Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Deletion request

I have tried to follow the instructions for deletion request, but the request doesn't look right. The pages I am trying to delete are:

User:Neotarf/Old1

User:Neotarf/Old2

User:Neotarf/Old3

User:Neotarf/Old4

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I took care of it after my initial confusion by some page-move history. DMacks (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for deletion

can someone please complete the process for deletion that I posted here? (I don't want it to show on my history page) Thanks in advance. -- -- -- 02:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This was not necessarily the proper venue, but I've deleted the page, -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. -- -- -- 03:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Need a CSD criteria

Took whole day to go through every single one of current discussions and comment something about each. Overwhelming majority was userpages that were obviously out of scope of our encyclopedia construction project. Overwhelming majority of "deletion debates" had zero to one comments, can we even call these discussions? We need a flexicable enough CSD criteria for getting rid of "user with autobio/promotional/resume edits to userpages with little real contributions" cruft. There is some discussion and RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, but it has gone into silly wiki-process over-engineering about arbitrary limitations concerning editing activity and account/userpage age. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree. Sorry, didn't see this a month ago. The volume of mindnumingly boring obvious deletes, nominated by reliable nominators is huge. I note the opposers at wt:CSD, who I tried to placate with tight definitions, are only passingly interested and inactive at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Own userpage deletion

I unintentionally created a user .js page, which I cannot tag, or redirect, and would like it deleted, if possible. The page in question is here, which was accidentally created for a script I added on User:Reid,iain james/vector.js. This page will do nothing to help, and there is already a script from another user with that name, so the page is completely useless. Could someone please delete that? Thanks. IJReid (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 06:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is User:Physchim62/Crown Copyright Bill suitable for deletion? It is a piece of original research that I suspect is outside the scope of Wikipedia, being more suitable for Meta (as being presumably a proposal for foundation advocacy) or Wikiversity (which accepts original research such as draft Bills). It has already been exported to v:Draft Crown Copyright Bill. I'll don't think I'll have time to nominate it myself. James500 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bundling MfDs and restarting the clock

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community it's been suggested that I MfD 3 user pages that I mentioned there and restart the clock on the entire MfD. I'm not sure how I do this at this stage. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

deletion of Portal:Pokémon

I want to delete it,but because I am a IP editor,so,I can't! I've already tagged it with {{mfd}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.79.232.174 (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirects in userspace

The instructions say that User: pages may be nominated at MfD. I typically associate MfD with handling User space discussions. Currently I am reviewing the many redirects in userspace; typically they are created as something else, and then are replaced with a redirect once the user is no longer interested. Or weird things left in userspace, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AHRtbA==/Commplaint. I view that type of page as a userpage rather than a redirect, with MfD being better suited for discussing them. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this way of thinking. Sometimes new users create really tangled messes spanning multiple namespaces and those cases MfD is the best location for deletion discussion, if it is needed, and it can be hard to unravel the redirect knot, especially if you want to do it exactly by the rulebook down to last detail. Also Special:BrokenRedirects typically contains many broken redirects from userspace. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm of the opinion that userspace redirects should go to RfD. A similar question comes up occasionally with template redirects, which definitely belong at RfD rather than TfD. The only "redirects" that aren't discussed at RfD are category redirects, but they aren't true redirects anyway. Userspace redirects are fairly commonly discussed at RfD, and I don't see a good reason to change that. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft space XFD discussions

If you came here from one of my notes on Project Talk or VPP, thank you! An existing discussion on this top was identified elsewhere, please follow on to: Wikipedia_talk:DRAFT#Process_for_deleting_drafts. — xaosflux Talk 22:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to get some community input on using MFD for Draft: space items, when the deletion reasons are content based (e.g. notability, re-creation of article space items). The audience that reviews AFD differs from the MFD audience, and may have better input on these types of items. To that end, I suggest moving Draft space deletion discussions to AFD. — xaosflux Talk 15:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Much better to have all deletion discussions in one place. I'm always reluctant to propose deletion for Draft articles as it kind of defeats the purposes of AfC but there are basket cases that are beyond redemption. Anything that might reduce the AfC backlog is a good thing in my book.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Not all drafts will be AfC submissions. It's pretty easy to spot those by the giant pink template boxes, and treat them with a little more leniency. However, even with AfC submissions there needs to be a way to delete ones that are unsuitable to be articles. db-g13 is fine for abandoned ones, but there are many that are being worked on that are an non-notable or essay-like topics, and eventually something should be done about them.
Oppose Sorry, I misread the proposal. MfD is the right place, not AfD. Recreation of deleted content is covered. If editors insist on working on drafts that can clearly never become articles and have been informed as much, we have WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer. Not sure why AfC is being talked about here. — Keφr 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    AfC is being talked about here because we are getting an influx of Draft: pages on MFD (as it is the designated venue for Draft: deletion discussions per the page directions). — xaosflux Talk 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The role of draft space is to have a "safe" space where content is not deleted for the same reasons deletions occur in mainspace. Essentially draft writers are exchanging the visibility of mainspace for the security of Draft. Lack of evidenced notability is a reason to decline a draft, not to delete it as we encourage users to improve drafts at their own pace. Yes, there are many hopeless cases in Draft (dealing these hopeless cases are is actually quite an easy part of AfC reviewers' jobs), but unless they are actively harmful to the encylopedia they can remain and eventually disappear via db-g13. These criteria better fit within MfD's scope rather than AfD. --LukeSurl t c 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Error in the instructions?

More than likely, I'm just being dimwitted, but I may have come across an error in the instructions about how to file an MfD. In the second step, using Template:mfd2, it says to enter the following: 

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

Shouldn't that actually be: 

{{subst:mfd2| pg=PAGENAME | text=Reason why the page should be deleted ~~~~}}

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The instructions are correct. The code uses parser functions to get the page name automatically. Note that PAGENAME should be copied exactly like that with eight upper case letters, and not manually replaced with the name of the nominated page. Your suggested code only works if the user makes such a manual replacement. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
So that's the problem! I substituted PAGENAME with the name of the nominated page, and got a mess. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven/Casey at the Wyrm

Firstly, let me say that requiring unregistered editors go through this process is ridiculous. Anons should be able nominate anything for deletion, just like on Wikimedia Commons.

Anyway, here goes.............

User:DragonflySixtyseven/Casey at the Wyrm needs to be deleted because "Distribute freely, but give credit where credit is due!" is NOT functionally equivalent to CC-BY.

Functionally, CC-BY explicitly allows for re-distribution, remixing and usage commercially. "Distribute freely, but give credit where credit is due!" only explicitly allows for one of the three.

Having the page on Wikipedia is functionally equivalent to a copyright violations and needs to be deleted. 197.245.47.92 (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have created the page for you. I see you have notified the author. —PC-XT+ 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I dispute the block-evading user's argument that this either is, or is functionally equivalent to, a copyright violation. I further dispute the block-evading user's argument that the redistribution statement from 1992 is not equivalent to CC-BY. DS (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry user pages

Could someone please move User talk:109.150.216.114 to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/ColonelHenry user pages? I can't create or move pages. Thanks. 109.150.216.114 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussions not showing up

I noticed that there are quite a few MfD discussions that do not appear in that table of page contents. Is there a technical reason for this or do they need to be physically added to the list? I'm sure there are editors who just come by the page and scan through the list of pages under discussion and I think all pages being considered should be listed there and linked to their proper section. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Please give examples of some that are not listed, but which you believe should be. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Redrose64:, the example I was looking at was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch for February 1st but that has been hatted. But there are 6 MfDs on the page for February 1st but only 3 that are listed in the page contents. Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: They're all there: if you look at the table of contents, the discussions for User:World Guitar Rankings/sandbox, User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch and User:DerbyCountyinNZ/Oscars are at 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. The section numbering changes because Burntout123 (talk · contribs) put a ==References== section into Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think I'm going crazy because this is what I see for Feb. 1st and 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3:
  • 2.7 February 1, 2015
  • 2.7.1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea
  • 2.7.2 User:Badshah(Rapper)
  • 2.7.3 User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus
3 References
  • 3.1 User:World Guitar Rankings/sandbox
  • 3.2 User:DerbyCountyinNZ/Oscars
  • 3.3 January 31, 2015
  • 3.3.1 User:Fanficgurl/Jackie Castro
  • 3.3.2 User:Fanficgurl/Michael Castro (singer)
  • 3.3.3 User:HopeDamico15/sandbox
  • 3.3.4 User:AFGHANCELEBS/sandbox
I don't see User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch anywhere. But it could be that the references section messes up the listing and I'm not sure why User:World Guitar Rankings/sandbox & User:DerbyCountyinNZ/Oscars were moved from Feb 1st but I am admittedly new here. Thanks for answering my questions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't see User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch anywhere, because 24 minutes after my last post but 18 minutes before yours, the page was updated by Legobot. If you follow that link, you will see that {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch}} was removed; you may also notice that {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:White Dragon Dynasty}} was moved down from the January 30, 2015 subsection of the Current discussions section, to the January 30, 2015 subsection of the Old business section; this is another aspect of Legobot's normal housekeeping here. The References section does mess up the listing, but only as far as the section numbering is concerned: the sections and subsections are all there, and in the correct order; it's just that some of them have the wrong numbers. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to belabor this point but the reason I posted this question yesterday is that I saw no mention of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch on the page contents yesterday and then noticed other MfDs from Feb. 1st missing, too. But at this point, that case is closed and I'm ready to move on. It just seemed odd to partake in a discussion that was present in the body of the MfD main page but not listed in the contents. Thanks again for all of your answers, Redrose64, it's much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was definitely there, at position 3.2 in the TOC. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion is on at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Splitting up the MfD regarding a proposal to split the scope of this page. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on a Draft PROD proposal

There is currently a request for comment discussing the viability of a proposed deletion system for Drafts, that aims to reducing the load of WP:STALEDRAFT nominations at Miscellany for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_(drafts)#RfC:_DRAFTPROD. Bosstopher (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Malformed or am I just confused?

An AFD on Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke. I assume this latter link is malformed, so I deleted the original notice and think somebody here should delete the latter. As an aside, I believe it was a "revenge" nomination—see the nom's Talk page—and the source (which the nom could not access) definitely proves it's a snow-keep. Also I notice that name-completion on "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing" in the search box leads to lots of articles, so this may be a larger problem, possibly well-known to everyone but me. Choor monster (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting of the nomination, it's better to do that than delete the page just because the nominator made a mistake with the technical aspects. Hut 8.5 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate entry

I made an entry for Draft:Abdulnasser Gharem using Twinkle, but for some reason the script did not complete, and produced error messages. I refreshed the page, but the deletion notification template did not appear, so I repeated the process. It was successful, but now there are two entries on this project page instead of one. I'm not sure if just deleting the extra page which is transcluded here is the right thing to do, or if the Twinkle script may have done other tasks which need to be undone.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the first one which was the one created by the incomplete process, but now they are both gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Should be OK now. It looks like I deleted the second nomination just as you deleted the first one so I've restored the first one. (Neither had any comments beyond the nomination.) Hut 8.5 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I see that you fixed up the link that was pointing to the wrong discussion, so everything should be good now. Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New issue that can end-run MFD

See WP:VPT#Is CSD:U5 Dead?.

Basically, due to a new WMF idea called global user pages, anyone who has ever created a userpage at meta now has a userpage that is a copy of their meta page on every single WMF project, whether they have edited it or even know if it exiusts or not. So, in rare cases, it may be that a userpage that we delete locally will spring back to life, and it may be the exact same page. Or the user who created it, if they are aware of this, could go to meta and deliberately recreate the deleted page there just to make it do so. And here's the really fun part: none of this shows up in the page history, you have to open the page and look at it yourself. I don't believe we need to take any preemptive measures against this, but in the event that it does happen the solution is simple: recreate the deleted page as a blank page and it will override the global page automatically. This only applies to the main user pages (and css and js pages), not their talk page or other subpages, so it's not that big of a deal but it is something we will need to watch for from now on. Thank the Foundation for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Archival link for those late to the party Is CSD:U5 dead. Gigs (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Philo vaporizer/sandbox/Portable Vaporizer (2nd nomination)

Because of an interrupted XFD process, a second deletion nomination page was inadvertently created for User:Philo vaporizer/sandbox/Portable Vaporizer, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Philo vaporizer/sandbox/Portable Vaporizer (2nd nomination). This is redundant to the first nomination page (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Philo vaporizer/sandbox/Portable Vaporizer) and should be deleted. Sorry for the mess. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I've got rid of the duplicate. You can just tag it with {{db-g7}}. Hut 8.5 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient half-finished MFD

Resolved

I'm not an MFD-regular and I don't really know the processes around this stuff, so perhaps someone here can tell me what to do. I came across this weird page earlier, which has an MFD on it from September last year, with one vote from two days later and another from six months afterwards. Six months after that, the MFD tag is still on the page and, as far as I can tell, it has never been posted. Should the tag be deleted, or should it be listed here properly? Thanks for your advice. Relentlessly (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just transcluded it. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Close please?

Resolved

An MFD on a userpage that has run for about two weeks. [1] Vote's are running about 14-4 at the moment and it's acrimonious. Thanks.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing. This normally would suggest not closing. However, given the result is unlikely to change with continued discussion and it's been acrimonious all along and there is no hint that this will change, cutting off discussion mid-stream may be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. But to whatever admin closes this, be prepared for push-back. Disclaimer: I participated in the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
And it has now been closed. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Trouble

I'm having some trouble with some pages I nominated. I placed {{mfd|Rayrayzone}} on several userpages of a blocked user (Rayrayzone), and clicked "this page's entry" to start the discussion, but something went very wrong, and now the discussion page looks like this. Can anyone help sort it out? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 10:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: Sorry for the late reply; it seems that no one watches this page. Simply by adding the tags to the pages, you cannot expect the discussion page to automatically list all the nominated pages. For that, you have to manually produce the list in the :{{pagelinks|Name of page with namespace}} format (one on each line). In addition, the MfD discussion should habe taken place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rayrayzone since it was a userpage you were nominating (and hence the tags to be placed on the pages should have been {{mfd|User:Rayrayzone}}) 103.6.159.76 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy Reality Shows?

Does anyone have any insight in to the trend of "new" primarily single purpose users with fully formatted fantasy reality show tables as their only contributions? What are these being used for? I'd assume some sort of wagering, but not sure how. — xaosflux Talk 17:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Current MfD discussions not showing if earlier than the 18th

I am not seeing any of the pre- Jan 18th MfD discussions at WP:MFD. They are generally unclosed. I can't work out why. I can't see that it is Legobot. I see the same thing using different browsers, different devices, and different service providers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved
There were some bad closing templates placed by SwisterTwister when doing some NAC closures; I think I got them all removed. — xaosflux Talk 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Grumping about some relistings of MfD discussions.

They were down the bottom where they belong, where they have already been reviewed as a waste of time and passed over. Taking a Jan 26 nomination and putting it up in the Feb 05 nominations only stuffs up the reviewing process. It will cause new nominations, which might be important, to be lost with the old.

Please stop it.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's literally no discussion there or no discussion with any real consensus there. The bottom is the Old business section which "should be either closed or relisted above" and I'm relisting them in my admin capacity. I could close them all as no consensus but if this was AFD, CFD, TFD, that would not be proper and a no consensus vote is one that allows for speedy nominations so I don't see what's harmed by relisting. A number of people expressed concerns here over basically nomination-only deletion discussions. In the past, those were deleted since there's no objections (the admin closer isn't supposed to be a vote). Here, I'm at least waiting on someone else to support them. I'm not going to keep these up for 2-3 weeks. If there's nothing after one relisting, I'm going to close it as no consensus but some have gotten more discussion in the second go-around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well please stop it. It is disruptive with no advantages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not disruptive. The advantage is that people do see the discussions at the top of the page and add comments there, notifies admins of when they should be closed plus the "old business" section gets cleared up and is only left with the backlog for admins to close. It's no different than resolving backlogs in AFD, CFD or the like. If you want, take it to ANI as "disruptive relisting" or DRV or whatever. The old business section now only has a few discussions left, all of which are specifically ones in which I've commented not by coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. Please stop it. Don't do it again. The backlog is where they get more attention. Shuffling the order is disruptive. If something needs more attention, find a useful way to advertise it further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This is absurd. Are you going to complain about relisted AfDs taking up space on the daily log? More discussion is a clear advantage in relisting. clpo13(talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. Absolutely. Relisting at AfD has made the daily logs useless for browsing, which is why AfD needs tools such as User:Snotbot/Current_AfD's. It is absurd to think that a relist at MfD is going to cause someone to see a discussion that they would not otherwise see. Instead, it means that the notices are out of any logical order, and thus less useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Based upon this notice removal, I've taken this discussion to ANI. To me this is the equivalent of removing a relisted AFD from the current day's log and demanding that it be left on the week-old log in the bizarre off-chance than someone will go looking there for the discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Reviewing a backlog from the tail end is not bizarre. Do you do new page patrol from the newest first? Thinking that shuffling the listings helps reviewing is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you believe that relisted AFDs should be kept on the original page or should be they move to the section for the date of relisting? For relisting at AFD, TFD, RFD, CFD, they are removed from the page when they were originally nominated and put on the page of the date of relisting. Why not at MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The AfD daily logs have been swamped for so long that it is a lost point. Relisting at WP:RfD, TfD and RM similarly randomises the listing, makes it nearly impossible to spefically review the backlog from the tail end, and is completely a bad idea. WP:CfD get it right by *only* relisting with very good reason. DRV and MR don't relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It also introduces a lot of visual clutter with no meaningful message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • In all other XfD processes, a relisted discussion is located as though it was a new discussion at the time of relisting. (As someone who occasionally relists at CfD, I tend to know.) And at CfD, we generally relist once any nomination where there was no response by anyone else. Due to the way MfD is handled, placing the relisted discussion at the top can only be done by placing a new timestamp at the top of the discussion. If you don't believe me, I invite Legoktm, the operator of Legobot, to give hi/her response. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not a question of how it works, I know how it works. It's an issue of indiscriminate relisting, without meaningful relisting comments, for the purpose of emptying the "backlog" section.
Maybe I have been away from CfD for a while, but as I remember, relisting was only done in practice for cases such as when new information was discovered that could change already given opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not. Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions is pretty clear that little participation and when it's lacking in policy are two grounds for relisting. The reason CFD is so backed up is in part because relisting has to be manually done and partially because it's actually quite a bit after you close a discussion (which can be complicated, see things like this discussion where only one of the three voters other than the nominator actually discuss the mergers). TFD was so bad (deletion of templates can be a mess) that we now allow NAC delete votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Boy we are some of the few editors interested in cleaning up this area. Why even debate this? Just get in an vote delete so that that all important delete vote is included and someone can kill off the page. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is a fair opinion to have but (a) other than general naval-gazing commentary on it, there hasn't been actual consensus for that and (b) as I've suggested, the solution is then to restrict and better define what is "unsuitable" under provision 2 of WP:STALE so that MFD is more restricted. For everyone who thinks I'm some crazy deletionist, I was the one who pushed to make stale mean one year rather than the six months that people were using based off G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. What is the best location for that discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That talk page. WT:UP. I'd then put a notice at WP:VPP and here probably and deletion policy I'd guess. I already moved deletion to number 5 as it should be the last option. "Unsuitable" is too vague for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors matter but this stuff shows up in search engines and some of it is downright inappropriate. Sometimes we can find good stuff to promote to article space but that is hard when we have to wade through garbage that will not go away easily. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I use Google. When I search for info on stale drafts sometimes (not most of the time) the draft space comes up in Google, mainly when the content is unique/hoax. Scrapper sites and mirrors can also pull and publish garbage from userspace. So that non-notable band gets a few hundred mirror hits even from a draft article. 10:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Since they aren't being relisted, I'm closing them as keep. Feel free to take these to DRV in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.228 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think some where kept, and some were reverted since this is a banned user. So have we resolved anything? There's quite a backlog now with a number of them having zero discussions or a nomination and one opposing view. Should we (a) continue to let them remain there until an admin looks at it and makes a decision (likely no consensus and thus relisting anyways) or (b) is relisting with them being put back on the top of the page actually a prudent idea? -- 21:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose allowing closing unattended MfD nominations by an IP.
  • Oppose relisting so as to list on the current date in the absence of a good reason to relist, such as significant new information. Marking old discussions in particular need of new attention, and categorizing them to enable easy navigation is probably a good idea. However, a very weak nomination, no identification of any actual problem, or any reason to not just blank, means to me that it does deserve distracting any other Wikipedian from other tasks. Especially considering that there is activity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts without shame in their intention to separately nominate tens of thousands of old userpages.
  • There was some talk somewhere of "soft deletion" being appropriate for unopposed MfD nominations. If "soft deletion" mean "blank", it has my support. You may assume that I support blanking of nearly every "stale" nomination in which I don't comment otherwise. It is very tedious to repeatedly !vote "just blank, no good reason for administrator deletion given" on seemingly endless nominations of harmless old pages.
I am still attempting to review, looking for things that are more important. It is very difficult given the frequent minimal nomination rationales, and weak cursory supports (eg "questionable", or "not needed") cheaply given by other reviewers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Look, technically, it's up for admins to decide how to resolve these MFDs and even IPs are allowed to NAC discussions. This is written in deletion policy and other than this discussion here, it's been followed as since for probably a decade. The fact is, unattended MFD discussions either should be closed as no consensus or relisted not just kept down there for wherever someone eventually gets around to them. The fact that you personally don't approve of either of these is fine and all but you aren't able to go and demand that all AFD relistings be reversed or demand that NAC closures be overturned as will because of the closer absent DRV or a more serious discussion. At this point, I'm going to go back to closing these as any admin would, which does include relisting those discussions that aren't resolved. If you still disagree on them, that's fine and all but your views are a very minority opinion on how these should be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Look?! Patronising me?
IPs lack accountability. They even lack an implied single identity. Closing these unattended MfDs is contentious. The IP should not be closing them, and I am astounded that you don't agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with SmokeyJoe on this. IPs should not be closing MfDs (or any other XfD, for that matter). WP:NAC notes that a registered editor can close deletion discussions in certain cases. Even established editors should not NAC close a discussion that is, or reasonably could be, contentious. No comment on the relisting issue for now. - Becksguy (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should an MfD nomination be deleted at the discretion of the closing Admin if there is no objections after 7 days?

First of all, please use policy based terms, rather than "junk" or "obvious junk".  Next, see WP:SOFTDELETE at WP:NOQUORUM.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfc|policy|proj|prop|rfcid=5BB54A9}}

Various editors keep bringing up this idea, so here it is

Rational: The vast majority of stuff brought to MfD is obvious junk. Any random person can create a page of garbage with a few clicks, and if they copy paste from elsewhere, they don't even have to write a word. Current practice requires a lot of editor effort: 1. Find and identify the junk 2. Consider an appropriate CSD 3. Maybe be turned down on the CSD by an Admin who interprets the guideline differently 4. List at MfD 5. Wait for one or more other editors to say delete, and often that never happens so it falls in the backlog 6. Maybe see the nomination relisted, with no more comments 6. Admin reviews and closes. If no one else voted delete, current practice defaults to keep regardless of what the Admin thinks! (we need to change this)

It is hard to get editors to participate in evaluating junk, and the ones that do participate often copy paste delete votes on listings just to clear obvious junk. Time voting on junk would be better spend on analyzing potentially notable material.

Precedents: Redirects for Discussion already default to delete with no objection and an Admin that agrees. The same junk in Article Space can be PROD'd and deleted if no one objects and an Admin agrees. In both cases the Admin makes the call on a good faith nomination. MfD should be the same.

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose for userspace pages. Interfering with other's userspace is rude. We have a recent run of deletionists roaming userspace, and they are not be trusted deleting other's work without review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

The recent trouble with MfD being overrun with junk nominations seems to come from recent invigoration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Noting the POV of the WikiProject name, it is to be expected that this WikiProject is has members that overrepresent deletionists. These deletionists are very quick, even non-discerning, in nominating individual pages, and do so with perfunctory rationales.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts would be less of a burden (note that the undeveloped drafts are not a burden) if it could develop criteria for when a page requires deletion at MfD, and if it would collected near identical cases into group nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've thought about grouping nominations into batches - glad you suggested it. The practical problem is that little ties MfD noms together - rarely the same subject, creator, or issue (other then stale). Grouping anything about dissimilar topics (even from the same creator) at RfD always leads to trouble. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
There have been very large groupings at MfD before. It does not necessarily lead to trouble. It does, however, lead to trouble, or failure, if it rapidly becomes apparent that the nominator is non-discerning in nominating. If the deletion rationale doesn't hold true for all listed paged. NB. This is currently the issue at MfD, you are listing many pages with the same rationale, some hold true, some don't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That is your own opinion only. My nominations are quite similar to those of other editors in my estimation. I've put well over 100 grouped redirects to the same target in RfD in one go, but they were all slight variations of each other created together. Please point out any noms at MfD you feel should be grouped, I'm all for it. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not talking about your nominations at RfD. At MfD, there are several editors similarly nominating junk pages with perfunctory rationales, and supporting each others' nominations. Noms that should be grouped are noms that share identical nomination statements. If the only difference is the page name, and the mainspace page that makes it redundant, then that is close enough to identical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notwithstanding SOFTDELETE it has been stated that does not apply to MfD and it is not being practiced at MfD. My proposal would remove most of the need to relist MfDs. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you restate your proposal to clarify that when an MfD has a WP:NOQUORUM after seven days, an administrator has the option to close with a WP:SOFTDELETE.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest we not make these propositions here. It's going to accomplish nothing when these discussions go to DRV if they get overturned there. I've proposed a Draft proposed deletion idea which I suspect will accomplish Legacypac's concerns better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not imagining that an editor who has not logged in for years to work on their stale draft, copy of a real article, resume, or random collection of junk is going to be trying to overturn deletions at DRV. If they do, it's going to be tough. If they are successful, they will get a XfD again if it's still junk. I really like anything that will automate things though. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:SOFTDELETE allows a WP:REFUND.  DRV will quickly close an attempted discussion and refer the editor to WP:REFUND.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual soft deletion section states "If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page." If people want to propose that MFD allow for soft deletion without a relisting that's fine. Hell, I'd probably do it after one relisting if no one cares to argue for it after two weeks but the point all around is that policy is to give more than a week. Plus the fact that I'd restore it if asked. So what's the actual problem here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. As I suggest relisting unattended MfDs is unhelpful, I would support you SOFTDELETING a discussion with no new comments after a week or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Legacypac above proposed action after seven days.  So we have quickly converged in this small sample that an MfD softdelete might occur somewhere between one and two weeks.  However, that one week difference remains unclear.  This might be a question for WT:Deletion process?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't have an agreement on relisting at all. But if relisting is agreed upon and considered appropriate, we can propose a note added to deletion policy there for soft delete after one relisting at MFD due to the low participation in general here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Humorous MFD discussions

Ok, we now have five MFD discussions based on humor. I closed one because it does involve an actual person's userpage. Even if it's a eight year old blocked account, it's still was a person and screwing and joking about that isn't funny in the least. Otherwise, I think the admins here should see if people find these funny or just close them and we can move on. Of all the sections, we have enough headaches and I don't want to see a flood of people's userpages listed here in the vein of "it's funny". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It mucks up the system, and its a pain to figure out what is real and what isn't. On top of that, someone is going to have to clean all this up in a day. And I am sure it won't be the people who are adding them. Further to this, the jokes aren't funny any more, and really lack originality. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all of that but people do enjoy it for some reason. We're left with six today. At least the policy is agreed upon that the pages don't have the tags anymore and it is limited to Wikipedia space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well it's all cleaned up now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Until March 31, 2017 then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Daily subpages and substitution

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion should have separate subpages for each day and Template:Mfd should be substituted rather than transcluded. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree. The listing and the logs are working just fine, and having active MfD discussions added to WP:MFD at nomination enables very easy monitoring of activity at MfD by watchlisting it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral I could care less but SmokeyJoe above disputes the locations of relisted discussions, although he doesn't actually make an RFC about it so whatever the result, he'll have that in his back pocket for the next round of arguments. It could be helpful or not but it's not going to be when we're just here awaiting the next excuse for reverting relistings. Relistings should be conducted like literally every other discussion page, a relisting means that the discussion is re-listed to the current day's log, however it is organized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't see how that had anything to do with relistings. Not sure why an RfC is needed for every improvement in making the place work smoothly.
He wants to create an extra level in the heirarchy: MfD / date / MfD_discussion. I opposed it at WP:MR, but JC went ahead and did it anyway. It means that if you want to watch activity, you have to manually add all future dates into your watchlist. Not a huge deal, just stupid. Having the discussions in date subpages does nothing to help the archiving. Making a change in the archiving, why, what is the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Separating these adds nothing at the moment. I imagine this is related to the relistings dispute above or else it's only an issue of the length of the MFD page. An RFC would be productive if you are going to revert all current consensus because of your personal concerns, expressed one by one, so that we can hash out the actual consensus here rather than drag this out as long as humanly possible. You don't get a veto on all activity here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure of the pros or cons of substituting the template. Can you explain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If all the MfDs for a day were on one page (like RfD is organized) a person could do their checking, then open the day page and vote for multipe MfDs with one edit. It would make combining listings way easier too (in RfD we send each title to RfD then remove the extra headers and sigs in a final edit). It would also reduce the number of pages created in MfD to one per day rather then one per nom. Hopefully I am understanding correctly. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree on both these parts. {{mfd}} is never meant to stay on a page for long, subst'ing it just dumps extra wiki text to the page. As for list on MFD, watch listing the main page is so useful to watch for nominations, so no change. — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    If you want to discuss making this page less busy, I'm still in support of moving any sort of DRAFTs to any other process. — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As they are nominally mainspace content, they could be sent to AfD, where I expect the AfD would be very unimpressed.
I suggest a process on a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But I actually think that WP:AfC should be shut down, DraftSpace done away with as a bad idea, and autoconfirmed, which is required for mainspace page creation, changed to require 100 mainspace edits. The hypothetical newcomer with a great article on their finger tips can use {{help}}, but almost always, a newcomer is far better advised to learn about contributing by editing existing articles first. AfC is producing very little quality material compared to the amount of cruft, and dealing with the cruft is taking more volunteer time than the little bit of quality material is worth. Either that, or just ignore the cruft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's just semiprotect the entire project, then. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Not the same. Anyone can edit. Restrict new article creation to users with 100 edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a wild idea but feel free to propose that if you want. I have no idea how you plan to stop the creation of new pages if new users can edit. They'll just take over current pages and we're stuck policing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It is an old and supported idea. WMF is against it. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. Note the opposition to the opposite idea here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anonymous_page_creation.
It is already the case that newcomers can't create pages until they have made 10 edits and they are 4 days old. Changing 10 to 100 mainspace is not, I think, wild. More importantly, newcomers are over-facilitated by AfC encouraging them to create new drafts and not under-encouraged to get some editing and content building experience first.
Does AfC require a reference for new articles? How about speedy deletion of AfC pages that are old and never had a reference? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As to the claim that {{mfd}} isn't meant to stay on a page for long, neither are any of the other XfD tags, yet some of them are subst'ed; and we can simplify the MfD template in a similar way to what I did with the {{cfd}} template - moving most of the code to a different template, while the directly-used template would have source-comments telling users not to remove the tag. It should be noted that currently, all non-speedy deletion, other than MfD and FfD, uses substituted templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for improving dealing with drafts, but making mfd less busy is not a good reason as mfd is not very busy now. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

MFD when page qualifies for speedy deletion

I see a number of pages that have been nominated at miscellany for deletion where speedy deletion is in order. One is a re-creation after a formal deletion discussion at WP:AFD. Why not tag it as G4? It is true that the author keeps making minor but not substantive tweaks to it, and that I can't see the originally deleted article. (Maybe the invisibility of the deleted article, except to admins, is why MFD is being used in place of CSD.) There are numerous stale drafts currently at MFD. Why not mark them for G13? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't usually recreation of the same content, more like userification after AFD. In that case, if the purpose of that was for improvement, then it's not a G4. Also G13 is explicitly only for Articles for Creation drafts. The current proposal to expand it is largely going opposed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Use of G4 on old unaltered deleted then userfied content I think would be broadly approved.
  • Use of MfD where G13 will eventually apply to me is contrary to the consensus established when we created G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't G4 userfied copies of AfD'ed content because we do allow for the possibility that a user may actually succeed in improving the article enough to prevent G4ing it in the mainspace. The time delay in G13 is designed to allow the user time to work on the article, so we shouldn't delete it it until the time has passed - 6 months currently, although I wouldn't be opposed to reducing it to 3 months. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue comes up when it's repeatedly resubmitted on a weekly or more basis which will prevent any G13 deletion. I think article deletion is preferable to blocking the user (harder if the problem is IP users) and then waiting it out. Otherwise, no I don't think "MFD this so we aren't waiting another month before G13 comes into place" is a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
MfD it once; after that, resubmissions are subject to G4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
MfD and what? MfD to delete it? Or MfD just to have it taken to MfD? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry I just closed as keep even though it was an issue of repeated submissions and the MfD at least seems to have knocked some sense into the editor to slow down but I don't know if that ultimately will be better or not, we shall see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If these pages tend to survive MfD, we certainly shouldn't speedy delete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I promise to try to be receptive of nominations that include the words "unimproved resubmissions". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's minor. A lot of those could also be solved by blocking the user for being disruptive but I'm not certain that's a better approach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on proposed RfC

@Legacypac, Ricky81682, and SmokeyJoe: Given the persistent disagreement over what to do with stale userspace drafts and the volume of these drafts up for deletion, I think an RfC to determine the appropriate course of action in various cases is in order. I have been drafting it at User:A2soup/MfD RfC - let me know if you think it looks good. Mainly, does it pose the question clearly and accurately, is it neutral, and is it likely to produce a clear and useful result? I hope to start the RfC on this talk page ASAP, probably in two days at most. A2soup (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Looking, thanks. It might be missing the point, that "STALE", per se, alone, is not sufficient justification for making an MfD nomination. The problem is what is expected of an MfD nomination. Is it OK for anyone to throw out there a page without making effort to articulate a reason for deletion? A justification for why not (a) ignore it; (b) blank it; (c) redirect to the superior page. Where a CSD criterion is applicable, MfD is a good place to educate. We don't want over-eager non-applicable CSD tagging. The RfC currently appears to be closer to the form of a checklist that the nominator should have gone through before nominating. Where nominating at MfD it the recommendation, some advice on how to articulate the problem would be good. Inarticulate nominations for non-obvious problems is a frustration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The RFC is the wrong way to go. The discussion should probably return back to WT:UP since we are really just arguing about the wording (and meaning) behind point 5 of WP:STALE (currently, "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion") and thus I presume when deletion is appropriate. We can't really use an RFC to prescribe deletion policy here in general since admins are going to close it on a discussion-by-discussion basis based on the people who vote within each discussion. I hope it's obvious that my closings as an admin are quite different than my actual views but that's the point, an RFC will never solve the issue until there's at least some level of explanation when deletion does makes sense and that must be explained on a discussion-by-discussion basis and argued out until there's an actual policy separating the situations. If the RFC consensus differs on the patent nonsense criteria or people think G1 or G2 shouldn't apply here, the place to discuss that is WT:CSD not this talk page. It's the same issue I have with all the relistings debates; in the end we will have nothing resolved because the people oppose to deletion don't have any concrete rule about it other than "it feels wrong to me" which will never resolve anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I just feel a bit of a pest going through MfD and !voting to Keep every page nominated for failing GNG, for example. I figured that was breeding animosity and was almost disruptive (although I guess from the other point of view, the noms are disruptive), so I wanted a mandate to either keep doing it or stop. A2soup (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There are two or three good reasons to Keep something at MfD 1. It has value to the project, generally for mainspace or 2. Someone is actively working on bringing it to mainspace. 3. For attribution reasons or some other good policy reason the page should be kept.
Votes and comments about faulty nominations, wasting time, no rational given etc only annoy other editors and cause trouble. How would you feel if your Keep votes and other posts were ridiculed as faulty, a waste of time to read, and lacking rational? Further I don't see the editors makimg these pronouncements actually working on cleanup, but spending their time telling others how they are doing the cleanup wrong. Just try that at home with your spouse or roommate and see what reaction you get. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You need to distinguish disagreement from ridicule. If someones says that a rationale is invalid, that is disagreement and not ridicule. Saying that deletion is unnecessary is not ridiculing the proposal to delete. To your last point, if your cleanup involves MfD discussions, then editors !voting in those discussions are participating in the cleanup. A2soup (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback. I see from Ricky's point that a big RfC about when deletion is appropriate is unnecessary/unuseful given that each discussion is closed based on arguments in that particular discussion anyways. Accordingly, I have started a much more focused RfC on which arguments are valid in MfD discussions, in particular whether notability guidelines apply in userspace or draftspace. You can comment on it here. A2soup (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed ridicule if you repeatedly and without any evidence or policy mock MfD nominations. Further, voting to keep garbage is not useful participation. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Calling out poor rationales in discussion is the responsibility of the participants. The deletion processes are not rubber stamping. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Disagreement isn't mocking. For example, I've disagreed with you at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015. You made some (very understandable) factual assumptions that severely misled you. I don't think that I said anything there that counts as mocking ("derisive or contemptuous; teasing or taunting"). Accurately identifying someone's factual errors isn't mocking, even if the original person is embarrassed to discover that he made a simple mistake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say "you're wasting time" and "no reason given" is mocking the nominator or at least intentionally belittling the nomination itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The onus is on the nominator to make a case for deletion. Where no serious attempt has been made to do so, "no reason given" is an appropriate statement. If someone repeatedly makes nominations with loose statements that take time to investigate, and upon investigation there is no serious case for deletion, they are wasting reviewers time and it is appropriate to say so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
If the nominator missed something it is appropriate say "I found xyz when I searched this way." I hope that closing admins take these ridicule style statements with no evidence to back up the assertions into account when assessing the MfDs. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no shame in missing something. There is in making nominations that lack any rationale for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there's no shame in missing something. We all make honest mistakes.
I don't think that "no rationale given" is mocking or belittling (assuming that no rationale was actually given). It appears to be a straight statement of facts, akin to "this nomination is incomplete" or "this nomination wasn't transcluded to the correct page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
"No reason for deletion has been given." and " This nomination is a misuse of MfD." are uncivil insulting and belittling statements by Smokey [2]. I don't talk that way about his edits except to show how insulting his comments are back and next time he makes such statements his entire post will be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • So, your intention is to ignore the substance of the communication and escalate behaviorally?
They might be considered overly uncivil, if it weren't for the fact that you are steadfastly ignoring my input.
Your weak-rationaled MfD nominations (that subset, not all) are being roundly criticized. An RfC addressing your weak rationales, listed at WT:N, is seeing you universally disagreed with. Maybe you should ease up?
And what are you actually doing? You seem intent on having deleted every old user's subpages. I have tried and failed to find out what systematic method you are following, it appears none. Under the guise of an inactive WikiProject on Abandoned Drafts, you are unsystematically working to have deleted every departed user's userpage? In terms of community collegiality, that is an extremely bad thing to do. Consider again, Wikipedia:Editors matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Your input is not always that helpful and has become insulting and frustration. I suggest you read through WP:UP and particularly the sections about what you may not host on your user pages. You are well aware of and vocally opposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts which is the source of most MfD nominations. This project is trying to get all WP:STALE drafts checked and either removed or promoted. I'm not deleting everything, I've promoted many articles. You prefer to WP:OWN MfD so maybe just bypassing your playground is the best plan. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Many thanks for your promotions. You're doing really good work finding those. I just wish you didn't see it as a binary between promotion and deletion. And, even after all this, I am still confused as to what benefit you hope to bring the project by deleting every non-promotable draft. I have asked you this several times and not gotten an answer. If I knew your goal, I could better work with you to achieve it. Can you please just tell me - what benefit are you trying to bring to the project by deleting non-promotable drafts? A2soup (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've explained this before - there are 34,000 stale drafts left. They need to be sorted and most deleted to find the ones that are useful. When one cleans a house one does not rearrange the dirt and garbage continually, you remove the stuff you don't need so you can find and use the good stuff. Right now user draft space is full of empty boxes, rotten food, old notes, and yes a few great articles (but you can't find those efficiently if you have to check and recheck all the junk). How about taking a section of one of the lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts and processing a 100 pages. Until you DO this work you will never understand the challenges, and pronouncements on how others should do it are just annoying and quite ill considered.

Could this template become an essay?

I invite watchers of this page to participate in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Template:User talk before you block. This discussion is for a template, but the reason why I am asking for input from watchers of WP:MFD is because the way the template is currently built, it could possibly be converted to an WP:ESSAY in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, a point which regulars of this noticeboard may be familiar. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Second MFD

A draft was proposed for MFD a few months ago, as being tendentious resubmitted and getting no closer to establishing notability. The rough consensus at the time was Keep. However, the draft has been resubmitted more times and declined more times, and another reviewer says that no progress is being made. The question is what is the exact procedure for submitting it for a second MFD. Should be previous MFD be reopened, or will a new MFD tagging automatically create a second MFD discussion page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I talked the editor concerned through the way to start a new MfD on their user talk page. I found the instructions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion a bit unclear about how to create a second or subsequent discussion subpage (step II). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ricky81682. I eventually used the code from the template, but the code specified in the instructions is {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ and when I used and previewed that, the link to the article that was created at the top of the subpage included the "(2nd nomination)". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_9&oldid=1137424421"