Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
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. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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:, 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
[edit]Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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]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.
|
Administrator instructions
[edit]V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 54 | 0 | 54 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 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.
December 8, 2024
[edit]Non-notable, self-promo. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Claiming to be "the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler", describing oneself as "Aryan", and describing Marxism as "judeo-bolshevism" in a userpage template certainly falls under WP:POLEMIC. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Prussian-German ethnicity has been linked to Insanity - and certainly WP:POLEMIC The AP (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like to participate in votes regarding me, especially considering it's going to be a conflict of interest. I also don't like using the "it's just a joke" argument... but none of this is polemic. It is not meant to be 'rhetoric intended to support a specific position by forthright claims'. It is meant to make fun of these things. It is 'in jest'. I thought the sheer absurdity of such a userpage in which all of this is contrasted with the fact that I am a communist and thus do not believe in the absurdity of things like "judeo-bolshevism" would indicate this.
- I am sorry if my userpage causes offense. It is to make fun of these people who call themselves "aryan hyperboreans" or whatever. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the humor isn't really obvious. Not to mention, pretending to be a caricature of a neo-Nazi to make fun of them is still polemic and not really related to building the encyclopedia. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- i agree !!! 83.254.204.236 (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I still hardly believe that this can still be considered polemic.
- Good day. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Leave the last funny wikipedia user page alone. Xenosystem (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the humor isn't really obvious. Not to mention, pretending to be a caricature of a neo-Nazi to make fun of them is still polemic and not really related to building the encyclopedia. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, yeah, we definitely don't need things like this here. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:D8C7:13A5:F937:D20E (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Snow delete. This should've been a speedy delete, and we are feeding someone who is very obviously a troll through this nom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 12:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, how am I a troll? I have shown quite evidently through my contributions- of which I have made several of, that I am not here to 'disrupt Wikipedia' whatsoever.
- I have never vandalized a page. I have never intentionally broken any rules. I have never harassed anybody. My userpage has nothing to do with my edits on Wikipedia. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, how am I a troll? I have shown quite evidently through my contributions- of which I have made several of, that I am not here to 'disrupt Wikipedia' whatsoever.
- Delete: Per nom. Please also delete User:DFLPApologist for similar styled trolling. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep We're witnessing the death of comedy 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Bigshlomo (talk)
- Delete, we're witnessing the death of comedy. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC).
This article does not qualify WP:BLP and WP:AUTOBIO. It does not cite any sources. Articles about Living People must cite reliable sources. Furthermore, this is likely an Autobiography because the user who submitted this draft has a username similar to this article's name. New users need to start reading Wikipedia's policies before creating a draft or an article, especially if it's a Biography of a Living Person article. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as an unsourced biography of a living person. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, but they are checked for compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
December 7, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ohio Public Television |
---|
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. WP:CSD G3: hoax. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Another blatant hoax: No way a statewide PBS network could work in Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
|
December 6, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
While a few years old, this April Fools' AFD is primarily about a BLP's religion, although I am unsure whether this page may be considered an attack page or not. Xeroctic (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
December 4, 2024
[edit]The page now located at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT was formerly a talk page for my previous account Vicipaedianus x, so –when I created this account back in 2021– I moved it into my user space an turned it into an archive. Later, on 19 June 2023, I copy-pasted all of its content to my archive located at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, so I requested to merge the page history as well (specifically edits between February 2014 and February 2021, when it was a talk page) and the deletion of the former, but my request got declined, so I got stuck with a blanked subpage, and I started using it as a sandbox. I now remembered that –on 14 December 2023– I got told it was "not eligible for WP:U1 because at one time it was a user talk page, it may still be deleted by being listed at WP:MFD", so please, merge its history as a talk page into User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, if needed, and delete this useless duplicate turned sandbox. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - If this is not eligible for U1 because of its history, it is enough like a U1 that it should be deleted at the originator's request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- Sigh.
- Per WP:DELTALK, the edits between September 2013 and November 2020 must not be deleted no matter how many layers of obfuscation you try to use to hide that fact.
- The request to history merge the talk page edits so the later edits can be deleted is valid and in my opinion should have been granted, but four other admins (including my past self) have improperly stonewalled it. Now that we're at a discussion venue rather than an individual-admin-request venue I guess we can override them and grant that request, so I support doing so.
- Est. 2021's insistence in getting things done this way has grown beyond reason. They've made nine distinct requests for admin actions relating to this one sandbox, all of which were declined. My gut wants to say "Keep" out of spite. But I'm better than that.
- Overall, weakly support history merge and delete, but if that's not done, strongly oppose deleting without history merging - that would set a hideous precedent that people can get their way by complaining enough. Although I guess WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#User talk pages exists, so the blatant double standard being demonstrated here will continue to exist either way. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Having reviewed the history in detail once, there is a strange odor to the history, and we don't want to just incinerate it to get rid of any possible dead animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Unformatted, probably LLM RfA from an ineligible candidate. To veek2, you might find WP:RFAADVICE helpful; most candidates have made thousands of edits over months of consistent, active editing. WP:NOTNOW has some good advice :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Why should we delete this? Why not leave it standing as an indication that the editor had the silly idea of applying for admin status? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- As a kindness to veek2. LLM slop does not need to be kept in the history of a {{courtesy blanked}} page; nothing worthwhile would be in the history. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep We don't commonly delete old RfAs unless they are malformed indeed. I can't remember us deleting at XfD unless there was something truly worth hiding from view (or it was merely a test page). Here we have a good faith self-nom statement by veek2. I'm all for kindness to newbies, but if a new contributor says he's Napoleon (for example), I'm inclined to allow the community to see that and make their own judgement (as opposed to Wikipedia preemptively appearing obtuse). I'm really not understanding the threat. While I almost always prefer blanking to deletion, in this case, I'd prefer this to be viewed. Attribution is a thing. So are consequences. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
December 3, 2024
[edit]Draft about something we don't know yet, no title, no info, no image, not relevant at the moment. We should wait for more information before creating a draft, the creator is not against deletion. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not enough to precisely respect Wikipedia's rules without reflection. Do you know how to identify exactly what we are talking about? Because I don't. We just know that it is a Lego film that could be anything and whose release is not yet certain, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creation is rushed, we will end up with duplicates or give additional work to the draft reviewers. As I said to the creator of the article, I am not against the creation of a draft on a future Lego film but currently there is nothing, even the title of the article does not allow a clear identification, imagine that we start creating this kind of drafts/articles every day without a minimum identification being possible, we would not get out of it. The creator himself is not against deletion while waiting for additional information. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good evening SparklingBlueMoon, I would like to direct your attention to some points mentioned in Wikipedia:NDRAFT. Now, if this was created in mainspace, I do agree it would be deleted quickly, if not under CSD:A1 or A3 then a snow vote at AfD. That being said, draftspace is self cleaning, and unless there is a pressing, unambiguous reason to delete (copyvio, attack page, hoax, etc.), it is better to let the six month deadline pass rather than go through MfD. Not only can this create bad blood between new and experience editors, the bureaucracy this creates often extends the draft past its natural lifespan. Also, if the author agrees to CSD, they should blank and tag the page under G7 or explicitly ask another editor to do so. Thank you for your time VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not enough to precisely respect Wikipedia's rules without reflection. Do you know how to identify exactly what we are talking about? Because I don't. We just know that it is a Lego film that could be anything and whose release is not yet certain, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creation is rushed, we will end up with duplicates or give additional work to the draft reviewers. As I said to the creator of the article, I am not against the creation of a draft on a future Lego film but currently there is nothing, even the title of the article does not allow a clear identification, imagine that we start creating this kind of drafts/articles every day without a minimum identification being possible, we would not get out of it. The creator himself is not against deletion while waiting for additional information. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The principle of Do No Harm should be considered. What is the harm done by keeping this stub draft in draft space? There is no harm. The draft is not seen by readers, who do not view draft space. As the nominator is discovering, an editor who reads draft space should expect to find "stuff" of varying quality, including no quality. What is the harm done by deleting this stub draft? The harm may be minimal, but it would result in more nominations. There would be more work for the volunteers at MFD. Since there are no guidelines providing for the deletion of drafts (and we would be dismissing or ignoring a guideline that says that drafts are not deleted for notability), there would either be appeals to DRV because the guideline was incorrectly applied, or there might be a debate over guidelines for when drafts should be deleted. The simplest answer is the existing guideline that drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The originator of a draft may request speedy deletion of the draft as G7 if no other editor has added any substantial content. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete since we're here - this is irrelevant useless cruft. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
November 30, 2024
[edit]This projectspace template is now not only useless and misleading. It consists entirely of a button that was intended to send a user to the Snuggle API. But Snuggle has been defunct since at least late April 2021. Clicking this button leads users to Wmflabs' 404 error page. Delete as dependent on a defunct tool. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete an abandoned tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)- Question: Would "mark as historical" be a better outcome here than outright deletion? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that. or redirecting to Wikipedia:Snuggle. Graham87 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mark Historical as a disused tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User South Indian separatist |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Editor created blank template. Declined for speedy deletion, even though blank templates that I tag as WP:G7 have been routinely deleted for years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 16:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC) ended today on 8 December 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 30, 2024
[edit]Superseded by MediaWiki:new-messages-from-many-users. See also [1] Awesome Aasim 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to MediaWiki:new-messages-from-many-users, as should have been done in December 2023 (contrary to the commit message there, that message does still show up for logged-out editors). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Superseded by MediaWiki:New-messages. Awesome Aasim 03:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- See also [2]. Awesome Aasim 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to MediaWiki:New-messages, as should have been done in December 2023 (contrary to the commit message there, that message does still show up for logged-out editors). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
November 27, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
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)
- Delete It's a waste of precious bits. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bits are created, not saved, upon deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Bits are created, not saved, upon deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Good point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- It being on balance negative makes me lean to “blank and archive”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- On balance, it is garbage. I don't personally like garbage, YMMV. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Middens are of great value, in some ways, even if few would agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- On balance, it is garbage. I don't personally like garbage, YMMV. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Mark as historical or Delete nonsense -1ctinus📝🗨 23:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete as useless, nonsensical, and weird. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Ancient cruft of no actual relevance to the Wikipedia of 2024. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- And it was Gahex220's activities that led me to even be aware of this, he was making some highly questionable edits elsewhere so I was looking through his contribs, and ran across this. I considered just undoing his edits myself but I couldn't say they were all out of step with what is expected on this page because it appears to be a complete free-for-all, which is why I nominated it for deletion instead. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep (and move, I guess) - I get why people think this shouldn't be a subpage of a real policy, but not why it would need to be deleted. Its humor value is obviously debatable, but also very subjective. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly fine humourous essay and a piece of Wikipedia history. Ca talk to me! 15:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as harmless but maybe also lock page. Or make extended-confirmed required. Harmless as a fragment to old Wikipedia humor but let's let people make their own new humor pages for 2024, not do unfunny renovations of old humor pages like apparently happened here. SnowFire (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I like this article, and it is a piece of Wikipedia history. I read it when I was first getting involved in the project some 7-ish years ago. However, it has become much different than the version I read then, and much of the newer material could stand to be deleted. There is some value in the earlier stuff, like the commentary on appending Wiki- to everything, does have genuine humorous value and serves as a pointed commentary. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 18:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- mildly amused that nearly everyone in favor of keeping this is also removing large portions of it....
- It's almost like it's a pile of junk with no real purpose... Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose was socialization/expression, which there was more tolerance for years ago. It's worth keeping traces of that olde tyme Wikipedia culture via a page with 500 contributors, and worth pruning offensive stuff that does actually violate policy (most of which was apparently just recently added by one person). Being stupid doesn't change that value. I'd be fine with locking the page now, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It's a joke page. It's not hurting anyone. The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 01:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*Keep. Calling a page a "steaming pile of hot garbage" is not a valid deletion reason. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)this ip was blocked for CU-confirmed block evasion. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia can't be all serious. There needs to be some places to channel the goofiness. Maybe someone that would have otherwise vandalized saw this and decided to add another section. I know it's unlikely, but maybe! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is not simply a humor page, but obviously
an integral part of the main policyis itself the main policy. Closer should be aware that the offensive stuff was added by a single blocked editor and was swiftly revdel'd, the article looked fine in October 2024 [3]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC) - Delete why does this page even exist? its not funny in the slightest and it shouldn't even be part of the main policy. 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. See Wikipedia:Humor. Drdr150 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. CodingYT (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia:Silly Things/Outtakes of What Wikipedia is not. 67.209.128.126 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
November 25, 2024
[edit]- Draft:UGL Rail 5020 class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of QR National 5020 class. This shouldn't be here, even as a draft. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to QR National 5020 class. Redirect in article space also, by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)