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: 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 |
|
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 | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 |
TfD | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 13 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 78 | 0 | 78 |
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.
September 5, 2024
[edit]WP:RFORK of Lorem ipsum. Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Television and the Public Interest. Paradoctor (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Recently created information page by BarntToust to compile the various publishers of sources used on this site. I do not think a separate page is needed for this and the contents can easily covered by what is already established at WP:Reliable sources and the articles themselves. Full disclosure, the editor who created this has started repeatedly adding publisher params to cite temps on the article Superman (2025 film) and has insisted at my talk page about adding them to other related articles after I informed them it was not needed, and this page appears to be an extension of that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me like you wholly misunderstand to basis of publisher parameter on citations. They are higher-detail citations and are used per inline for extra detail on articles. Articles such as The Last of Us and The Last of Us (TV series), and substituents have been promoted extensively for Good Article status, so I have no idea why you are so against it.
- Draftify this thing until it is developed. It looks like a good idea for a promising directory for new editors like me who might want a place to look for this information without having to sprawl out looking for them in each article. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:VogueTortellini/Our Bodies, Ourselves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:RFORK of Our Bodies, Ourselves § Boston Women's Health Book Collective. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Both this and Draft:St. Emma Military Academy were created on the same day by the same user. This looks like an WP:RFORK to me. Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The user edits intermittently and is maybe working on the draft. This sandbox may be used to improve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
September 4, 2024
[edit]WP:COPIES from Variabilichromis moorii (2013-11-15). Paradoctor (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 11:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, and as a redundant fork that will get out of sync with the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from West Bengal Board of Primary Education (2022-04-15). Paradoctor (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Can't tell which specific revision this is a copy of, but some of the text matches some of the 2022 revisions, so yeah, "good" enough.—Alalch E. 22:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Treat this as an expired draft. It wouldn't have been accepted with no references, anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
This is an WP:RFORK of Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that was copy pasted to Draft:Musical themes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where it was promptly redirected to Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I assume this means the userspace copy gets nuked and the draftspace version is retained? Paradoctor (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a redundant fork. I have not compared the article with this version, but that is not necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
September 3, 2024
[edit]Dump copy of TikTok#TikTok. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:COPIES DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this dump copy, which is a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
September 2, 2024
[edit]WP:COPIES from Ror (2021-08-14). Paradoctor (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Another redundant fork of an article, by a user who came, created this fragment, and departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2014 (2014-12). Paradoctor (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - A redundant fork of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES: Somewhere between the last edit to the content here and the start of The Two Sisters (TV series) there must have been a copy paste move. I'm not completely sure about what actually happened, someone with better sleuthing skills might be able to work out what actually happened, but to me, deleting seems to be about the right place. Paper9oll might be able to shed some light on this. Paradoctor (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paradoctor Pinged to response, can clarify what is the queries about? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- From their talk page, it is clear that you have been involved with Deniablities74's draft. Can you confirm that the sandbox content is actually the initial version The Two Sisters (TV series)? Paradoctor (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paradoctor Nope, the initial version of the mainspace article is unrelated to the user draftspace. Thanks and regards, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- So we have a stale draft obsoleted by someone else's unrelated draft having been draft.
- So, lurkers and passers-by, what now? Paradoctor (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paradoctor Nope, the initial version of the mainspace article is unrelated to the user draftspace. Thanks and regards, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- From their talk page, it is clear that you have been involved with Deniablities74's draft. Can you confirm that the sandbox content is actually the initial version The Two Sisters (TV series)? Paradoctor (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete -
a stale draft obsoleted by someone else's unrelated draft having been draft.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Copy of Formula E. Flounder fillet (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This sort of copy is a redundant fork, which is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Text dump copy of Għallis Tower. Flounder fillet (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a useless dump copy. We don't know why the originator used their only edit to do this, but we do know that it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from FIRST Stronghold, 2017-01. Paradoctor (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a redundant fork of an article. Sometimes these sandbox copies are created temporarily in order to edit the article. If so, that use has lapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Copy of List of equipment of the French Army. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a redundant fork of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
September 1, 2024
[edit]- User:PhilippineFootballHistoryMaker/sandbox/YCO Athletic Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:COPIES, from YCO Painters. Paradoctor (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support deletion DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a redundant fork of an article that either never had a purpose or no longer does. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES, from Star Wars opening crawl. Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The only edit made by this editor was to make this copy of Star Wars opening crawl. There are two questions, one of which cannot be answered, and one of which can. Why did the editor do this? What should we do with it? The answer to the second question is the opening bold statement of this entry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES, taken from List of You're the Worst episodes. Paradoctor (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This appears to be a redundant fork of You're the Worst, which is no longer the same as the article (which is why such copies are not permitted). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES Paradoctor (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The copying within Wikipedia was legitimate, because the editor was using the sandbox to improve Adenosine A2A receptor, but this sandbox has now become a redundant fork that does not reflect updates to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
August 30, 2024
[edit]Portal not broad enough in scope to necesitate a portal, not updated since 2022, and entirely encompassed by Portal:South East England DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep — perfectly functioning portal, it doesn't matter that it hasn't been updated recently; there's plenty of pictures and content to get cycled through. No reason to delete.
- Cremastra (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Something being functioning doesn't necesitate keeping it. It had a total of 6 daily pageviews in 2023, sometimes being 0 views a day. DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There are three problems with this portal. First, it is little viewed. It had 6 daily pageviews in the year 2023, while the lead article had 765 daily pageviews. Second, it is not maintained. It relies on subpages in Portal:South East England, specifically on those that apply to Hampshire, and there is no indication that this list is maintained. It includes 68 articles, which is a reasonable number. Third, it uses the obsolete architecture of subpages that are partial redundant forks of pages, and so are not updated when the pages are updated. This can lead to discrepancies such as biographies of living persons being displayed for persons who have died. We don't need portals that display information that is no longer correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep - it's functioning, it is regularly monitored and maintained (by me). The fact it hasn't needed updating in the last couple of years shows that it's a low maintenance portal thanks mainly to automation, that's not an indication that it isn't being looked after. And a county like Hampshire is plenty big enough and broad enough in scope to warrant a portal. Page views are irrelevant, we don't delete stuff on Wikipedia based on page views. And ultimately it does no harm - deleting it would take up more disk space than leaving it alone, it's not using loads of processing power, it offers readers a great way of discovering content, so deleting it would be a net loss to the project. Really sad to see nominations like this happening again, I thought the idiotic "war on portals" was behind us. WaggersTALK 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also it's not true to say it hasn't been updated since 2022. Winchester College was added to the selected articles just a few months ago in November, after reaching Good Article status, for example. WaggersTALK 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- What's this "war on portals"? Portal:Hampshire isn't helping readers discover content (as evidenced by the low pageviews) and it's essentially a smaller duplication of Portal:South East England. Something being "functional" doesn't mean it should be kept. I disagree that it's reguarly monitored and maintained – consider that for WikiProjects (there's no criteria for Portal deletion), they should be marked as inactive if there haven't been any major edits to the main project page in four months. There haven't been any edits to the main portal page since 2022, and no major edits since 2021. So we have a portal maintained only by one person and automatic actions, low pageviews, and another portal that encompasses all the content of this portal.
- The "selected article" section literally comes from Portal:South East England's selection page for its articles. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The main portal page is a framework, it does not need updating. The content is set from elsewhere and I updated some of it just today. WaggersTALK 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I marked this as historical [1] eight years ago, as it was not being used, but that was removed nearly a year later when someone decided to start editing it again. I simply do not think this page is appropriate. A self-selected hall-of-fame, with no clear criteria for inclusion, no apparent rules of any kind, no new entries in over three years, and a talk page that has not been used for discussion of the scope and purpose of the page in fourteen years.
Additionally, there are a number of entries in this list of supposedly great people who turned out to be truly awful people, one of whom still actively trolls Wikipedia on a regular basis, and several others who were socking and vote stacking. In fact, it was two of these offenders that created the hall of fame in the first place. These people do not need a memorial to their deceit or dishonesty hosted on Wikipedia.
There's just too many problems here for WP to continue hosting this. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Case not nearly made. Even assuming that all that is really asked for is blank and archive, keeping the history available, the case is not not nearly made. It is not nearly good enough to delete Wikipedia history on the basis that some are alleged to be awful. It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.
- There is no attempt to substantiate ongoing harm. There is no attempt to argue that all involved, especially the modern editors, are awful, let alone an objective net negative contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.
I'm not sure I understand. I have to write an essay explaining why two banned trolls, one of whom is still actively harassing people over grudges from like 10-15 years ago, are not good people? I mean, that isn't even my only point but to be required to write an essay to justify one deletion discussion is an entirely new concept to me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)- The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS
Well, that's odd because the ARS is still active and I have not in any way proposed shutting the whole thing down. I just don't think we ought to host this one specific page, which has no criteria for inclusion and is therefore just a randomly selected list of AFD discussions that random people have decided to highlight.
- The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
and here's that executive summary you asked for
|
---|
|
Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but, why? What process decides what debates are hall of Fame material? As far as I can tell it is entirely at the whim of literally anyone and there is no process.
- And by "more recent" we are talking about three years ago. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I, for one, hardly see the listing of an editor here as glorifying them, but only as indicating the the ARS glorifies them. If the ARS continues to exist, it can continue to have its heroes, and other editors can ignore the list. If someone wants to delete the ARS itself, I am willing to take part in yet another vote to delete it as not serving any purpose in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal
. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
August 29, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/WikiProject Brandy userbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Project was deleted here and per that discussion, was never really a real project from the start. Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC) ended today on 6 September 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. |
August 27, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Articles by quality statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Transcludable non-template page redundant with User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Palaeontology, which uses a Toollabs tool instead of categories and is regularly updated by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A template that is used only on this page has been TfD'd at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_27#Template:Assessment_row. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- No need to delete. Simply replace the page content with a transclusion of the WP 1.0 bot table, which I have seen in many other projects. This will save fixing the many incoming links. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have implemented that transclusion, in order to update links between category pages. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
August 24, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I nominated this 12 years ago and it was closed as a speedy keep. The fact that this is not historically useful to the workings of the encyclopedia plus the Mediation Committee since closing up shop should justify this page being deleted. Thebirdlover (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Encourage courtesy blanking, but no objection to deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy blank and keep – we just don't delete nominations like that. The more you draw attention to it, the more it will be seen. Graham87 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Mark Historical - No reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Has not been edited in over a decade other than moves and provides no useful purpose to the encyclopedia. Plus the mentee requests deletion. Thebirdlover (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, or mark historical. It's in userspace. It's harmless. No benefit is created by deleting this. Cremastra (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Mark Historical - Who was mentoring whom, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I am the mentee and requested deletion because it is not useful to the encyclopedia and unfairly prejudicial towards my on-wiki reputation. Plus, I was 12 years old at the time of the creation of the page in 2010 so there are also COPPA concerns because my parents did not give me permission to edit on the website prior to my 13th birthday. There is precedent for this, numerous user page edits I made before my 13th birthday were previously suppressed under WP:CHILD. I am not saying all of my contributions before 2011 should be removed, just certain pages that due to my age at the time give a deceptive impression of my abilities as a contributor. --Thebirdlover (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
August 19, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living/Article Guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
No useful content. This page was written in 2009 and has gotten no attention since. There's nothing here worth keeping. Daask (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are not listed as a member of the WikiProject. Why are you trying to manage a WikiProject that you are not a member of?
- If the WikiProject is inactive, maybe it should be archived wholesale. Selective archiving by deletion is not a good idea.
- How did you come across this page? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Historical page of an inactive WikiProject. There's nothing here worth discussing.—Alalch E. 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The nominator appears to be ragpicking. Maybe the WikiProject should be marked historical. Is that what SmokeyJoe means by archived, or do they have a different concept of archival? If the nominator had some reason to come across the page other than ragpicking, maybe they should explain, or maybe not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
August 13, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Premier League (cricket) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary WikiProject that was created in spite of the objections of a number of users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Wikiproject WPL notice. As predicted there, this WikiProject has immediately become dormant, because it is a tournament that runs for less than 1 month a year (and so WikiProject will be dormant for most of the rest of the year). Women's Premier League (cricket) is a cricket tournament, and so a breakaway WikiProject from WP:WikiProject Cricket is not required. Note: I do not support any of the existing breakaway WikiProjects (WP:IPL, WP:PSL, WP:BPL, WP:LPL etc), and will be considering nominating them for merging with WP:CRIC too. As per WP:OSE, the existence of these other WikiProjects is not a reason to keep this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
|