluster too - see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Intercultural_Alliance_of_Artists_.26_Scholars.2C_Inc._.28IAAS.29 - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This is very promotional and unlikely to pass guidelines at this point in time, if ever. I also note that the editors involved in this looked to have possibly kept these draft articles as a way to host the content so they could repost the material later, if the articles were deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are there any others? - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:YULU Toys[edit]
This draft, which has a promotional tone and no references, was created by a now-blocked promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Eric Poe[edit]
An article about this person was already deleted once. Topher385 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- No helpful links?
- A previous G11 does not necessarily prejudice a later different creation. It was only days ago, have you asked the G11 deleting admin User:Seraphimblade to comment?
- The draft does not look G11-able to me. The author has made an admirable effort. I don't think the subject passes WP:BIO. I suggest a merge and redirect to CURE Auto Insurance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can confirm that this is not the same version that I deleted under G11. Other than that, I don't particularly have an opinion on this version. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I'm new to the Wikipedia community so please let me know if I'm not supposed to respond like this. I thought I'd pick up a new hobby of writing about people/businesses/nonprofits from NJ and it's much harder than I anticipated! I did rewrite the article to limit the cites to better sources - government websites, huffingtonpost.com, nj.com, njbiz.com, etc. I modeled this article after other individuals such as Arthur Bloom, George Norcross, etc. and it seemed to be similar in notability, content and citations. (Initially I modeled it after more well-known businessmen such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet but scaled it back after it was deleted based on the comments I received.) Originally I had drafted this as part of my CURE page but I thought it did not work because of the discussion on physician malpractice reform. Perhaps this is better as a stub submission? I'd hate for my research to go to waste so any suggestions you have would be appreciated. Thank you, hmariez —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Topher385, can you assist me with my questions above? Thank you. Hmariez (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmariez, I advise you to not write new articles until you have experience improving existing articles. If you think you have a worthy new topic, it will first have mentions in multiple other articles, mentions that you can improve. If not, if your new topic is a near WP:ORPHAN, you may be wrong about it being worthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect title to CURE Auto Insurance. Montanabw(talk) 01:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The suggested parent article is listed for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CURE Auto Insurance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: CURE Auto Insurance, which was relevant to some of the suggested actions above, has been deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Topher385, SmokeyJoe, Seraphimblade, Hmariez, Montanabw, and Kudpung: Notifying those who have already participated in this discussion of the new developments described in the relisting comment.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the parent article has been deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the parent article has been deleted.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
September 20, 2016[edit]
User:Skywrites/Draft Hulda Clark article with markup[edit]
Abandoned no-hope whitewashing of Hulda Regehr Clark. There is no chance whatsoever that these edits would pass WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Textbook case of WP:UP#COPIES. Userspace drafting is OK, but short term only. If left to become old it makes copyrights compliance very difficult. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Danny Boy Styles[edit]
Danny Boy Styles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been recently deleted at AfD twice for lack of notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Kaviguru Nobel Centenary Training College/sandbox[edit]
- User:Kaviguru Nobel Centenary Training College/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This draft, by a blocked promotional user, is nothing but a link to a web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I think it should be G11-able. There is no content but the promotion statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Raging Fire (band)[edit]
This draft has not been submitted to AFC but has apparently been abandoned for more than a year. Delete in order to permit a more recent draft to be moved over it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - See User:ScrivenerBartleby/sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because it's been over a year with no improvement. The other draft could be moved to Draft:Raging Fire (band) (2) for now if you'd like. There's no actual reason to have it set at this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. If the topic is worth creating, there is no justification in deleting the current version. If one draft is not to be merge to, or over, the other, then I recommend disambiguating by creation date (month, year). Is there a concern about article creation statistics motivating this nomination? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete to make way for a move, then history merge the revisions up to February of the deleted content after the move proposed by the nominator has taken place, and merge any content that isn't in what is currently at User:ScrivenerBartleby/sandbox. I think that's the best option available.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
September 19, 2016[edit]
User:Joanna Mosca/sandbox[edit]
Clearly blatant self promotion, possible copyvio, user's only contribs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, noting also that it is old. Not quite obvious enough for U5, but too much promotion not justified by notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and WP:SOAPBOX. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Party[edit]
Unlinked from anywhere, and I don't understand the purpose of this page aside from a {{humor}} page. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There are not enough parties around here, and some are needed to improve the back room ambience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, completely pointless even as a humor page, not linked from anywhere, no foreseeable use. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Ten Pound Hammer and out of project scope (WP:5P1). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Uttar Pradesh/Agra[edit]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Uttar Pradesh/Agra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
naveenpf (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Naveenpf, not sure why you nominated this page? It's mostly a disambiguation page. Maybe I'm missing something? effeietsanders 07:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi effeietsanders, it is wikipedia internal page. we have correct pages as content. -- naveenpf (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is a project page that links to other project pages. It is useful in itself, but it is not a content page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi effeietsanders, it is wikipedia internal page. we have correct pages as content. -- naveenpf (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Previously listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_September_7#Wikipedia:WikiProject_India.2FWiki_Loves_Monuments.2FUttar_Pradesh.2FAgra. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- The deletion rationale is insufficient. I suspect it may as well be left alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Old business[edit]
| Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began 19:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC) ended today on 26 September 2016. 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. |
September 15, 2016[edit]
Draft:52nd Street (Album) Track 5[edit]
Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring similar drafts into mainspace.[1] Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace. I think it is very unlikely the community will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album). No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the song itself may have adequate coverage to meet GNG. But this draft doesn't incorporate any sources, and so really serves no valid purpose. I disagree with redirecting since "52nd Street (Album) Track 5" is not a likely term that a reader would type in. Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- "disagree with redirecting"? "not a likely term that a reader would type in" is a reason for deletion of a redirect in mainspace, but not in draftspace. In draftspace, there are reasons to keep:
- (1) as a clear message to the previous author, that they should go to the redirect target.
- (2) to avoid broken bookmarks by the previous author.
- (3) In anticipation of a future new editor thinking to draft under this title. As it happened once, it mus be assumed possible to happen again.
- Note especially, redirects are cheap, much cheaper than deletion, and this is not mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep in draftspace. This draft is not suitable at this time for moving to the mainspace, as it is completely unsourced and does not establish notability under WP:NSONGS. However, the draft was created only five days ago, and it may be possible to establish notability for the song. (I participated in an AfD for another Billy Joel album track and helped it pass the AfD.) Per the Manual of Style, this draft should not be linked to from the mainspace while it is still a draft, and if it is ever moved to the mainspace, it should be moved to the title Stiletto (song). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Recent draft that has legitimate possibilities, so there is no good reason for deletion. Misbehavior by an editor should be dealt with more directly. --RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Had it not been created by an IP I would've straight up !voted Keep however this was obviously created by one and so in the next 2-3 weeks the IP would've gained a new IP and this probably would be left to rot ... and then in a month to a year will end up here again, I have absolutely no objections to an editor recreating this (or going to WP:UNDELETE) (Even if the IP creates an account I would happily !vote Keep but at the moment this would end up being forgotten and abandoned so better off deleted and recreated by someone who's perhaps more serious about editing it and getting it in to articlespace). –Davey2010Talk 18:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, charting as a hit single is not the only way a pop/rock song can attain notability as a separate topic from its parent album. It's certainly the most common way, but it's not the only one that exists under WP:NSONGS: we do have some articles about songs that were only ever album tracks, but can still be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for other reasons. Accordingly, keep for now to allow the chance at improvement, with no prejudice against revisiting this in two or three months if none is forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- This hasn't been touched since August so chances are the IPs have either gained new IP addresses or the MFD's scared them off .... Either way it's not going to be improved now (if ever) unless an editor decides to take it under their wing which is unlikely. –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am less concerned about the author being a long absent IP than about this being content forking in a place that no one will see it, combined with zero sourcing. It is great that people want to expand coverage - that is the working model of Wikipedia. However, the place to do the expansion is in the article that already nominally covers this topic, and where other editors will interact with the new editor enthusiastic to add content. Working on mainspace topics in draftspace weakens community interaction, takes the focus away from the real product, and is bad for the project. These things when discovered should be redirected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except as I've just said directly above there's been no edits to this since August so where are these "other editors" because I don't see 'em, That aside this should never in a million years be redirected because redirect is just silly and makes no sense whatsoever. –Davey2010Talk 01:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Unless your assumption is that the project is completed, an obvious working assumption is that if someone tries it, it should be assumed that someone will try it again.
- The redirect makes sense because:
- The original author may return looking for their work, and the redirect sends them to where they should have been working
- Another editor may think this is a topic worth drafting, and when they try the redirect where tell them where the editing should be done.
- In principle, more than conceivably, the draft may contain useful contributions. It is not sensible to ask MfD volunteers to review for this everytime, so just redirect, enabling any edit to review the contributions at their leisure. This is, in fact, how the whole wiki works, except for where deletion is involved, and in general (unlike this nomination) deletion requires a good reason.
- Someone working in mainspace may want to look for related material. They can, and should, try the tool WhatLinksHere. It will reveal redirects, and redirect from userspace and draft space will be worth investigating, for possibly useful material, even possibly useful ideas, in the versions in the history behind the redirect.
- Also note:
- If the worthless harmless things are redirected, then the editor cleaning up can just do it, no dramah, not four week MfD, no clogging of an important forum with busywork
- Redirects are cheap and harmless. No one peruses draftspace unless looking for drafts, it is not part of the project-proper.
- Every proper drafting experience in draftspace that does involve unnecessary administrator function results in a draftspace to mainspace redirect. These things are normal.
- And even if you do assume that the project is completed (extreme meta:Immediatism), that is no reason to page-by-page bring draftspace to mainspace standard. Better, on that assumption, to just delete draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:52nd Street (song)[edit]
Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring it into mainspace.[2] Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace. I think it is very unlikely the cmmunity will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album). No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in draftspace. This draft is not suitable at this time for moving to the mainspace, as it is completely unsourced and contains hardly any information. However, the draft was created only three days ago, and it may be possible to establish notability for the song. (I participated in an AfD for another Billy Joel album track and helped it pass the AfD.) Per the Manual of Style, this draft should not be linked to from the mainspace while it is still a draft. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Recent draft that has legitimate possibilities, so there is no good reason for deletion. Misbehavior by an editor should be dealt with more directly. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- 'Delete - Had it not been created by an IP I would've straight up !voted Keep however this was obviously created by one and so in the next 2-3 weeks the IP would've gained a new IP and this probably would be left to rot ... and then in a month to a year will end up here again, I have absolutely no objections to an editor recreating this (or going to WP:UNDELETE) (Even if the IP creates an account I would happily !vote Keep but at the moment this would end up being forgotten and abandoned so better off deleted and recreated by someone who's perhaps more serious about editing it and getting it in to articlespace). –Davey2010Talk 18:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Half a Mile Away[edit]
Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring it into mainspace.[3] Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace. I think it is very unlikely the cmmunity will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album). No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in draftspace. This draft is not suitable at this time for moving to the mainspace, as it is completely unsourced and contains hardly any information. However, the draft was created only three days ago, and it may be possible to establish notability for the song. (I participated in an AfD for another Billy Joel album track and helped it pass the AfD.) Per the Manual of Style, this draft should not be linked to from the mainspace while it is still a draft. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Recent draft that has legitimate possibilities, so there is no good reason for deletion. Misbehavior by an editor should be dealt with more directly. --RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Had it not been created by an IP I would've straight up !voted Keep however this was obviously created by one and so in the next 2-3 weeks the IP would've gained a new IP and this probably would be left to rot ... and then in a month to a year will end up here again, I have absolutely no objections to an editor recreating this (or going to WP:UNDELETE) (Even if the IP creates an account I would happily !vote Keep but at the moment this would end up being forgotten and abandoned so better off deleted and recreated by someone who's perhaps more serious about editing it and getting it in to articlespace). –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
September 10, 2016[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Kambwe massacre[edit]
- Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Kambwe massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp² for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Empty skeleton page from December 2014. No sources nor discussion but the topic seems to be referenced or at least better at the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Karonga Wars draft and at the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Mlozi the Slaver. The other drafts seem at least plausible enough to work on while this can be reconsidered later for a spin-off article (plus there could be a bit of WP:NPOV issue with the title). Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There is something useful here. I am finding stuff, but not reliable, on a Kambwe Massacre of slaves, dated 26th October 1887. Wikipedia seems to be missing the information, which would belong at Karonga#History, third paragraph. I think it is plausible, and am not worried by the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about plausibility, I think rather the content could better be served by a more neutral name than "massacre" such as focusing on the wars or battles or the person. Any article being created would literally be a draft from scratch and this hasn't been touched in over 18 months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is a worthy draft, although I would have it merged as above. Massacre is definitely the right word. 1100 slaves lured, massacred, burned with crocodiles cleaning up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's a single unsourced sentence. Please be serious here and not just reflexively oppose. Any draft that would come out of this would literally be one step removed from creating this from scratch (and that's excluding the removal of the nonsense interwiki links and headers). If you want to take on that task, fine, userify it to your user page for whatever reason you want but otherwise there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources so why are you wasting this much time supporting keeping this sentence around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe it is sourceable, either that or there is a very strange historical hoax at play. It is not a reflexive oppose, I spent fifteen minutes looking into the topic and the surrounding history, the full story is on facebook but it rings true. In my books, that makes it good enough for a draft topic. The topic comes from a remote part of the third world, it is hard to find sources online, but sources online is not a criteria for drafting. No, I don't want to userfy it, it is already located suitably.
- It's a single unsourced sentence. Please be serious here and not just reflexively oppose. Any draft that would come out of this would literally be one step removed from creating this from scratch (and that's excluding the removal of the nonsense interwiki links and headers). If you want to take on that task, fine, userify it to your user page for whatever reason you want but otherwise there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources so why are you wasting this much time supporting keeping this sentence around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is a worthy draft, although I would have it merged as above. Massacre is definitely the right word. 1100 slaves lured, massacred, burned with crocodiles cleaning up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing about plausibility, I think rather the content could better be served by a more neutral name than "massacre" such as focusing on the wars or battles or the person. Any article being created would literally be a draft from scratch and this hasn't been touched in over 18 months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources"? I don't know what you are talking about ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- ... if you mean that this page could be well-merged to Draft:Mlozi_bin_Kazbadema#Kambwe_Massacre, well that is not a reason for deletion. Talking "spinoff"s on drafts doesn't seem a productive activity if you are not working yourself on the drafts, and I am very sure the possible NPOV issue is no issue at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is noting to merge. If i wanted to merge these drafts, I would do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- ... if you mean that this page could be well-merged to Draft:Mlozi_bin_Kazbadema#Kambwe_Massacre, well that is not a reason for deletion. Talking "spinoff"s on drafts doesn't seem a productive activity if you are not working yourself on the drafts, and I am very sure the possible NPOV issue is no issue at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- "there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources"? I don't know what you are talking about ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete. If reliable sources are found, a new article can be started. There is nothing here worth keeping, nor anything to merge. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's not true. That there was a massacre, and who orchestrated it, is verifiable and important information. Both this massacre and the slave trader are missing notable topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- None of which is reflected in this single sentence. If the other drafts are better served renamed or split or whatever (and that's assuming they go into mainspace), it would be better to just rename them than to argue to keep this one sentence draft in the hopes that someone will take this one draft along to mainspace for whatever bizarre reason. If you want to work on adding the content here, then do so but what is the point of keeping this around just because you like the name? WP:Requested articles exists as a place to keep track of names for articles that are useful, not empty drafts sitting around indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- The points you make that are valid speak to redirecting, not to deleting. By seeking to deleting, you are being destructive of other's place markers, at the very least, and are forcing them to respond on your timetable. Why?
- The Kambwe Massacre is a missing topic, and this deletion nomination seeks to make backward step. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirecting where then? There is no article on this topic. If you want to suggest that all these drafts be redirected around to each other and either (a) one and then all will be deleted as G7's or (b) something goes to mainspace and it's a bunch of double redirects to be bot fixed, fine but it's literally a single unsourced sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- You want to delete drafts for not having explicit sources? I don't think the community supports that, posts at WT:Drafts show that some poeple would hold DraftSpace to a much lower standard than that. The drafts single sentence, and title, represent good ideas, and the ideas shouldn't be deleted for mere lack of included sources. As I have indicated, sources exist. It is an obscure history, 150 years ago deep in Afrika. Both Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Karonga Wars & Draft:Mlozi bin Kazbadema are much better looking drafts, mainspace-worthy in my opinion. This massacre, definitely a massacre, should be mentioned in both. But this does not mean that deletion is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Redirecting where then? There is no article on this topic. If you want to suggest that all these drafts be redirected around to each other and either (a) one and then all will be deleted as G7's or (b) something goes to mainspace and it's a bunch of double redirects to be bot fixed, fine but it's literally a single unsourced sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. I don't have time to format this properly and add it to the article at the moment, but I found a reference from 1888: Murray's Magazine, vol. 4, p. 630. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an incubation page for a wikiproject, so there's no reason it has to be sourced or developed on any particular timeline, and I'm not seeing compelling reason to delete it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussions[edit]
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.
