Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

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 6 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

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 it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. 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

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

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

XFD backlog
V	Jan	Total
CfD	7	7
TfD	5	5
MfD	3	3
FfD	43	43
RfD	99	99
AfD	2	2

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

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.

February 8, 2025

Draft:Neil Monaco & K9 Brandy: The Birth of FAA Canine

WP:G11 nominated by CycloneYoris and declined by Espresso Addict. This is a promotional piece with no citations about a living person and his dog that is clearly written by family/friend/self. Neither the person nor the dog are likely to be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:"qasimglobalservice"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. per U5 and G11. Nedia020415: please use CSD for these cases. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:"qasimglobalservice"

Promotional material in page. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

February 5, 2025

User:Wikiedime

This user page claims that it's for a bot account. However, this account does not appear to be a bot, and the supposed bot operator is just the user themself. The user in question has also made the same identical page on en.wikiquote, en.wikibooks, ko.wikibooks, and meta.wikimedia. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 13:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the tag. Warn the user with being blocked for violating bot policy, or misleading others about being a bot. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank the tag, as per SmokeyJoe, and warn the user. The user appears to be not here to be constructive, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The user has been blocked indefinitely as not here to build the encyclopedia. The user is also blocked on www.wikimedia.org. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 4, 2025

Draft:The Gang's All Queer: The Lives of Gay Gang Members

Delete WP:PROD that got moved to draft space for some weird reason. The book exists, but All references are either AI-generated and do not check out, or flat out faked, and again do not check out. I removed a few but when I realized none checked out, there's nothing that can be salvaged here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a special case, because drafts are not checked for notability. However, one of the few reasons for the deletion of drafts is vandalism, and the inclusion of such a large number of phony references sinks to the level of vandalism. The book is real and may be notable; the title should not be salted, and a good faith editor should be able to create a new draft with valid references. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to all the made up references. I checked the non-primary ones when it was PROD’d and couldn’t verify any. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 04:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large amount of phony (vandalism) references--Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources dont exist, its AI nonsense.-Samoht27 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Article" is entirely AI-generated. LarryL33k (Contribz) 03:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and I ask Walkerbull, who created the article, to explain what is going on here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E11C:1B9:74D5:95A6 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Faking references is evil anywhere and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, so if an article is ever to be developed on this topic it should start from nothing, not from this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mpayne69

WP:COPIES, content was copied 2012-05-02 from special:permalink/490251646 or nearby. Paradoctor (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copy. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a redundant fork of Siegfried Hall (University of Notre Dame) which does not reflect edits to the article subsequent to 2012. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a little worse than that. The article was redirected after an AFD in 2013, so that this page is a copy of a deleted article. Also, the version of the article that has been copied includes additions that were vandalism that were later removed before the AFD. Those are more reasons to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's text copied from this article. LarryL33k (Contribz) 03:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Thalli Manasu

Misplaced COI declaration. Retract While I still think crud shouldn't be allowed to accumulate in the corners, if for no other reason than attention economy, I don't see this going anywhere. Let's blank and be judged for it. Paradoctor (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC); edited 15:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AFD talk page was created as a result of the creation of the misplaced COI declaration. But is that a reason for the deletion of the page? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page.

"This page" being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalli Manasu, and the subject being a deletion discussion. As opposed to a film. Please. Go ahead, blow my mind. Explain how that is not a misleading miscreation. Paradoctor (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is any harm done by this misplaced COI declaration? The nominator is correct that it is misplaced. Is any minimal harm done by its continued existence? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the "misleading" part? Paradoctor (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I read it, but didn't understand what was misleading. It looks to have been misplaced. Who is being misled how? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
didn't understand what was misleading (And didn't bother to ask for clarification?)

Does Muthyala Movie Makers (now Prudhavi J) have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalli Manasu? Is that even possible? Does it make sense? Paradoctor (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually entirely implausible—someone could be biased toward keeping the article due to a financial interest. However, I don't think that was the most likely reason for this. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 13:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biased towards keeping a deletion discussion?!? Did I pass a mirror somewhere? Paradoctor (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the page at issue in a deletion discussion. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 14:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'd pluck my hair right now, if I had any left.)

I'd realized a while before you !voted that blanking was an option, I just wanted to resolve this thing here. I now have sufficient data, so I'll go retractoring this nomination. Paradoctor (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - After asking what harm is done by this misplaced declaration, I am not persuaded that anything is misleading. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and blank: While this declaration is misleading and therefore should not persist, I don't see the benefit in deleting. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 13:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 16, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trump and Vance's Portrait Edit War

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Trump's Portrait Edit War

I fail to see the humor value of this page. It calls out specific editors for being part of "sides", and does not provide any actual humor, nor does it really have the potential to do so. I am unsure if moving to userspace is even appropriate - I lean not, because it is borderline an attack page on editors on "specific sides" of the conflict, and it attempts to categorize people as "Trump supporters" or "Kamala supporters" when that isn't even the argument. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the record, if the new portrait of Trump is established as being freely licensed (it's almost certainly not and it's been nominated for deletion on Commons), I have no opinion whatsoever on which portrait should be used. This page in question is outright trolling. --Yamla (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no supporters of anything, one of the Reactionaries might like Kamala, one of the Revolutionaries might like Trump. You are full of nonsense. WHEOOButEncyclopedia (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you to be civil and avoid personal attacks. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are just silly portraits of the people, not actually them. WHEOOButEncyclopedia (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It just seems to be name calling and, to be honest, not that funny. It's also pretty political and well... has a lot of offensive potential. @WHEOOButEncyclopedia also shows concerns about copyright and I have to agree. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed name-calling, now stop. Also theres nothing political about it, its just portraits. WHEOOButEncyclopedia (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this could be maybe a part of Wikipedia:LAME if anything. Is this really a notable enough event for a humorous page? This page also kinda pushes how humor pages are used on Wikipedia, no actual jokes are made, it just has a single infobox about some small scale editor dispute. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'd qualify "removing copyrighted images" as a lame edit war, but if anything, yes, it should be in that format, not this fictitious infobox calling out "factions" and users as "commanders and leaders". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are far too many ephemeral disputes for each to have a memorial page. There would be no benefit to the encylopedia from keeping this. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a conflict of opinion. Either the portraits are legal or they aren't. Casting random users as belligerents in this edit war is mudslinging nonsense. Time and place. Any "fighting", if you can call it that, is going on on commons, not en.wikipedia. The Savage Norwegian 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom - Move to userspace is an alternative. There are no reasons to preserve this, and even if it should be preserved, it should be at commons, not en-wiki. ThatIPEditor ^{They / Them} 13:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 04:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC) ended today on 8 February 2025. 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.

January 30, 2025

Draft:PowerVia

Looks like a troll-article. Is handled by neutral and vendor-unspecific Backside power delivery anyway. Smartcom5 ^(Talk?) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever this is, it is not salvageable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - To the extent that this is anything, it appears to be promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, feels promo.

-Samoht27 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not bad enough. The seeming promotional intent isn't there and the strange tone is a consequence of the editor apparently facing some difficulties in crafting adequate prose. Nothing is gained by deleting here and now, just let G13 eat it.—Alalch E. 01:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is clearly not an advertisement or attempt to promote an Intel product. If Intel wanted to have paid editors write a draft about their new chip, they would hire someone competent. The product could be notable so it doesn't hurt to have a draft on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 27, 2025

Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship

Do we still need this page? Inside joke of 2 decades ago. Proposal for a game that never actually took place. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent Championship. Polygnotus (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship. The subject of the page appears not to be Wikipedia related, but, read WP:FUN. It’s sad that Wikipedians no longer value fun, and pages like this will probably be rapidly delete at WP:NOTWEBHOSTING, but this was not the case then, especially where Wikipedia pioneers were collectively involved. Keep as a record of the past culture of Wikipedia. ~~Add an~~ Keep the current appropriate and sufficient archived tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fun to store all failed attempts to have fun for decades? There is literally nothing fun about the page. And this is just an old signup page, the real thing is supposedly at Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent Championship but that has already been deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is subjective. What do you do for fun? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I annoy my wife. Polygnotus (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try to be more fun, more fun than seeking deletion of old attempts at fun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, the old attempt at fun, as you describe it, has already been deleted, see Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent Championship. If the consensus, for some reason, is to never clean up useless old trash then I am happy to accept that. But if that is the case then no one has mentioned that to me yet. — Polygnotus (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe in using deletion to clean up old things. I think archiving, including by redirection, is preferable, and that deletion should be reserved for things that should never have been created.

This page is on the edge. By todays Wikipedia culture, it would be deleted, but in the early years, it was ok, tolerated. The early Wikipedians were much more tolerant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - An MFD nomination requires volunteer time to review it. Before nominating anything useless for MFD, please consider whether any harm is done by keeping it, and whether the cost of getting rid of it exceeds any harm that is done by keeping it. This has already been tagged as historical. If the nominator can identify any reason to delete this expired game, we can consider the tradeoff of cost. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - User:SmokeyJoe says to add an archived tag. What does that mean? Does that mean to mark it as historical? This page has been marked as historical since September 2006, when a PROD tag was mistakenly applied to it and then the PROD tag was removed. Is there some other sort of "archived tag", or does this mean that User:SmokeyJoe replied before giving it a second more detailed reading? If the latter, an overly quick comment, then it also illustrates that nominating archaic stuff that is already tagged as historical is a waste of reviewer time. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mfd tag caused me partial hatnote blindness. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. These sorts of pages have historical value for researchers of (the history of) online collaboration and wiki communities. One man's irrelevant noise is another's cultural artifact. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 10, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transgender (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. There is consensus that the issues with this Portal are so extensive that it should in effect be TNT'd. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Transgender

Another Portal not supported direct by any Wikiproject. Created in 2009, remained abandoned until 2019 when received few editions, on the occasion of the first MFD, but they have maintained the portal's obsolete structure, based on content forks. Random selection of content with no apparent concerns with WP:V, WP:POVFORK, or WP:BLP. Narrow topic already covered in Portal:LGBTQ. Page views in last 30 days 1,888, against 117,937 of main article.

File:Protect Trans Kids.svg

Image with questionable encyclopedic content from Portal:Transgender/Intro/3

Guilherme Burn (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand what is going on here. Is the proposal to delete Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 or to delete the whole portal? If it is to delete the whole portal then why is Portal:Transgender/Intro/3 being made an issue of? It seems to be a page completely orphaned from the rest of the portal. Maybe this illustrates that the portal has cruft in its namespace but I don't see how that reflects on the fundamental validity of portal itself. It seems to be irrelevant to, distract from and maybe even to undermine any argument for deletion of the whole portal. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see now. It is one of four, literally random images shown on Portal:Transgender/Intro and What links here doesn't know about that. That's a bad idea. I think there is a problem with Portal:Transgender/Intro. I'm tempted to revert to the previous version although doing so would leave the transcluded sub-pages orphaned. I'm just going to comment out the random image selection for now so that the inflammatory image is not shown to 1/4 of readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal claims that there is an inflammatory image even though there isn't. Such a removal may be linked with violating WP:NQP and most reasons for justifying a removal of an image are 100% opinion and 0% fact.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... what??? I'm trying to give this portal a chance not to be deleted here!

The image is obviously inflammatory and I can very easily imagine a situation where a screenshot of the Portal, including that image, was used by transphobes to justify their (very obviously false and insincere) claims that trans kids are a danger to society as well as to attack Wikipedia itself. Would we even be having this MfD if it were not for that image? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are only having this MfD because of this potentially offensive image, then we should snowclose and remove it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There are some real problems here and, while I hope that they are not fatal to the portal, multiple people are !voting delete based on things other than the image so I think we have to let this run. Anyway, the image is gone from the portal and, whatever else comes out of this, that's something. DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Africa has 1.491 against 158.866. So that's actually a reason to keep. Skemous (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Lewisguile (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see anything inflammatory, especially images. Also, if a flag was to contain weapons (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Angola, etc.), would you classify that as inflammatory and needed for removal? You can't just simply do that, especially because of WP:NOTCENSORED.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference. Those flags are... actual flags. They are identified as such and have contexts which make them meaningful for use by an encyclopaedia. This image is a user generated image with no meaningful context. It is not associated with any specific organisation. It has no date beyond when it was uploaded. It's fine for the Wikimedia Commons, as it is clearly uncopyrightable, but it isn't any use here. (OK, it would be fine on a User page but I mean that it is no use in an article or portal page.) I've not put it up for deletion and I very strongly resent the accusation of censorship.

Now, I do get why some people like that image. If I was a trans kid (I'm neither) and I was putting up with the heinous shit that they are being subjected to, then I'd think that that image was metal af! I'd probably have sheets and sheets of stickers of it and stick them up everywhere in town that the cops weren't looking. I'd definitely feel encouraged to see similar stickers pasted up by other people. I understand, and sympathise with, the motivation to do the same thing here but that doesn't mean that it belongs on the Portal page, at least not without context and explanation. As I mention above, its presence could easily be used by transphobes to demonise trans kids and to attack Wikipedia.

Yes, there is an element of respectability politics in what I am saying here and, yes, respectability politics is cringe, but let's focus on saving the Portal, not just argue about that one image. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devoid of any context or link to a notable subject, it seems not only unencyclopaedic but also WP:UNDUE. Removing it also removes most of the issues with the portal itself. Lewisguile (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Net negative for readers. Readers who get to the end of the Transgender article should not click on the link to Portal:Transgender but should read another article about transgender people if they want to keep learning about this topic. There's no benefit for readers in being directed toward this inferior content fork as opposed to any mainspace page about transgender people. Having the wrong architecture and lacking support from a WikiProject, which is inevitably accompanied by a lack of maintenance, is a sure signal that the portal should be deleted.—Alalch E. 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take to save this? Would reverting to the older version help? Could another WikiProject "adopt" it? Can we make it a net positive for readers? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting that an editor added this portal as the second of the two portals allegedly mantained by the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies ~~in 2020 (see diff)~~ (edit: corrected below, see reply—14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). There has never been any discussion about organizing maintenance or improvement efforts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. There is a 2008 post about how the portal "needs some content added" (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 17#Portal:Transgender), and that's it. The state of the portal, a look at its page history, and a look at its talk page show that it is unmaintained. There is also the Portal:LGBTQ. It is better. That might be the portal which one or more WikiProject LGBTQ+ members want to maintain, not the Transgender portal. I don't think that anyone wants to adopt it. Reverting to an older version would not help. We can't make it a net positive for readers, it should go. —Alalch E. 13:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I didn't add the portal to the project's scope in 2020, that was done in 2010. My 2020 edit was just a result of retiring the old project navigation template that previously linked to it. It has always been maintained (notionally if not in practice) by WP:LGBTQ+.--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. —Alalch E. 14:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I want us to find a way to save this but the problems being raised here are real and I'm not sure what the way forward is. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this does get deleted then that should be without prejudice to anybody having another go at making a valid portal under this name in the future. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many arguments based on WP:OTHER. This MFD is based on recent discussions about problems related to the outdated “Purposes of portals”. The image in question and the number of pageviwes are just examples of these problems stemming from a lack of maintenance and WP:PWP. As another example, the portal is linked in only 391 articles in the main space, a very small number in a universe with millions of articles.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The portal is supported by WP:LGBTQ+, and has been since 2010. I wouldn't contest that it has somewhat fallen by the wayside over the years, but I think it would only be fair to alert the WikiProject of the need to improve the portal and see if there is any current interest in doing so. If nothing is done in a few months, I would support selectively merging into Portal:LGBTQ.--Trystan (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supported in name only. The nominal support didn't convert into visible improvements over many years, causing the portal to still have the bad and unsustainable architecture. It isn't fair to say that it's supported when this support is non-material. And what's the benefit to the reader of Wikipedia? It doesn't even have featured content like FA-class transgender articles (Is there an automatically generated list of FA-class articles on transgender topics?), featured topics, featured images ... —Alalch E. 16:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:LGBTQ+ would need to step up and make that support a reality. I just think the project should be given a chance to do so. A notice of this deletion discussion hasn't even been posted on the project talk page. The quality issues aren't a reason to delete, because they would be resolved if the maintenance situation is improved.--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a notice of this MFD at the project talk page. There is no standard procedure for posting notices of deletion discussions at project talk pages. However, that comment does raise an issue. The nominator, User:Guilherme Burn, has not notified the originators of the portals that have been nominated for deletion. Twinkle provides notification as a feature. Please provide notification to the originator of a portal that you nominate for deletion. If the nominator is inactive, it might be a good idea to notify someone. Many editors do not routinely read MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quality issues generally aren't a reason to delete an article provided that the subject of the article is a notable topic—it is that reason outside of the page which provides a reason for its existence. But with portals, we do not have known, generally accepted reasons for their existence, so we have nothing to go by except their quality vis-à-vis impact on the reader. —Alalch E. 22:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because there is no need and no reason for this portal that is obsolete in three ways:

The portal relies on subpages which are partial copies of the selected articles, and so are content forks which do not reflect changes in the articles. One effect is that deceased persons are listed as living persons. More modern architectures relying on transclusion exist and are in use, so there is no reason for this obsolescent architecture.
The portal is not being maintained, and so does not provide a current selection of articles. Being "sponsored" by a WikiProject is not the same as being maintained.
Portals have been obsolete since the start of Wikipedia and the implementation of portals as part of the Wikipedia architecture. Portals are no longer needed on the Internet because search engines can provide much of the original functionality of portals. Portals were never needed in a hypertext-based system such as Wikipedia where an overview of a subject is available by links, and Wikipedia also has categories.

If there is no one who is available to modernize or re-architect the portal, that is a further indication that the portal is unmaintained.

This portal is being used more than most portals, which would warrant keeping it if it had a modern architecture for the premodern purpose of being a portal. In calendar 2024, there were an average of 76 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 4685 for the article. In calendar 2023, there were an average of 85 daily pageviews of the portal, as opposed to 5682 for the article. More than 50 daily pageviews is high demand for a portal. Although portals are obsolete, there would be a reason to keep a portal that had a modern architecture. This one does not.

The Heymann criterion should be to reimplement the portal within five days. Otherwise it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation with an architecture that does not rely on content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I don't like the premise here; it looks like we're trying to delete a page over fixable content problems, or because we decided we were bored of WP:Portals. I agree that it's become outdated (we should ideally be using evergreen excerpts) and "saving" it probably requires a substantial technical rewrite from skilled editors, but it doesn't look that broken to me. I don't see the harm in just hacking out whatever BLP and V issues you're seeing and leaving it until someone finds the drive to fix it. Why the deadline? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be fixed rather than deleted. Lewisguile (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could be a useful portal if there are people are willing to maintain it and fix any issues. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One editor says: This should be fixed rather than deleted. The portal has an archaic architecture relying on partial copies of articles that are content forks that become obsolete. The fix is to re-architect the portal. Is someone ready to re-architect the portal? Another editor writes: I don't see the harm in just hacking out whatever BLP and V issues you're seeing and leaving it until someone finds the drive to fix it The BLP and V issues are the result of the facts changing and the articles changing to reflect the changes in the world with the content forks becoming outdated. Is someone ready to examine the subpages and either delete those that are no longer current, or create new partial copies? Is someone ready to take on the responsibility of maintenance of this portal? Unmaintained portals with content forks are a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This portal can not be fixed. I have fixed portals before but I can't fix this one. I fixed the video games portal which influenced it not getting deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Video games; compare the video games portal before the overhaul to the current Portal:Video games. I also overhauled the World War I portal, which was subsequently deleted in spite of my best efforts (it was truly a lot better after the work I did to it). See the first and the second Portal:World War I MfD. I know what it takes to fix a portal with these problems. However, this portal I can not fix because there is no Transgender recognized content. There is only recognized content for LGBTQ+, as part of the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, but not specifically for the topic of Transgender. See Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Recognized content. This goes further to prove that the portal is not supported by a WikiProject (supported in name only, but was never supported in reality). The portal will never be improved. I challenge anyone to overhaul this portal—the preconditions just aren't there.—Alalch E.
Comment to Closer - Please Relist this MFD, both because more discussion might result in a consensus, and to provide ten days rather than three days for someone to try to fix this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for any editor who proposes that the portal be fixed rather than deleted: What is the purpose either of portals or of this portal? Perhaps an answer would help to focus discussion on how this portal should be fixed,and therefore whether it can be fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, If there was a new wikiproject encompassing this portal, it might be applicable. In the status quo, this is covered by Portal:LGBTQ, though I wouldn't describe this topic as narrow. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alalch. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: per reasons above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates