Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

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]

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

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

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Total
CfD	14	50	64
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	9	15	24
AfD	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.

June 24, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Removed[edit]

Do we really need a list of articles that explicitly only include low-quality, non-notable, deleted or “not unusual enough” articles? Northern Moonlight 04:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, it’s not “needed”, but it’s good to have the record. There are things to learn from it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We don't need a list of unusual articles either. Both of these lists are kept because they are amusing and harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People/Candidates[edit]

Not sure why this page is here, but it doesn't have a lot of value to it. It doesn't have a long history to it. Interstellarity (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People, because redirects in this case are harmless. The answer to your question is found in this edit , which refers to the old title of this page (I found it while checking the contribs of the creating user at the time. The edit in question was swiftly reverted, followed by a discussion on the creator's talk page. I guess we could delete the page at the creator's request but meh ... a redirect works fine and doesn't remove any history (no matter how trifling). Graham87 (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2024[edit]

User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search[edit]

The user has created a page in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST to host a data base of their own comments quoted in the New York times. this is clearly using Wikipedia for web hosting purposes. For info, there's a related MfD for another user page of this user where they are using WP to host their full dissertation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any evidence of malfeasance. This is more of an OCD thing than it is self-promotion or web hosting. Drbogdan should lower his footprint here and just link once to an external webhost instead of using Wikipedia to host it. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an ANI thread about this user where this and the related user page hosting their dissertation came up. They've refused to move these pages to a more appropriate venue outside Wikipedia. See, for example this response at the ANI thread. I've made the assumption that it is for self-promotion. But even if it's not, or if there is no "malfeasance', that is irrelevant. It shouldn't be hosted at Wikipedia and they are refusing to move it. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is relevant that there is no malfeasance. I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations. So for me, it is important to state that he has zero bad intentions. He can be stubborn (like anyone else here) so he sometimes needs a push in the right direction. I think moving his dissertation to Wikisource and moving his NYT comments offline are fine. But there's no reason to speculate about his motives beyond that. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have no knowledge of him and have never encountered before. If you say this isn't about self-promotion then I withdraw it. However, whatever the motivation, hosting someone's whole 166kb of dissertation is clearly a breach of NOTWEBHOST and we shouldn't be doing it. I have no opinion on moving it to another Wiki. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wish we did host more dissertations, as many of them are now falling behind paywalls, and if you aren't part of the university system, you can easily lose access to this kind of research. So I support hosting any and all dissertations on Wikisource. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, too; ProQuest is a racket. XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional or not, this is over the WP:NOTWEBHOST line. XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my published news comments, unique in nearly always noting a link (or more) to a relevant Wikipedia article (ie, NYT archive examples: Comments-1 and Comments-2) was made, in part, in a kind of Wikipedia outreach effort to help readers who may be entirely unaware of related (and relevant) Wikipedia articles - the published comments material is also presented to provide an additional basis of evaluating my professional background as a Wikipedia editor - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - as before, if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reasons why Drbogdan is hosting this material are irrelevant, because it is web hosting. We should make the good-faith assumption that he thinks that this is in the best interests of Wikipedia. It should be the opinion of the community that he is honorably mistaken, and that this material is of no (positive or negative) value to the encyclopedia, and it should be deleted as web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The opinion of a good-faith editor that their off-topic postings are of value to the encyclopedia is not dispositive. The community decides. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT[edit]

The page is in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. The user is clearly using Wikipedia to host their dissertation for self-promotion purposes. When challenged on this at ANI their response here is that it is what to share their professional background with other editors. Having 166kb of the entirety of their dissertation goes well beyond that. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See related MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have AGF'd on "self promotion". I don't know whether that's the case or not. But motivation is irrelavant: it's still a blatant case of using WP as a web hosting. DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can the material be moved to Wikisource? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep without opposition to transferring to Wikisource. A big "meh" from me. We generally afford wide latitude to users, once they've demonstrated they're WP:HERE, to include a variety of information about themselves in userspace. All the more if it's relevant to their editing areas of interest -- which seems to be the case here. "Here's my dissertation" seems a lot more relevant to Wikipedia than a pile of "this user is really into anime" userboxes, which are typically uncontroversial even for extreme collections. What self-promotion is this accomplishing? User pages aren't even indexed. And what would be the difference if it were hosted on Wikisource in terms of promotionalism? 168kb will not be freed up on the Wikipedia servers if this is deleted -- a new revision will simply be added to the space it occupies. It's a lot more autobiography than I'd choose to include on Wikipedia, certainly, and I find it in slightly poor taste, but thankfully I don't have to read it if I don't want to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "autobiography"? There's no aurobiography. It's purely using Wikipedia as a hosting platform for a work. Nothing more, nothing less. It couldn't get more on point for WP:NOTWEBHOST if it tried. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also "User pages aren't even indexed". He's added the Index markup at the top of the page so he's gone out of his way to make sure it is indexed. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. That policy says that posting a résumé is not acceptable in userspace, and this is way beyond that. Hosting a raw text dump of a PhD thesis isn't providing a foundation for effective collaboration. It doesn't provide anything, really. Discussions on Wikipedia aren't arguments from authority; if I posted my PhD thesis here and tried to win an argument by pointing to it and saying that I'm a physicist so I must be right, that would be silly. A PhD thesis isn't even a type of source that is of use to us. All of the legitimate reasons to know the educational background and credentials of an editor are satisfied by a statement like "I graduated from X University with a doctorate in Y". I don't really care whether the page was intended to be self-promotional or not (though it does contain the __INDEX__ override and does appear in Google results for, e.g., "drbogdan" site:en.wikipedia.org). I'm willing to believe that it was posted without intent to self-glorify, but it's not a valid use case for userspace. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. We cite PhD theses all the time, but they have to be used carefully, and there's no proscription against using them here. Also, in recent years, many dissertations are falling behind paywalls, so Wikisource should be used to host them as much as possible. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikisource. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:

1. Seems the "_index_" code was entirely unintentional - and originally part of a template I may have used (via copy-paste) at the time - should this be removed? - are there other similar codes to be removed or adjusted on the page? - or other such pages?

2. Should the page be moved to WP:Wikisource (or some other subpage - or elsewhere on Wikipedia)? - if so, how can this be done - this is all new to me at the moment.

- Drbogdan (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Within standard leeway for a 17 years editor with over 60,000 mainspace contributions. This recent issue is under discussion at https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=War_Crimes&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Drbogdan,_persistent_low-quality_editing,_and_WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK_issues, let it play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "standard leeway" for policy violations. Nor is this a "recent issue", as the examples I provided in the linked discussion already indicate. Nor does that discussion need to conclude before we can come to a judgment about this particular item. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s *possible* that he believes that dumping his scholarly thesis on his Userpage is for the benefit of the project, and in time he’ll clean it up to make its purpose clearer. I don’t accept that it is a slam dunk NOTWEBHOST violation, as opposed to an odd thing to do. The behavioural and persistence aspects are appropriately being discussed at ANI, and I think this MfD should wait for the ANI thread to conclude. 17 years and 60000 mainspace contributions gets him some leeway, and he should not be persecuted on two fronts simultaneously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of what he believes. Either NOTWEBHOST applies or it doesn't. Also, although this user page was highlighted at ANI, the place to determine whether it should be deleted can only b here not ANI. The ANI thread is dealing with other issues and MfD is outside its remit.DeCausa (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of his beliefs lies in NOTWEBHOSTING being a behavioural violation, “hosting” being a verb that requires intent for it to be used for non-project purposes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange interpretation. It doesn't say that at all. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a web host, a journal, or Linkedin. Just not what an encyclopedia is for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my professional dissertation was presented to provide a basis to evaluate my professional background - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice post. I'm ambivalent. Yeah at times it might be nice to know someone's subject area expertise. OTOH, we are so laser focused on reliable sources there might be times it's distracting. Rather judge someone based on the framing of their arguments along with their knowledge and use of reliable sources, which will become apparent if they are an expert and reasonably unbiased, rather than their CV. I tend to avoid articles in my own subject areas. Best, O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, put it on a subpage, and give an explanation for its purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting:
- - There are conduct issues about the originator, pending at WP:ANI, and content issues, about this page and another page in user space. Only the keeping or deleting of the user pages is within scope at MFD, and only this page is within the scope of this discussion.
  - I am willing to assume good faith and assume that the originator thinks that posting or hosting this is in the interest of the encyclopedia. However, an editor's opinion that web hosting is in the interests of the encyclopedia is not dispositive. The community should decide what is in the interests of the encyclopedia, and should decide that the user is mistaken in good faith.
  - I respectfully disagree with the idea that "standard leeway" is given to established users for policy violations, even if unintentional.
  - No objection to cross-wikifying.
  - The editor should be allowed to provide an external link from his user page to his dissertation on an external host, or a cross-wiki link from his user page to Wikisource.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CLalgo/sandbox/Module:RoundN[edit]

This is Lua code created in a non-Lua recognized page content model. Creating this this way creates unnecessary WP:LINT errors which there is a coordinated effort to eliminate from en.wiki. Since the user isn't interested in solving this, I've bourght it here. Lua sanboxes should be created per Module:Sandbox at Module:Sandbox/CLalgo/, so this should be moved to Module:Sandbox/CLalgo/RoundN. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a module? Modules go to TfD, not MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a user page that hosts a module sandbox. Userpages go here. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete as a Userpage, there is no violation of WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT, and leeway in userspace is very large for highly productive contributors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my nomination? A bit concerning the complete lack of relevancy your comment had to it. It was not proposed to be deleted and it did address an actual issue with its location. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page is in my userspace and was used as a sandbox for Module:RoundN. As the module grew apart from the sandbox, it is currently useless. Delete it for now, and I'll create a new sandbox if a need arise. CLalgo (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Removing a page on the basis of a syntax error is unjustified. I agree that there is a Fostered content error on the page, and I agree that Module space is the better namespace for it, but MFD does not feel like the correct course of actions to have taken for remedying the situation. And ditto SmokeyJoe's comments of Userpage/userspace. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Out of principle. Nominator does not provide a valid rationale for deletion, and my understanding is that de-WP:LINTer bots can be told to ignore specific pages. If the creator wishes for the page to be deleted, they are welcome to tag it with WP:G7. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tempest, meet teapot. Teapot, meet tempest..
Weak Keep unless someone can explain, in language that can be understood by someone whose computer science degree was issued in 1980, what this is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the page per the user request at 14:41, 23 June 2024 above. The page was a copy of 28 May 2022 permalink from Module:RoundN. The nomination correctly explains that if a sandbox is wanted, it should be at Module:Sandbox/CLalgo/RoundN. I'll leave this unclosed to see if anyone wants to comment further but after a few hours, someone might like to try closing this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is not good, and I can’t see why it is correct. MfD is often attempted to be used to harass other editors, by threatening to delete their idle records, which is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point that MfD has been used for harassment but I don't think that applies in this case. At any rate, the creator CLalgo asked for deletion above so it seemed unnecessary to require the preferred {{db-author}} tagging and/or moving this to the correct TfD page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2024[edit]

June 21, 2024[edit]

June 19, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions[edit]

We now have a landing page that answers the FAQ pretty well. Interstellarity (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I have moved the useful 'Crewbot part' of this page to the new landing page in the maintenance section, so there is little else needed. I think better to rationalize these redundant pages on this project to avoid editors landing on wrong/dead pages. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and blank per Graham87 below. That will solve the problem and avoid any confusion that it is now a redundant page. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the value of article history, particularly as it relates to the landing page and the rest of the Vital Articles project. Air on White (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles: since text has been moved, the history needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Graham87 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work for all. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect per Graham87. Don't see any reason to delete it and preserving the history and attribution has some obvious advantages. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, 79 pages link to this. That's too much to just delete. Air on White (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The page still has a few dozen links to it, and marking it as historical should get across that the information is outdated. Your local Sink Cat 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles: Per above: page history should be kept and link count is too high to delete anyways. I don't see any disadvantages to redirecting. C F A 💬 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Was used. Wikipedia history should not be deleted. Archive, redirect, update, but keep the history available in the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 16:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 24 June 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.

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates