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 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

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

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	Oct	Total
CfD	3	3
TfD	7	7
MfD	0	0
FfD	3	3
RfD	74	74
AfD	0	0

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.

October 23, 2024

User:Marine 69-71/Autographs

WP:NOTWEBHOST violation GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 04:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What, specifically, is the basis for the proposed deletion? In what way does it improve the project to delete this page? This user is an administrator with eighty thousand edits over the course of twenty years. If there's anything here that is actually disruptive to the functioning of the project, it is people who have a bizarre obsession with prowling other people's userspace to find "incorrect" things and delete them. Since this has literally zero bearing on the functioning of Wikipedia, my only possible conclusion is that there is some kind of jouissance derived from the act of destroying a thing that someone else cares about. Who gives a damn?

jp×g 🗯️ 06:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also not sure how we benefit from deleting this. We aren't this strict about enforcing NOTWEBHOST against long-time editors and we have nothing to gain from becoming stricter. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specifically a clear breach of policy: WP:NOTWEBHOST, to quote: "user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia" and "Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted." The content has no encyclopaedic value and there is no benefit in its retention. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking, again, a very simple direct question: in what way does it improve the project to delete this page? If you are unwilling to explain this, in clear simple language, your proposed action should not be done. jp×g 🗯️ 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It improves the project by making it entirely clear that those who enforce the rules are also subject to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is disruptive and pointless to WP:RAGPICK people regardless of whether they are administrators. I would be saying the same thing here even if he were a disgraced former sysop. Is there an actual, concrete reason why this page endangers the project? It is not libelous, defamatory, or infringing of any law. jp×g 🗯️ 08:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone isn't 'disruptive'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with AndyTheGrump. User:JPxG I'm astounded that you are an admin if you don't believe that policies should be enforced. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm astounded if you have never read WP:5P. jp×g 🗯️ 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same rules do apply to everyone. I am trying to apply the actual rules, not wikilawyer them to antagonize other editors.

I am aware that you believe the policy says the page should be deleted. I am asking if you have any actual reason why you think the policy says that, or why you think it should be interpreted this way. jp×g 🗯️ 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's deletion policy says: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ... Any other use of the ... user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. The established separate PAG for that namespace is Wikipedia:User pages; it is however a guideline, not a policy. In that guideline, Wikipedia:User pages § Excessive unrelated content says: In general, if you have material that you do not wish others to edit, ... it should be placed on a personal web site, and has the following: WP:UP#GOALS (Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities. ...) and WP:USERBIO (Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: ... excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia). WP:DELETEOTHER says Use of a user page as a personal web page unconnected with Wikipedia's mission may be a speedy deletion criterion and other pages [not requiring speedy deletion] likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion. The policy provision WP:NOTWEBHOST says Personal web pages are often speedily deleted under criterion U5. When the guideline on user pages speaks about deleting excessive unrelated content in the form of personal web pages, it elaborates on NOTWEBHOST, and is fully supported by the policy. The policy and the guideline are in union, and form a functional whole. This means that there exists a reason to delete this page as it is a use of user namespace contrary to the established policy and the established guideline for the user namespace.
This does not mean that we are obligated to delete the page. We can just say that we would like to tolerate this specific page.—Alalch E. 10:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sort of discussion is certainly in-bounds, IMHO. On the merits, this is none of our business. And you guys stop throwing spitballs at each other. This is a serious thing we're considering, policing userspace for things to delete. This sort of thing has been going on for a while and it's often a reprehensible failure of good faith. We normally let experienced editors decorate their userspace within reason. We most certainly let folks have their say in formal discussion without being astounded others have variances with others' rigid views on policy. BusterD (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"within reason". The user already has a lengthy userpage, together with his own page: Tony Santiago. This page is a repository for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supermario applies. Not just U5 but U5 rendered as wide as the canyon. SerialNumber54129 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U5 doesn't apply in and of itself because it is reserved to non-contributors. But when the same pages are found among contributors' user pages, it does not mean that what is "unrelated" and "excessive" necessarily becomes "related" and "within reasonable bounds". The content would have been related and not-excessive only if it had been: Limited autobiographical content (WP:UPYES) and a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two [which] are usually allowed if the page reasonably complies with other requirements (WP:DELETEOTHER). —Alalch E. 10:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. In case you were not aware, "In and of itself" is synonymous with exclusivity in a discrete case, and I at no point indicated that was my thinking. Indeed, Supermario implies something beyond, or after, U5, as in meta-U5. I'm afraid you need a basic grasp of Latin in this game. And as for uncollapsing ~~JzG's near personal attacks~~: BusterD's comment vis a vis spitballs is far more useful, even if he and I disagree over the merits of the specific case. SerialNumber54129 13:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~No offence, btw. SerialNumber54129 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)~~Struck in this edit SerialNumber54129 14:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Other editors above state that this is none of anyone's business. That is a faulty argument which does not address policy. TarnishedPath^talk 15:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 19, 2024

Wikipedia:Randy in space

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep Completley agree with the above. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the problem being solved with this nomination? It's an accurate essay. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Weak keep. It's not a good essay IMO. Confusing -- I don't really get what the author is on about. It's listed as a humor page, but its not very funny IMO. There is a level of quality required for essays in mainspace. If an essay just isn't good enough, it should be userfied. Is this essay that bad? Not bad enough to delete IMO, altho it's close. Herostratus (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure what this essay is about, but I don't think there's any policy violations occuring with it either, not least ones necessitating deletion. Java Hurricane 07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JavaHurricane and Tryptofish: I'm confused by your appeal to policy or "valid reasons" for deletion. There isn't anything but WP:DEL-REASON, which itself states that it is not exhaustive. On project pages, we have nothing but WP:IAR and WP:PURPOSE to guide us. I nominated it because I thought this page was a net negative to the encyclopedia, and as far as I know that's a valid reason for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Daask (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to make a case for your opinion that it's a net negative. But that's your opinion, as opposed to a violation of policy by the essay. And, as your opinion, other editors are just as entitled to respond to it with their opinions, which, in this case, are starting to "snow". And that, in turn, is why we have WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that on project pages we have nothing to guide us To delete a projectspace essay, that page would normally need to manifest use of the ... project ... namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace (WP:DEL-REASON#13). That established separate "policy" for a projectspace essay is WP:ESSAYPAGES. Essays can be ... short theses, ... funny, ... or opinionated. —Alalch E. 18:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E40E:82FD:34F5:80E2 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as an unhelpful and confusing essay which isn't funny. I don't see this as being helpful for the Wikipedia namespace. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Userfy - It's poorly written and not funny but that is not enough to delete. But it's quality level might be better for user space vs mains. PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:RadioactiveBoulevardier/Speedrun

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's hard for any reader to differentiate whether an author is sarcastically recommending bad behavior or actually recommending bad behavior. See Poe's law. The project content guideline I cited above states that user pages may not contain "Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone... vandalism". Whether the author intended to encourage it or not, their words certainly seem to do just that. Daask (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poe's law is irrelevant, as the essay states that it is humor. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the prior history. There was strong consensus to delete in the last conversation, although several people did comment that they would be fine with userfying. Daask (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a marginal but non-negligible chance that the essay could inspire vandalism. This detriment is not outweighed by any benefit coming from the essay. Et cetera. See all the other delete !votes in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia ban speedrun. Projectspace, userspace, same difference.—Alalch E. 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . The article is clearly joking in tone. In fact, the essay explicitly says "Do not do this no matter what"

So, I think that this article should be kept on the grounds of allowing humor, same as articles like WP:Ignore every single rule and WP:APF FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional argument: I got a bit of a smirk out of reading the article, so I believe it has value as humor. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is this the Wikipedia equivalent of Hipster racism? lol. Just because you say that you're giving tips "ironically", you're still inspiring vandalism. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's giving tips on how to get banned.

The vandals inspired by this would be reverted and gotten rid of easily. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vandals inspired by this

So you're admiring this page will inspire vandalism? -1ctinus📝🗨 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm just entertaining your argument, which in my opinion is completely ridiculous. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how me posing a hypothetical (in my opinion, absurd) situation where you're right can be interpreted as me agreeing with you. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 22, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

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 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

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)[reply]

Would normally suggest keeping archive as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. Moxy🍁 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is:

"If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's userspace or nominating it for deletion at MfD. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see Wikipedia:Project namespace#Deletion of project pages."

Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it. Support deletion given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For future similar interests, engage with Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (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 16:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ended today on 25 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates