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[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.
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	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	26	35
TfD	0	10	10
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	2	20	22
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 3, 2024[edit]

User:Rawen Ab/Userboxes/Google Maps Local Guide[edit]

This is not a userbox, and it is not serving any purpose in userspace. I will remove it from its listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet/Websites. Are there grounds for uncontroversial deletion? TNstingray (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Anonymy365[edit]

I don't want any topics on my talk page. So, I'm requesting my talk page to be deleted. The reason is because I want to be completely unrecognized and that includes my name not being mentioined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365 (talk • contribs) 15:08, June 3, 2024 (UTC)

Keep Sorry, we almost never delete user talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and there must be a place where others can contact you. You can blank comments from it that you do not wish to be seen, though they will still be visible in the page history to the curious. You can also add notices to your talk page that discourage others from adding unnecessary comments. Or you can make a new account and no longer be associated with your current identity (see Wikipedia:Clean start). Or you can undergo courtesy vanishing, where your username will be changed to a generic one and your account will retire from editing. Good luck on whatever you choose. Air on White (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Editor has a history of problematic edits including a brief block for disruptive editing, and the page history has a long list of admonishments and apparently unheeded advice, all of which was blanked by the user at some point or other. They've made further problematic edits today, so it appears that rather than wanting to disappear, they simply don't want to be held accountable for their activity. This, of course, is not compatible with how Wikipedia works. --Finngall ^talk 22:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DAC Studios[edit]

Many external links, unreliable sources. The image is fair-use but not tagged as so. This is my first MfD, so it's probably not accurate and the not correct thing to do. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The external link are part of the sources, alot of information regarding the topic is stated in their social media. Image also used under fair use with credit given as the license protecting it stated. AzzakyAris (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not unambiguous promotion (G11). It has problems, but we can fix them; if they can't within 6 months, it'll be deleted under G13 anyway. Air on White (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, - Maybe the dominator is unfamiliar with drafts and does not know that they are not deleted for sourcing or notability,, because they are meant to be improved. McClenon mobile (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2, 2024[edit]

Alternate history userpages by Heatyeet[edit]

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, appears to be historical fiction or alternate history. It's probably not intended to be a hoax, but it might as well be one. This is for websites like Fandom. Air on White (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added related articles. Air on White (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hopefully they can save all this stuff before it's deleted. Zanahary (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first I nominated User:Heatyeet/Micronesian Civil War under U5, but it was denied because of the user's demonstrated contributions to Wikipedia. The policy basis to delete is still WP:NOTWEBHOST. Air on White (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Heatyeet/Krakoan Revolution has no substantial content, but it's obviously intended as an alternate history article like the other nominated pages. Air on White (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Not strictly U5 but still meets deletion criteria, as the user has only made 10 mainspace edits. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting. See also Wikipedia is not for alternate history. Yes, we have had articles like this before. Yes, we have an essay that clarifies that they are contrary to various Wikipedia guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if not U5 & G3 (BH). thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 1, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zorrotesla/Archive 2

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: speedily deleted per criterion U1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zorrotesla/Archive 2[edit]

Userspace page in live categories.

If you really want to archive this, then subst: it and take it out of the live cats. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a copy from mainspace into user space of blink element, and is a redundant fork which will gradually diverge from the original because the original is maintained. (We don't need archival copies of pages that were live in mainspace, because they have history.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even humorous. Just a random article transcluded. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade to CSD per request by User. Don't want this! Zorrotesla (talk) 06:13, 3 June 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.

May 29, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject SZA[edit]

Limited scope, lacks potential for growth and interest, new WikiProjects are currently being discouraged because of creations like this. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need a WikiProject for singers. Catfurball (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with another WikiProject - only around 120-ish articles are currently covered by the WikiProject, probably too-narrow in scope. Xeroctic (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Taking an incipient WikiProject to MFD after five days because it either is still launching or has failed to launch seems premature. Wait a little longer to see if there is signup. (My own guess is that there will not be signup, but that this nomination is premature.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we need some procedure for the review of WikiProjects other than MFD? Do we need a guideline on what are likely to be workable topic areas for WikiProjects? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The project has significantly improved the quality and coverage of articles to related to SZA and there's other popular singers who has wikiproject ( Dua Lipa, Michael Jackson, Olivia Rodrigo, etc).For instance, the project has contributed to the enhancement of key articles, such as her biography, discography and individual album pages. These improvements ensure that the information is reliable, well sourced and accessible to a audience. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not really the project improving the articles, it’s you, as the only active member. You don’t need a WikiProject for that. The idea is to get a group together first then create the project. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would this be better off as a sub-project or task force within Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: speaking as literally the only other person in this WikiProject, I would go as far as to say most WikiProjects about musicians, often being disorganized anyway, should just be task forces under a more encompassing genre or music WP where more people might actually see and attend to the relevant articles . PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 03:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's only a week old! Other singers have WikiProjects. Zanahary (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We should let the project grow before deleting it... Give it maybe a week.. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 03:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a subproject or task force under Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Deletion is a bit harsh IMO and I agree with PSA that it might be able to attract more editors there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 28, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:A few terms about pageviews[edit]

Not sure how useful this page is even as an essay. Seems this should probably be userfied in the event the editor who created this page wants to edit it more ... otherwise, its value as a project page is quite questionable in the page's current state. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Information that may be useful for quantitative program management should be retained, even if the utility isn't immediately obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MFD reasoning does not warrant deletion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy (second preference). The information is false. The claims are not sustained by evidence and the "examples" in the form of stat pages which are linked fail to corroborate. There are certain oscillations but their quality and level of regularity does not correspond to what is stated on the page. Pages with false empirical claims abut Wikipedia are not suitable content for project space. In addition to this, and separately from it, it is not clear that the content is about the English Wikipedia. In fact, it seems specifically not to be about the English Wikipedia but about several other language versions of Wikipedia (looking at English Wikipedia pageviews there is even less of a correspondence, that is, zero correspondence). This is another reason why the content is not suitable for project space. —Alalch E. 00:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per above, this doesn't even appear to be related to the English Wikipedia. While some of our readers are indeed from the Indian subcontinent, claims that our pageviews increase by 30% during the monsoon season are plainly false for en.wiki, and appear to be relevant for other Wikipedia editions at best. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spib[edit]

No idea what this is for. SPI's are archived by moving them to a subpage, not the top and bottom way used by normal discussions. found only one link to this page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no purpose. Air on White (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Konanen (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The originator was an SPI clerk, so it may have been previously used for archiving. However, Wikipedia:Spit is something else unrelated. The originator has not edited in nine years. The nominator has found that it isn't used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused page. – Primium (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creator has been inactive since 2015. Catfurball (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G1 or G2. It even makes no sense. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Sockpuppet investigations ^[which?]. If these don't apply, delete. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 22:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ended today on 3 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.

May 6, 2024[edit]

Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh[edit]

The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a justification to revdelete anything if it was already in the history. So I support a history merge to fix the accidental fork, even if it is a small thing. Redirecting the draft to the article is a middle solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith is not required to correct something to how it should have been. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Matrinp. There are WP:Parallel histories here so this can't be histmerged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first fiver revisions are important to history merge, and these create no parallel history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Martinp and Pppery /... and Extraordinary Writ; switching back to my original recommendation: after a more careful look it is now clear to me that the histories are unrelated and I agree the question of who gets the credit is not important/ (parallel histories). ~~Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.~~—Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively History Merge: As per others in this discussion. There's no overlap with the first 5 revisions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with a redirect as the page history will be preserved. TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. History merges at best make the history harder to decipher and at worst give a misleading impression of what happened. In this case there's no legal attribution issue, and giving someone "credit" is not a good enough reason to resort to a histmerge, in my opinion. (Requests like this are regularly declined at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words[edit]

The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the RfC where the thing had been talked through and out, nothing more to say.

And thank you for reminding me of a Soviet cartoon of my childhood, The Bremen Town Musicians, where the stress goes ambiguous intentionally:

“

Тем, кто дружен, не страшны тревоги,

Нам любые до́роги доро́ги!

”

This is exactly what is mentioned in the essay as "very special cases".

And, as I've already told you, if you think that the RfC was "malformed and an imprpoperly closed" you are always welcome to open your own one. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "very special cases", these are quite common cases. And the "nutshell" is plain false. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Resolve this on the talk page and update the project page to make it correct. MfD is not for resolving policy dispute, including this page, whatever the tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an essay on how to do things, in mainspace. That’s definitely on the small p end of policy.

Project-related essays should not be deleted, but fixed. If only the author supports it, it can be userfied.

Project space essays do carry weight and will influence editors. If the essay is wrong, it is important to fix, but mfd is not the forum for fixing essays. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, disagreed. There is no "conflict". The page is based on the provably false premise, see the top here; hence, MfD. - Altenmann >talk 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only an assertion. Not proof. Not consensus. I see a dispute between two editors about something. There is no valid reason to delete. Keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Not proof" - Nonsense. Right here I cited a Russian source for punctuation which describes the usage of "nonexisting" stress marks. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 2021 MoS RfC—@Altenmann:? Is the essay mostly inconsistent or mostly consistent with the RfC?—Alalch E. 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in WP:MOSPRON nor in MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement- Altenmann >talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. - Altenmann >talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This good? Special:Permalink/1223236130? —Alalch E. 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As a starting point, OK. Later I will add specific advice based on sources. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was reverted with the edit summary of WP:OWN : "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - which reaffirms my strong opinion for deletion of an essay which is not an explanation of any wikipedia guideline, just an opinion of a single strong-hanged person. - Altenmann >talk 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, as a disputed single-author essay. Noted WP:OWNership issues are serious and will be solved by userfication. —SmokeyJoe (talk)
Please note that the essay has been successfully edited by many users, passed a WP:RM with discussion, and had a consensus version from September 2023. Then suddenly Altenmann appeared with this in January. — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I think we're good now actually.—Alalch E. 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has no business in wikispace and given the author of it was banned for civility issues around this topic i don't really see the point of userfying it—blindlynx 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who was banned? Where? Around what? — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shit sorry i thought Taurus Littrow wrote most of this, i didn't realize i wasn't looking at the earliest history—blindlynx 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx: Care to switch to keep to help a would-be closer close this? The comments (the actual opinions expressed) in this way-overdue-for-closure discussion must be hard to parse to most...—Alalch E. 02:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry thought i struck it—blindlynx 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The essay, in its current version, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1223433915 is consistent with the 2021 RfC and can't be described as a "disputed single-author essay". The problem is located in the previous wording: "Stress marks don't belong ... and should be removed on sight". And while that language was not fully consistent with the RfC result, it was not very far from it either. But now the wording has been tweaked to truly match the RfC, and that is how it should be. If someone wants more flexibility than the RfC allows, start a new RfC. If someone wants more rigidity, start a new RfC. In my opinion the existing RfC is satisfactory, and this essay is okay.—Alalch E. 10:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate explainer of extant consensus and past discussions akin to WP:RSP. Nardog (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The essay is based on the result of a MoS RfC and doesn't just reflect the opinion of a single person. The concerns of the nominator appear to have been addressed now that the essay has been revised to be more consistent with the RfC (it no longer says that "stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word"). Malerisch (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates