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:, 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 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 57 |
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 19, 2024
[edit]This essay is unclear and not useful. The issues described in the 2016 deletion discussion were never resolved. Users arguing for keep and the discussion closer suggested editing the essay for clarity, which has never happened. I regard the clarity problems as inherent in this failed attempt at humorous presentation and attempts to edit to ameliorate the issue would necessarily result in a wholly different page. There are better essays on the relevant issues. See Category:Wikipedia essays about experts and expertise and any number of elaborations on WP:DUE, including Wikipedia:Academic bias, Wikipedia:Neutral and proportionate point of view, Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. Daask (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike policies or guidelines, essays need not have consensus, nor do they even have to be good. The fact that it would still benefit from revision to make it clearer, and the fact that better essays also exist, are not valid reasons for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Completley agree with the above. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep What is the problem being solved with this nomination? It's an accurate essay. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is a useless essay. Essays, like drafts, should usually be tolerated even if they do not seem useful, especially if they are marked as {{humor}}, even if we don't think that they are humorous. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or I'll sic my sword-wielding skeleton army on you, transported from the distant galaxies on DC-10s from the mighty Axis of Cosmological Truth. (Fine and concise essay, and the first time I'd ever heard of this cosmological axis thing. Cool.) Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
This page is a how-to guide on how to get banned from Wikipedia in the fastest possible time. It exists solely to encourage readers to violate Wikipedia policies. This page detracts from our purpose of building an encyclopedia and is forbidden by Wikipedia:User pages § Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit. Daask (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This essay does not encourage readers to violate Wikipedia policies. It is sarcastic, and tells readers two ways that they will get indeffed in a hurry. By the way, they won't get banned. Vandals and trolls are very seldom actually banned because they aren't worth the formality of a ban proceeding at WP:ANI, and no one will disagree with the admin who blocks them as not here, which encompasses a multitude of sins. Essays, especially humorous essays, are usually tolerated even if we disagree with them, and I agree with the real message of this essay, which is that these are two quick ways to get indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clarificatory comment This is a copy+paste of a project-space essay that was the subject of an MfD at some point by Liz, who stated that
I have no problem if this is moved to User space but I don't think it should be in project space
. I userfied it in the interests of preservation of info and in protest at the dry humorlessness of some of the !votes, which were coming off as a bit WP:BITEy towards the author. - While I am of course fully aware that I am now responsible for this content, I’d also like it known that I did not write it as such, because if I ever applied for advanced perms it might lead to awkward questions.
- Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
October 16, 2024
[edit]Newly created WikiProject that didn't follow the WikiProject Council recommendations and only has two members. No discernable activity since the project page was created three months ago. The topic could be covered under existing projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature. – Joe (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There is a procedure for the advance review of Wikiprojects to avoid having nothing-burger projects like this. The work of a WikiProject is mostly done on its talk page. There is no talk page. Neither the originator nor anyone else has posted to it, so it has not been created. That says that this project is a nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - A task for of either Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa or Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature would be a better idea, as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
October 15, 2024
[edit]Article for topic already exists in mainspace, incorrect use of project namespace FifthFive (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a copy of a mainspace article that has been nominated for deletion (as noted by nominator). It may have been copied to project space because the guidelines explicitly forbid copies of mainspace articles to user space, and do not explicitly forbid copies of mainspace articles to project space. However, it is a redundant content fork, and is a misuse of project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, Copy of mainspace article. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
October 14, 2024
[edit]- Draft:What to do when leaving an abusive relationship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Folkezoft (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - See Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. This is a draft that will probably never be accepted into article space. Any benefit from trashing these hopeless drafts would be exceeded by the burden on the community (and in particular on the regular MFD editors) of reviewing large numbers of drafts to delete them. The policy on what Wikipedia is not lists various types of articles that are not allowed in article space. In draft space, we rely on the AFC reviewers not to accept them. In reviewing new drafts to assign them to categories and WikiProjects, it isn't necessary to nominate them for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, only because of the sensitive nature of the topic. I generally would agree with Robert, however, we are not in the business of offering advice about leaving potentially abusive relationships (e.g. someone finding this and following it could potentially suffer real-life harm if the advice is poor; better we have a clear collective conscience in this case). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: NOTMANUAL. The page violates a specific item at WP:NOT, and WP:NOT applies to al namespaces. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- It should be deleted as completely and a direct violation of WP:NOT, and it is not ok to leave direct violations of WP:NOT for G13, which implies it is ok to keep it alive indefinitely by editing, and may be auto-REFUNDed any time after.
- It being unsourced means there is nothing in it that could possibly be used for something else that could be considered a draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. The "sanity" part activates here (
Drafts are almost never unambiguously and inescapably inappropriate, particularly on the matters of their content. There is very little a draft can do to cause harm to its subjects; draftspace is an unindexed "storage bin" that's only accessible if you know what you're looking for and actively look for it.
). Is someone going to find this Wikipedia page when looking for relationship advice on the Internet? Implausible. Not bad enough to bother. "i would recommend talking to friends or a therapist" is non-harmful content. WP:NOT is about delineating the encyclopedia proper, and does not apply to draftspace in the sense that it indicates deletion of non-compliant draftspace pages. NOT problems can often be addressed by editing in general.—Alalch E. 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)- WP:NOT is not just about delineating the encyclopedia proper, aka mainspace, but explicitly covers Wikipedia. The majority of items listed in the table of content are not mainspace concerns. Mostly, it is not about articles. Yours and User:Robert McClenon’s !votes are mistaken in suggesting that WP:NOT is only about mainspace. Your arguments would have the effect of nullifying whole sections of WP:NOT. This is a serious challenge to the standing of WP:NOT; I will post a notification there.
- On the part of your arguments that premise the page as a draft, the page here is not a draft. By “draft” we mean draft article, or at least draft content. This content is not in any way in scope to be mainspace content, so it is incorrect to acknowledge it as a draft. The usual support for the arguments of WP:NDRAFT are premised on the draft being a draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll preface by saying that I disagree with your recommendation and conclusion, which I'll explain further down.** I agree that you've spotted a badly stated thing on my part.* By "delineating the encyclopedia proper," I meant to say that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content is about defining encyclopedic content apophatically. I then said that in draftspace (which is "encyclopedia content to-become") it doesn't apply so as to indicate deletion, but by laying down what pages should be (not be) or become (grow out of) in order to deserve promotion into an encyclopedia article. I did not want to challenge WP:NOT in the way you've understood it.*I was imprecise in multiple ways: I consciously ignored the "Community" part of WP:NOT while referring to the entire WP:NOT. More importantly, while I do not agree that "mostly, it is not about articles," because I see it as mostly being about articles, there are parts within the "Encyclopedic content" section that are about certain behaviors site-wide. Still, for example, manuals, among so many possible things which are not an encyclopedia article, are not included in NOT because there is a concern regarding manuals as unwanted to a degree beyond any unmentioned unencyclopedic type of content—they are covered to explain that encyclopedia articles do not resemble manuals. It isn't about "we need to prevent any appearance of manuals on en.wikipedia.org." Yes, we also need to prevent any appearance of toilet inspection checklists on en.wikipedia.org. That's not the point of WP:NOTGUIDE; the point is resolving confusion regarding Wikipedia's scope as an encyclopedia. Whatever distinctly useless material of an unwanted type someone might publish, I agree that WP:NOTWEBHOST would apply regardless of namespace, and it encompasses all unencyclopedic genres, including manuals. So yes, here we have a manual, not a draft article (please notice that I did not call it a "draft" but referred to it as a "Wikipedia page" and "draftspace page"), and WP:NOTGUIDE applies (I didn't say unqualifiedly that it doesn't apply), and through these facts WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. However, as is often the case with WP:NOT...**...NOTWEBHOST applying doesn't say: "Start a deletion discussion upon sight." Non-compliant content that resembles articles is often and probably on average more harmful than silly manual attempts and non-encyclopedia-resembling stuff like this. It's worse to have questionable encyclopedic-seeming content that someone might confuse with article content than this. And we don't go out of our way to delete the former and let G13 catch it. That's what finally fixes the web hosting situation in draftspace. I think NDRAFT is clear and right on this and is not premised on a draft being a draft but rests on the existence of G13, which applies to pages in that namespace by a technical criterion. It says:
... matters such as "could never conceivably be an article" ... are of much less concern in draftspace
. Yes, this aborted manual which is inappropriately hosted on Wikipedia contrarily to its purpose could never conceivably be an article, and it is not a concern that goes above an average draftspace page and will be caught by G13 and deleted.If it is such a concern, we should have a speedy deletion criterion for web hosting in draftspace. —Alalch E. 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)- There is obviously the concern, and the situation does not come close to WP:NEWCSD, so your last sentence is false. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll preface by saying that I disagree with your recommendation and conclusion, which I'll explain further down.** I agree that you've spotted a badly stated thing on my part.* By "delineating the encyclopedia proper," I meant to say that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content is about defining encyclopedic content apophatically. I then said that in draftspace (which is "encyclopedia content to-become") it doesn't apply so as to indicate deletion, but by laying down what pages should be (not be) or become (grow out of) in order to deserve promotion into an encyclopedia article. I did not want to challenge WP:NOT in the way you've understood it.*I was imprecise in multiple ways: I consciously ignored the "Community" part of WP:NOT while referring to the entire WP:NOT. More importantly, while I do not agree that "mostly, it is not about articles," because I see it as mostly being about articles, there are parts within the "Encyclopedic content" section that are about certain behaviors site-wide. Still, for example, manuals, among so many possible things which are not an encyclopedia article, are not included in NOT because there is a concern regarding manuals as unwanted to a degree beyond any unmentioned unencyclopedic type of content—they are covered to explain that encyclopedia articles do not resemble manuals. It isn't about "we need to prevent any appearance of manuals on en.wikipedia.org." Yes, we also need to prevent any appearance of toilet inspection checklists on en.wikipedia.org. That's not the point of WP:NOTGUIDE; the point is resolving confusion regarding Wikipedia's scope as an encyclopedia. Whatever distinctly useless material of an unwanted type someone might publish, I agree that WP:NOTWEBHOST would apply regardless of namespace, and it encompasses all unencyclopedic genres, including manuals. So yes, here we have a manual, not a draft article (please notice that I did not call it a "draft" but referred to it as a "Wikipedia page" and "draftspace page"), and WP:NOTGUIDE applies (I didn't say unqualifiedly that it doesn't apply), and through these facts WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. However, as is often the case with WP:NOT...**...NOTWEBHOST applying doesn't say: "Start a deletion discussion upon sight." Non-compliant content that resembles articles is often and probably on average more harmful than silly manual attempts and non-encyclopedia-resembling stuff like this. It's worse to have questionable encyclopedic-seeming content that someone might confuse with article content than this. And we don't go out of our way to delete the former and let G13 catch it. That's what finally fixes the web hosting situation in draftspace. I think NDRAFT is clear and right on this and is not premised on a draft being a draft but rests on the existence of G13, which applies to pages in that namespace by a technical criterion. It says:
- Delete Useless crud. I've come to the conclusion that I disagree with WP:NDRAFT (which is only an essay), and that if a draft that is clearly never going to become a viable article like this is sent to MfD there's no reason not to delete it. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Robert McClenon and NDRAFT. Drafts that do not actively harm anybody or anything should be kept unless either that changes or G13 happens. This is not harming anybody or anything. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- It harms Wikipedia to render WP:NOT unenforceable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why is G13 not good enough to enforce it in this instance? What does G13 do but precisely enforce removal of unwanted otherwise lingering and infinitely accumulating content in draftspace? The point of G13 is precisely to catch the bad draftspace pages like this one, and normal drafts, many of them good, are collateral damage. If draftspace was only made up of desirable drafts, G13 would not be justified. Deleting everything indiscriminately after six months of no edits is done to catch this. Why is more hands-on processing needed? Edit: I have now seen your follow-up comment above: You said it could be refunded and that it could be kept alive indefinitely by editing. Administrators need to look at what they're refunding and not do it blindly. I would expect an administrator to refuse refund. About the possibility that G13 could be neutered by continuous editing: That would mean that the user needs talking to. If they insist that the page should remain and say that they want to keep editing it and will continue doing so, that user would appear to be WP:NOTHERE. —Alalch E. 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- It harms Wikipedia to render WP:NOT unenforceable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Although drafts should be given a large leeway while they are being worked on, draft space is for draft articles. This is not nor would ever be an article. All pages no matter which namespace are for matters involving the encyclopedia, WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Page serving no obvious purpose. This page, whose entire text consists of "AAAAAA!" just as the title implies, was created in March with the {{humor}} template on it from the outset -- but precisely because anybody could just add that template to absolutely anything in projectspace (e.g. failed drafts, total nonsense, hoaxes, etc.) that they wanted to "immunize" against deletion, the use of that template has traditionally required a consensus to be established that the page warranted retention on the grounds of humor.
Then a few days later the creator tried to add it to a redlinked (i.e. non-existent) category for "Articles that their creator doesn't remember writing", before immediately reverting themselves within less than a minute -- and then the page saw no further activity for the next seven months until last Thursday, when a different editor with no prior connection to it tried, for no obvious reason, to unrevert it back into the redlinked category with the edit summary "hummus" (i.e. no genuine explanation of why they were doing it, or how they even found the page in the first place given that absolutely nothing in Wikipedia links to it.)
So, basically, this is just silliness that's only inviting unconstructive editing rather than serving any purpose. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
WeakDelete - The nutshell to the Project namespace guideline says:Project pages are for information or discussion about Wikipedia.
. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, the nominator, User:Bearcat, forgot to notify the originator of this page that they were nominating it for deletion. Since User:The Master of Hedgehogs is a current editor, they should be notified, and have a right to explain or at least try to explain what their purpose is for creating this page. I will change this to a Delete if the originator is notified and does not give an explanation of this page, or gives an explanation that doesn't make sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Comment: As the creator, I never wanted to "immunize" this page from deletion. The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 15:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete serves little purpose. what an odd article, I must say. Babysharkboss2!! (Yes, this is indeed...a JoJo reference.) 17:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Newly created and silly. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, its kinda silly (which can have its place), but this really doesn't have anything to say about Wikipedia. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be an unattributed machine translation of Steve Hanke with broken formatting. Flounder fillet (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Copies of mainspace articles in user space in the original English are not permitted, because they are redundant content forks. Copies of mainspace articles in Spanish are at least as much of a problem as copies in English. This page is the only edit by its creating user, so it appears to be a non-constructive test. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:14, 20 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 06:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC) ended today on 21 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. |
September 23, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Jester/St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster (A) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster. While not apparent from the boldfaced recommendations, there is majority support for redirecting in this discussion, and the concern that this is an old copy of a mainspace page has been contested, and it is not obvious that it is a copy. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete; abandoned project which is already covered by St. Louis Cardinals all-time roster. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
|
September 19, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Star Mississippi 20:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Makes the talk page much harder to use as a talk page which isn't appropriate. This page was the result of Andrybak's idea to
Create helper page from the top six sections of Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day
and transclude that onto the talk page, which is most certainly a bad idea, and while it would have been much better to get input from some Tip of the day people, it's sufficiently clear even without their input that this was a bad idea.—Alalch E. 19:20, 20 October 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)
- Keep, provisionally. This MfD interrupted the activity of the externally funded and externally coordinated group which would like to use the WikiProject format to record the articles they created etc. During the last MfD, there still wasn't a group of editors, but now it looks like there might be one. However, as activity has stalled--if it doesn't restart, the WikiProject should be deleted.—Alalch E. 19:16, 20 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)
- Delete. This page seems about as useless aas pages get. Redirecting to Massviews might also be OK. Narfhead4444, Gamer Ordinare 01:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)