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	Nov	Total
CfD	12	12
TfD	8	8
MfD	2	2
FfD	10	10
RfD	44	44
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.

November 28, 2024

Talk:F.C. Porto–Sporting CP rivalry

It is from a redirection page and is not necessary as there is no history or importance for the affluent page. 44 Gabriel (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 2024

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes

What even is this? It is certainly not a humorous essay, looks more like a steaming pile of hot garbage. It was kept when nominated fourteen years ago, and as far as I can tell has gotten progressively more stupid and pointless since that time. Perhaps the project has matured a bit since then and we can agree to just not have... whatever this is supposed to be. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a waste of precious bits. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bits are created, not saved, upon deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware. It's still a waste of psychic space - and full of rather inappropriate failures at humour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, Wikipedia used to be a sillier place. In articlespace, that's usually a good thing. In projectspace, I'd like to know what is gained by deleting a bunch of silliness that 508 people have contributed to in the past 18 years. Should it be linked from anywhere serious? No, of course not (and I just removed the link from WP:NOT). But that's true of all of the "humorous" pages. If kept, I also plan to remove a couple bits that are critical of specific Wikipedians. It kind of reminds me of the "graffiti wall" some BBSes used to have, where people wrote random thoughts, jokes, or nonsense, usually anonymously. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s project-reflection, which makes it ok. I find a little bit of value in the reflection, but I’m not sure it is worth anyone’s time to read to find. It sort of comments satirically on WP:NOT being serious and important. It’s not funny, it’s not clearly educational, but I am loath to agree to delete anything project-reflective that is not actually offensive in any way. Maybe blank. Maybe blank archive and protect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I do see things that are offensive. Comments about suicide, comments mocking Black Lives Matter protests, comments about gun control, comments about raping and killing hitchhikers.... And I've only read a small percentage of it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It being on balance negative makes me lean to “blank and archive”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it on balance negative? I just removed the crazy hitchiker business and a section devoted to apparently quite serious dunking on Neelix. If you see offensive nonsense, just remove it. I don't see any mocking black lives matter, but I didn't look that hard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical or Delete nonsense -1ctinus📝🗨 23:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that if for some reason this is kept, it should be moved so as not to be a subpage of an actual policy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless, nonsensical, and weird. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ancient cruft of no actual relevance to the Wikipedia of 2024. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are very few items that are retrievable, they should go somewhere else. The whole humorous essay collection could potentially be exterminated in the face of comments made here - the fact that anything remains is worth noting, as things get far too serious these days. I fully agree with JSS that it should not be attached to or associated with a live real policy. JarrahTree 07:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to the historical archive, along with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/BJAODN (which maybe should be added to this nom, or something)? – both those options would work for me (and I'd rarely be OK with deleting a page from 2006); this essay is too long, un-funny, and barely relevant to Wikipedia, but, for example, this early version makes a lot more sense. I have boldly undone all the recent edits by Gahex220, which made the page significantly worse; all of the text removed by Rhododendrites was added by Gahex220. There's also the search results for mentionns of this page to consider, but none of them are any more than trivial, and I wouldn't normally say that. Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if this page is moved to the historical archive, I wouldn't mind if some form of protection was applied to it to reduce the chance of it being fiddled with further. Graham87 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Clementechiton

Why’s this still here? It’s a McMenamin taxon, that probably speaks for itself. Although, as the Muzaffarabadmachli draft deletion is still indecisive…IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not going to be an article based on solid consensus about the lack of reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Paul H. (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do not delete drafts based on value judgments of their sourcing and notability. If they (continue to) not pass the bar for promotion to mainspace, they will be deleted once they see no editing action for several months. I have no opinion on the merits of this specific draft, but oppose deletion unless someone can point to actual harm from them sitting there, awaiting potential improvement, incorporation elsewhere, or abandonment. Martinp (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drafts that will never become articles are harmless. See Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. The harm from deleting this draft is that it would establish a pattern of deleting drafts for notability, and then drafts could be deleted when they need more work, or when they should be held for future notability. User:IC1101-Capinatator - Is there an effort or idea to delete drafts concerning taxa proposed by fringe scientists? There is no guideline concerning the deletion of questionable drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. AfC processes suffice, let them work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so keep it as-is. Got it. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 26, 2024

Draft:Muzaffarabadmachli

Malkani taxon; why does this, even in draft form, need to exist? IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not going to be an article based on solid consensus about the reliability of the describer. There's no point to having a draft on this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a useless draft, because Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. This draft was, properly, rejected, because an article with the title has been deleted. It is true that this is not going to be an article unless a more reputable scientist publishes a paper about it. The reason why it exists in draft form is that it exists in draft form and drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. The other reason why this draft exists is that an unregistered editor has been diddling with it, and so resetting the calendar. No harm is done by allowing this useless draft to exist in draft space. The harm that would be done by deleting it is that a signal would be sent to good-faith reviewers that they should nominate drafts for deletion for notability or sanity reasons such as the fringe status of a scientist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Who is Malkani? If we consider him unreliable, that should be on the basis of one or more criticisms of him by reliable sources, which would be notability, just as other fringe scholars are notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and not going to be an article based on solid consensus about the reliability of the only source. Paul H. (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do not delete drafts based on value judgments of their sourcing and notability. If they (continue to) not pass the bar for promotion to mainspace, they will be deleted once they see no editing action for several months. I have no opinion on the merits of this specific draft, but oppose deletion unless someone can point to actual harm from them sitting there, awaiting potential improvement, incorporation elsewhere, or abandonment. Martinp (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25, 2024

Draft:UGL Rail 5020 class

Duplicate of QR National 5020 class. This shouldn't be here, even as a draft. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to QR National 5020 class. Redirect in article space also, by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 23, 2024

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ List of 2019–20 Indian Super League season roster changes

List of 2019–20 Indian Super League season roster changes is not a featured article. (It's also not a featured list.) jlwoodwa (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete All, as an inappropriate entry, but it appears that this nomination page has existed for five years and never should have existed. If the volunteers who maintain the Featured Article display are doing cleanup, that is good, and this appears to be trash that is being thrown out a few years late, better late than never. The editor who put this list on the Featured Article request list has been blocked for five years, and I don't think that I want to know more about why. Playing games with the Featured Article queue has been a bad idea for several years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator - Is this nomination the result of some sort of cleanup activity? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I'm trying to clean up Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article pending nominations. It's got a lot of old nominations, most of which can be closed as successful or unsuccessful, but in this case I think it's better to delete a blank, undiscussed, doubly-nonviable nomination than to clutter up Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article unsuccessful nominations. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ancient crap. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found another nomination for the same list, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/List of 2019–20 Indian Super League season roster changes, and added it to this MfD. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above. Query whether these would be eligible for speedy G6 (technical deletions for uncontroversial maintenance). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular editor at MFD and at DRV, I would rather see four of these in three weeks (as we have seen) than have one more questionable G6 sent to DRV. When in doubt as to whether something qualifies as a technical deletion, we have deletion discussions to avoid doubt. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Jlwoodwa - Cleanup is often useful underappreciated work behind the scenes. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22, 2024

Old and broken userscript from 2007. TheWikipede^talk 17:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the value of this page, there is little reason to go snooping around old Javascript pages from 2 decades ago. Scripts being old and broken is not one of the reasons. Please do something better with your time here. Izno (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we're here, but agree that this nomnation was counterproductive ragpicking * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not know what this script is supposed to do or what it does or how it is broken. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user was very active for eleven months, until 16:30, 28 September 2007. Soft delete, soft to allow for the user to return and request access, as unlikely as that is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 14:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC) ended today on 28 November 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.

November 2, 2024

Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It’s crucial that Wikipedia reflects a spectrum of viewpoints, especially on contentious topics. Secondly the existence of such userboxes is constructive, they allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions, which aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of providing a platform for diverse perspectives. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. This suggests that our community values the representation of diverse viewpoints. If the support template exists for a organization like RSS which is often regarded as terrorist organization or far right extremist, and often blamed for assassination Mahatma Gandhi, there is a need of the template which is in opposition to the ideology of RSS and PFI. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an ideology that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why there is a supporting template for this? ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia has millions of pages and is chronically short of manpower. Plenty of stuff I or others think should be deleted, like that template, slip through the cracks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, divisive.—Alalch E. 23:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RSS has been linked to hate-driven rhetoric and exclusionary practices that echo the characteristics of extremist and terrorist organizations.

The RSS should not be supported or glorified through these supporting templates below.

RSS This user is a supporter of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 07:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - RSS is a far right paramilitary organisation that has been responsible for multiple riots and violence on minorities, there's nothing wrong with this userbox, when we have various userboxes such as those that oppose Nazism and Fascism. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Expressing a political allegiance is not in itself disruptive, but the RSS goes beyond simple national politics. They express extreme nationalist and conservative views and have had involvement in violence and riots. While most of us will sympathise with opposition to the RSS, the projectspace should not facilitate or encourage any involvement in RSS-related debates (WP:NOTFORUM) among Wikipedia users. arcticocean ■ 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per ZDX and Ratnahastin.

Also, beside the userbox that ZDX mentioned above, I would also like to mention another one, with basically the same message:

RSS

This user supports the RSS.

Having in mind its overall ideology, it seems very inappropriate and unacceptable to keep around templates that show support for the RSS. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep ThatIPEditor ^{They / Them} 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article...

I originally just redirected this but it was contested. Contextless Guantanamo related page, part of a project to make a lot of pages on a lot of Guantanamo prisoner BLPs (many of which are being slowly deleted as given our current rules they are non-notable) by an indef banned user that never went anywhere masquerading as a WikiProject page. Also, WP Terrorism is no longer a wikiproject so these are attached to a project that no longer exists. Marking it as historical is negative for that reason. I see no harm in letting it exist as a redirect so the page history is accessible but I do see issues with letting it remain attached to nothing.

Also nominating:

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to know whether I understand. It appears that there was a WikiProject until 19 October 2024, and then it was moved to become a task force of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo was a subpage of the project, and it had its own subpages. So the issue is what to do with the subpages of something that no longer exists. Is that correct? My own thinking is that marking them historical is exactly what should be done, to record the historical link to the renamed project. Is my reading of the history correct? If so, why shouldn't we record the strange history? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon What's the point of keeping project pages that have no project? I find they tend, even if marked defunct or historical, to attract random edits, vandalism, and people for asking for help on the wrong pages to get no response. Redirecting it stops that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect because in all this time no substantive argument has been given against doing so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo (marked historical); redirect the others to it. There's no firm rule on when to redirect and when to mark historical, and this compromise (which at least gives people links to the various redirected pages) strikes the balance I'm most comfortable with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ I'm opposed to keeping it in any form because this page exists to encourage the creation of more non-notable Guantanmo BLPs and we already have far too many of those. Looking at it is a net negative. If redirecting is a problem it should just be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo encourages the creation of anything, and at any rate it's already been marked historical. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates