Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	15	15
TfD	1	2	7	10
MfD	0	1	0	1
FfD	1	4	10	15
RfD	0	0	56	56
AfD	0	0	13	13

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

May 16, 2025

Draft:Seal of Gorkhaland

This draft, as it stands, seems to be an AI-generated hoax. Nothing of the content of this draft is verifiable or matches up with whatever little has been written on this topic - five of the six references in this page return 404 errors, except ref 4, which links to a non-existent website. The general tone of the draft is also reminiscent (to me) of AI-generated writeups. Bringing this to MfD as this isn't a 100% clear-cut case which would qualify for WP:G3 speedy deletion. Java Hurricane 19:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certainly a hoax, nothing on the web comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reference 4 is just a different type of fabricated URL than the other five. In reference 4, the artificial insanity invented the web site rather than inventing the URL at an existing web site. That is a distinction without much of a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fabrication of references indicates a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per others. Looks like WP:BOLLOCKS. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The seal does exist, see Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, but when all the sources provided are made up and the draft is likely AI generated it's better to start from scratch. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Read a little of the Guildines

Poorly written, created by a user who needs to spend more time reading the guidelines themselves, if their talk page is any indication. Doesn't link to any actual guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline nonsense by now-NOTHERE blocked editor. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us anyway have no taste for guildines. (Me, I'll take sardines, thanks.) Superfluous; delete. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would suggest to userfy if the creator hadn't been indeffed since it looks to me like a competence issue rather than NOTHERE and I would want to err on the side of not biting, but it looks like we're well past that point, so this should just be deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not nonsense, very close to it. Indicates a lack of ccompetence. As an old man, I did enjoy the photo of an old man reading a paper newspaper. Nostalgia. Cullen328 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete or humorify Oreocooke (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a very good idea to read the guildlines (which are union rules) of the guild to which you belong. Don't waste your time reading the guildlines of another guild; just treat their members with respect. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Sarsenet says, borderline nonsense by a user who is blocked for being a nonsensical user. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:World of T-Shirts

Would fail GNG, seems to be almost entirely negative in tone (or at least created with the intent to disparage the subject - note the user who asked for this article to be undeleted is a VOA, with a disruptive/offensive username, and with a suspicious editing pattern), photo appears to be a copyvio, I could go on. Furthermore, there is a subreddit dedicated to this individual where commentators write disparaging messages and make reference to this page, so there is a risk of potential canvassing. Patient Zero^talk 02:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The account who asked for undeletion is a vandalism-only account so there is no chance of this being improved, on top of that the article is fairly negative about a clearly non-notable individual and there is no point of keeping this around. Sohom (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Per nom. Given the significant potential for this draft article to be used as a vector for harassment against a non-notable living person, it seems advisable to salt. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack page. I disagree with the decline of the G10, but here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to get some reassurance on that. I wasn’t sure if G10 applied where the topic is a BLP and there are sources within the article? Patient Zero^talk 04:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Failing GNG is not a reason to delete a draft, but either G10 or other BLP violations are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think that it's an attack page, but it still has too many BLP violations. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to come across as trying to change your view (because you’re more than entitled to it!), attack pages can absolutely be subtle in tone. This doesn’t have the hallmarks of a clear-cut attack page, for sure, but my personal belief is that the intent behind this draft article is to disparage. See lolcow for a further definition, but that is effectively what this subject is, in modern parlance. Patient Zero^talk 04:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whalestate/copy of article on the Epic of Gilgamesh

According to a ten-year-old edit summary, this was created in case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh was successful, which is an improper way to work around consensus, loses article attribution, and the user who copied it has been indefinitely blocked and won't likely be doing anything with this copy in any event. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is useless and works around consensus. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidwr/Success Academy Charter Schools version 555262670

Can't be a userspace draft for over a decade, has copied content from Success Academy Charter Schools and the user is indefinitely blocked. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that the creator is not only indefinitely blocked but banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, this userspace fork indeed appears to have absolutely no potential for usefulness of any sort to even its creator. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ea-Nasir/sandbox6

Is a copy of Circassian Revolution that can't be left in userspace indefinitely, and the user who created it is indefinitely blocked. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We need U6 to deal with these copies of articles in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ea-Nasir/sandbox3

Is a copy of Jembulat Boletoqo that can't be left in userspace indefinitely, and the user who created it is indefinitely blocked. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a copy of an article in user space. These are not permitted. We need U6 to deal with these. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 13, 2025

Wikipedia:Transliteration integrity

AI-generated essay with only tenuous connections to Wikipedia policies (the bit about redirects in other languages). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline incomprehensible garbage. Obviously has no project value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilviaASH (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not need AI generated essays. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know for a fact that this essay was generated by artificial intelligence. I can tell that it either was generated by artificial intelligence or reads like it was generated by artificial intelligence. (If other human editors think that your writing is being written by a robot, you need to change your writing style.) Do not salt the title. (No one has suggested salting.) Transliteration integrity is important, and is too important a consideration to be described by a robot. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Wait for NickySuper9 (talk · contribs) to reply before deleting. The user has an edit history connected to transliteration, and edits on other language Wikipedias. The page may be legitimately useful to him. It should not be in projectspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NickySuper9 is an old account that is only sporadically active. They may not see this within the week. Pointing to WP:AGF, while waiting for them to answer the question on whether it is an AI dump, unsourced, or their own work, and for what purpose, I suggest “Userfy and blank”. If it is an AI dump, ask them to tag it {{Db-u1}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless garbage from a WP:LLM. Java Hurricane 19:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 12, 2025

Wikipedia:AF (disambiguation)

Shortcuts are ambiguous by nature. Abbreviations, the vast majority of the time, could stand for or potentially point to many targets. They are also editor facing, as opposed to reader facing; we can expect editors to grasp the notion when becoming familiar with them and our back-end processes. We do not disambiguate them except in very rare and special cases where history or circumstance makes it necessary for navigation. This instance is nowhere near that realm of consideration. Retaining this would set a poor precedent. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A hatnote on Wikipedia:Edit filter is probably sufficient for each of these alternatives, but also I don't think this disambiguation poses any problems. I will say, though, that User:Justjourney should probably have waited until the deletion discussion about Wikipedia:Assume faith concluded before creating this. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The purpose of disambiguation pages should be to help the reader of the encyclopedia find the encyclopedic article that she is looking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally argue that they're also useful for new editors who have gone from being a reader to being an occasional editor and a curious reader of project space content. Speaking for myself, I definitely got more into editing the encyclopedia and learned how to better participate here by reading project space essays, and I think that project space could do with being a little more organized in the interests of being welcoming to people who've never contributed before but have just started or are thinking about starting.

This disambiguation page isn't necessarily useful in that regard, but on principle I think disambiguations and hatnotes should be allowed to serve the same general purpose in project space as they do in mainspace (in mainspace they're obviously saying "you, reader, might be looking for this" and in project space I feel they more imply "you, prospective editor, might want to also see this"). silviaASH (inquire within) 02:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no historical variation in use requiring disambiguation. I agree with the poor precedent of disambiguating shortcuts as to what they could have been. Disambiguated shortcuts happens when there is a history of different uses, eg WP:S.

If disambiguation is not justified, a hatnote is not justified. Hatnotes are more intrusive in the prime real estate of a page, making them much worse than a never-wanted disambiguation page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 11, 2025

Wikipedia:Culture of disrespect

This essay claims there is a "community consensus" based on an admittedly small sample, and fosters an attitude that is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy (See WP:CIVIL). Attempts to characterize it as a "humorous essay" have been removed, as the author has stated that they are "serious" (see diff). Even if it is claimed to be expressed "ironically," it contributes to a toxic atmosphere for newcomers to Wikipedia, especially given its presence in the Wikipedia namespace. Newcomers would generally not understand the distinction between a policy and an essay, and would be likely to get the impression that a cabal of "experienced editors" feel that policies do not apply to them, to the point that they see no problem with telling someone editing in good faith to "go fuck yourself." I fail to see what value this essay adds to Wikipedia, but I can definitely see how it could easily be misinterpreted and do damage to the project. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd nomination. CIVIL does not mean one can't voice opinions about serious systemic problems in the editing environment. We are not required to have what you consider good attitudes, or to remain silent with what you consider bad ones. Stop trying to suppress dissenting essays—that's what would "do damage to the project". Yes, the essay is anything but humorous. By the way, it existed on my user page for quite awhile until a different, quite experienced editor saw it and made it an essay in the WP space. Thank you for advertising this essay, I've always felt it needed more attention. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to express your views in a civil manner. Nobody is disputing that. I agree with commentators below that the essay in question is inflammatory. If it were userspace content, I would find it distasteful but acceptable in that context. If it is going to be in the Wikipedia namespace, there needs to be a higher bar. Wikipedia has a reputation (unfortunately) for being a rather inflammatory and unwelcoming environment. This is a tragedy, and we need to do more to promote a positive atmosphere for those who would wish to dedicate any amount of their time to its improvement. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or alternatively, userfy without leaving a redirect). It seems here that Mandruss is seeking to get away with having an unpopular and inflammatory opinion and claim immunity to criticism by saying it is "ironic", which is inappropriate and disruptive. Sarcasm and irony fall under the banner of humor, and Mandruss's conduct surrounding this essay violates the spirit and goal of the longstanding consensus reflected at WP:HREQ. I'd strongly prefer to delete this essay because I similarly see no project value in it, but if consensus for deletion is not attained, then it should be userfied, without leaving behind any Wikipedia space redirect to it to lessen the possibility that new editors stumble upon it. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping the editor who created the essay, as his subversive, conspiratorial activities apparently need correction. He's less active these days, but he might receive the ping in time to comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit, but rewrite it to be serious, not ironic. Keep, because it is a multi-authored project-related opinion, and a quite serious one at that. Rewrite to be serious because the humour/irony is not very good and can confuse too easily. It’s also an effort to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
Delete - That is, delete the current version of the essay as not humorous or ironic and as divisive and inflammatory. Deletion will not salt the title, so that it can be rewritten to be serious. An editor who wants to start with the current version can copy it to their computer before this MFD is closed. Edit or Rewrite are not workable closes, but are reasonable actions that can be taken by an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Rewrite entirely. This one is tricky. On one hand, there is no problem with an essay about either the reality of people being rude online, times where being rude might still be "okay" despite civility rules, or both. On the other hand, it's absolutely not this rambling wreck of an essay. If people are okay with it, I could take a shot at rewriting it, but I don't think there's much lost from just userfying it either. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reminded myself that I semi-retired some time after this essay was created. One of the tenets of my semi-retirement is that I avoid trying to help improve the larger problems in the editing environment; inertia is too strong a force. At en-wiki, apathy is beneficial to one's mental well-being, and my motto is now DGAF.
So I now regret commenting here at all. Delete, userfy, suppress constructive discourse in whatever way you deem appropriate, rewrite because you don't like my choice of rhetorical style for this case, or leave it alone; I DGAF. Semi-retirement is remarkably freeing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:THBrussULB

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=&rev1=814378527&page2=&rev2=814378900 Paradoctor (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a copy of an article in user space. These are an attribution problem and are redundant forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The unicodes of july 2025

This page contains speculation about supposed Unicode releases of unused Cyrillic characters. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this page should be deleted. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See WP:NDRAFT and WP:LUDA. Drafts are not required to abide by most content policies and there is no issue requiring immediate deletion here as far as I can tell. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a useless draft. More volunteer work is done in reviewing useless drafts to verify that they are useless than would be done by ignoring them and letting them expire. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. I agree that this probably didn't need to be taken to MfD, but at the same time there's no point in its continued existence. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Within the scope of draftspace. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 6, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NoahMusic2009/Userboxes/Falangista

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:NoahMusic2009/Userboxes/Falangista

Nomming this s it was recently noted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dictator Userboxes, Falangism represents the ideological basis for Francoist Spain - while the prior nomination that included a Francoist userbox (among others rather haphazardly) was closed as no consensus, Falangism is associated with the initial, openly fascist ideology of the Nationalists in the 1930s, as opposed to "Francoism" which refers to the more bland strain of authoritarian that became the de facto status quo under Franco. The userbox uses a photo of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, who is refered to as a "Spanish fascist politician" in the first sentence of his article. Even if there is some room for ambiguity on the Francoist userbox, this is a pretty clear violation of WP:NONAZIS --Iostn (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONAZIS. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 01:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. WP:NONAZIS does not say anything about using userboxes, and it is a essay. Then, how do you spot one? Well if it uses this userbox you have a strong hint. If you forbid the userbox, they'll go undergroud. Having bad/wrong opinions on some things must not exclude one absolutely. A fascist / racist may do fine articles on... food, sport, ... if they add fascist / racist rants, you revert, then ban. Removing the userboxes solves nothing. - Nabla (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, given it is unused, I say delete, by WP:Beans. No need to encourage people to assume such identity. - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I agree it violates WP:NONAZIS. I also agree with Nabla's point. We don't want any Falangists or fascists in general to feel compelled to edit. The Sophocrat (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as an obvious violation of WP:NONAZIS. Just for the record, I also voted delete at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dictator Userboxes. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 09:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC) ended today on 18 May 2025. 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.

April 12, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abortion survivors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abortion survivors

WP:POVFORK WP:SOAPBOX CFCF (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration - per "it is unlikely to ever be a viable article" WP:NMFD with consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_149#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts. CFCF (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am very disappointed in those who have voted to keep this based on an inaccurate interpretation of the non-policy essay WP:NDRAFT. This will inevitably lead to far more work for everyone involved, and is disrespectful in the very least towards the author of the draft - who will continue to waste time on something that will never be moved to main-space. I am recusing myself from this discussion, but would implore those who make the distinction between draft-space and article-space to think deeply about the damage is done, on multiple fronts, by keeping something that will never be a viable article. CFCF (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah this page is just not right, hard to point to why exactly. The topic of "failed abortions" is probably notable however I feel like that may already be covered in our abortion page (I did not check) and if we wanted to create an article about this topic "failed abortion" would probably be a more appropriate term and I would expect the article to be about the effects on the fetus, effects on the mother, statistics, societal issues etc. I don't think the current way that this draft names survivor and talks about medical issues they have is compliant with WP:MEDRS either. Policy wise, I agree with CFCF. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"hard to point why exactly"

Maybe because it's a draft and not a final article. DocZach (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No actually that doesn't have much to do with it honestly. As I pointed out, the name of the draft itself and much of the content is not appropriate. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero chance that this could ever be a valid article. Zero chance that anybody trying to write about this topic (insofar as there is a topic here) neutrally would find anything here useful as a starting point. At first I thought the nomination was a bit lacking in detail but actually it isn't. POVFORK and SOAPBOX cover it perfectly well. Being British, I paid particular attention to the UK section and, even taking what it says at face value, these are not "survivors". The POV is obvious with foetuses being described as "infants". Looking at the rest of the article, I see tables which seem to be there solely to pad the article and create an illusion of rigour. Oh, and to bulk out the reference list with Reliable but irrelevant sources. Peering through the fog of nonsense I see nothing of value here. Even the title is preposterous. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this draft makes some pretty extreme claims about living people and backs them up with poor sources, some of them extremely poor. That makes for BLP issues. I even see Fox News on the list. That's so far from being a Reliable Source that it almost damns the article by itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to refute the claim that this is not deletable as it is a draft that might one day be of some use. This is not that. The POV here is too extensive for this to be considered a legitimate draft. This is advocacy and not a legitimate use of Wikipedia's resources. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a notable subject,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] though it is obviously unfinished and needs work (e.g., to rephrase "fighting for its life", which is in a few hundred articles but not IMO ideal encyclopedic tone for any biography). Outside of the medical sources, which are mostly focused on how to prevent unintended live births, much of this subject is covered via media-friendly anecdote,[9] or about the film October Baby,[10] or about the US Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act bill, but occasionally it's more overtly political (e.g., a politician's stance[11]).
CFCF, the usual goal with a POVFORK is to merge the article back to the original. Did you have a merge target in mind? Late termination of pregnancy#Live birth is the only thing I've thought of. If there aren't any plausible merge candidates, then I think it needs a new name. Abortion survivor seems to be ambiguous, as it is used in advocacy literature to describe women who obtained abortions, family members of the woman (e.g., "sibling abortion survivors"), babies born alive during abortion procedures, and even women who intended to get an abortion but changed their minds.[12] Failed abortion is also ambiguous (being used to describe both unintended live birth and unintended continuation of pregnancy). Perhaps Unintended live birth during abortion or Fetal survival of abortion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for CFCF but, if there is more to say about this than would fit in the main Abortion article then having an article called Failed abortion (or similar) seems perfectly reasonable. The fact that it could cover all aspect of the topic, rather than just the one that is being pushed in this draft, seems like a good thing. The more specific titles suggested could be seen as legitimising or endorsing the POV that is being pushed here. That said, I don't think that a merge is required anyway. This draft is not worth merging. Picking out any valid sources and using them to write neutral content in either a new or existing article seems more productive than trying to straighten this out in a merge. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was very brief in my nomination, because as DanielRigal says, I also think those policy links cover the issue with this draft well enough. WhatamIdoing, I do think you are correct in that one could conceivably write an article on the legitimate topic, or just a subsection of another article - using high quality sources. However, I do not think that any of the material from this draft is useful. I mean you apparently were able to find considerably more relevant sources from what I take was a cursory literature search. CFCF (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a little while looking in the obvious places. It was enough to make me dislike the current title.

I don't think that further expansion of Abortion is a good idea. For one thing, that article is developing a WP:SIZE problem. Also, most induced abortions have no risk of unintended live birth because they happen at a much earlier stage. Survival, even survival of of a single day, only happens with a Late termination of pregnancy.

In terms of what Wikipedia needs: We have articles on Gianna Jessen and the Oldenburg Baby, who were both born during attempted abortions and lived to be adults. We have articles about related laws, such as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and a list of Born alive laws in the United States. I think we should have an article (or a section) that all of these related articles could link to, so people can find out what it means when we say that Kermit Gosnell "was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive". A redirect to Late termination of pregnancy#Live birth might be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the redirect suggested by WAID. As I mentioned above, this topic is notable, however the current draft is not a representation of what an article on this topic should look like. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would not be sufficient because this is not only relevant in late terminations of pregnancy. Late terminations of pregnancy most often refer to abortions after viability, but abortion survival can and has occurred prior to viability. There are a plethora of reliable sources that address abortion survival and live births after attempted abortions, including official government statistics, medical studies, and news articles. There are books about the topic, laws around the world that address it, and even movies (see October Baby). This topic was not addressed at all (other than one small part) in the abortion article, nor would the amount of material needed for the topic even fit in it. CFCF seems to have just picked two random policies without any explanation to propose deleting this draft because he doesn't like its content or title. DocZach (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing ^ DocZach (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe this is just semantics, but if an individual survives being born, then it couldn't have been born "prior to viability". Maybe the birth was "prior to the average estimated viability", but not prior to actual viability, as proven by the fact that the baby lived. Babies that live are always viable; that's what the word viable means.

Unless you mean for this article to cover abortion attempts that did not actually end the pregnancy, either intentionally in the case of Selective reduction (I saw a source talking about a case of Survivor guilt for the surviving sibling, so it might be verifiable) or accidentally in the case of an ineffective abortion procedure? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps (again this is a maybe) a different article could be made, however that does not mean that this draft doesn't qualify to be deleted. Remember to WP:AGF, CFCF is a well established editor and I don't think it's a fair representation of him to state that he "picked two random policies without any explanation to propose deleting this draft because he doesn't like its content or title". IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Drafts should be assessed for notability through the AfC process, not through MfD. The main relevance for MfD purposes is the claim that this draft violates WP:BLP; however, I don't really see any major BLP issues here - the main area of concern here would be the celebrity survivors bit, but that is all cited. This is a draft so it is obvious it would be a work-in-progress; allow the creator to work without mucking around. Curbon7 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to allow an editor to waste their time on a draft so compromised by POV that it has zero chance of being promoted to an article? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD is not AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I think you should pay attention to the word draft, that might be very helpful for you. The article is actively being worked on and it is not nearly finished. Just because you are personally upset by the topic or because you don't see a need for it does not give you the right, in any way, shape, or form, to delete a draft that has not even been moved to the mainspace yet. You have cited absolutely no relevant policies to justify deleting a draft article of this nature, and this seems more retaliatory and bad faith than anything else. DocZach (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help you guys out, abortion survivor (and survival in regards to live-births following an abortion) is a term used by many different reliable sources:

Washington Post:

Gianna Jessen, who survived her mother’s attempted abortion, testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary Hearings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/27/the-only-reason-i-am-alive-is-the-fact-that-the-abortionist-had-not-yet-arrived-at-work/

BBC:

The failed abortion survivor whose mum thought she was dead [...] Melissa - who has written a book about her experiences - says she only found out she was an abortion survivor when her sister in her adoptive family let it slip during an argument.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373

NBC NEWS:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy. Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise readied for the procedure. Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl. What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29037216

CNN:

DeSantis attempted to shed his reputation as a cold and stiff debater by forcefully speaking directly to Americans at home, often pointing directly at the camera, and by sharing anecdotes from an abortion survivor and a mother whose son died from fentanyl poisoning.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/23/politics/takeaways-republican-debate/index.html

THE TELEGRAPH:

Gianna Jessen was aborted at 7½ months. She survived. Astonishingly, she has forgiven her mother for trying to kill her.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1504652/Gianna-Jessen-was-aborted-at-7-months.-She-survived.-Astonishingly-she-has-forgiven-her-mother-for-trying-to-kill-her..html

Here are some other studies, not all of which have been added yet because this is a DRAFT, that cover the topic:

(emphasis added)

DocZach (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, please, @CFCF@DanielRigal @IntentionallyDense, enlighten me on your justification to delete a DRAFT by citing two policies intended for published articles that this draft does not violate in any way, shape, or form. Are you not aware that a draft is not supposed to be perfect and polished until it is complete, and that a draft like this will not be polished until I am ready to submit it? I am trying my best to assume good faith here, but in this instance, I cannot. This seems nothing more than a politically motivated action by CFCF to target a page I am working on in order to suppress the existence and reality of a very real topic that many in the abortion debate find inconvenient. Yes, it is inconvenient for people who support abortion. No, that does not justify deleting a draft. If we deleted drafts based on quality or neutrality concerns, then we might as well get rid of the draft system altogether, since apparently we aren't going to let editors work on an article without deleting it out of nowhere. DocZach (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the end-game here? Do you want this to stay as a draft forever? That's not allowed. Wikipedia is not free web hosting for people's POV essays. This is not going to be promoted to an article so what's the point? Oh, and as for the personal attack on CFCF, let's just say that if this becomes a discussion about editor behaviour then that's probably not to your advantage. Maybe drop that stick? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how this is a "POV essay," and tell me how you can even say that when it is a draft that has yet to be finished and refined. DocZach (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: POVFORK concerns should be noted when submitted. Disagree with SOAPBOX. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind providing your reasoning as to why you believe this draft doesn't fit SOAPBOX. Also what is the point of keeping a draft that will be declined as a POVFORK? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joe never said that it would be declined as a POVFORK. He said that those concerns should be noted, meaning that those concerns could be discussed once the draft is actually finished and eligible to be evaluated on those merits. DocZach (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The terse nomination doesn’t deserve this attention.

Your posts belong on the draft_talk page.

Nothing there comes close to justifying deletion of a draft at MfD. See WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about your reasoning as to why this draft doesn't fit SOAPBOX, which if we are using this user essay for this, is relevant for assessing A more controversial indication for MfD can be a draft that's harmless but clearly inappropriate well past "not checked for notability or sanity", usually involving WP:NOT violations. which includes SOAPBOX. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a topic, not an opinion, it has sources, and draftspace is not by any measure an elevated platform. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOX does apply to drafts, and says this in the section. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but this is mainspace content drafting, and not SOAPBOXing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“what is the point of keeping a draft that will be declined as a POVFORK?”

You seem to be assuming that draftspace needs curating. This completely misunderstands the main purpose of draftspace, which is to keep junk out of mainspace. That function is working here.

The smallest possibility that something may come of this drafting is justification to allow it in draftspace. The requirement to establish that there is no possibility that anything useful can come of it is very tough and a poor use of volunteer time.

You do not know that it will be submitted. You do not know that the title will remain as it is now.

Better for a POVFORK to be explored in draftspace than in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NDRAFT. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NDRAFT, and WP:TROUT whoever nominated this for deletion. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to WP:TROUT you back for that, because you point to an essay, to which it is valid to disagree with, especially as this draft will never pass WP:AfC. The problem is inherent to how the topic is framed, which is non-encyclopedic as WhatamIdoing gave clear indication of. That's not something that can be salvaged by just rewriting it. I'm going to quote from above: Wikipedia is not free web hosting for people's POV essays. Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST- and that includes in draft-space. CFCF (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you think this draft will never pass WP:AfC does not matter here, as MfD is not a venue for adjudicating such things. If you came to MfD with every low-quality draft that got declined at AfC, we'd be here forever. This is clearly not a personal essay, so it surpasses WP:NOTWEBHOST. Whether it is written neutrally is something that can be worked on during the draft process (also noting that AfC has a specific decline for neutrality, so re-refer to my second sentence). Curbon7 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to make this out to be about what "I think". There was previously consensus to delete a page with the same name for being unencyclopedic per: WP:NEO, WP:NOTADVOCATE, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion survivor - so yes WP:NOTWEBHOST holds.

We most certainly do delete unencyclopedic content as per WP:NMFD:

Drafts that do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion can still be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion (MfD). A draft will be deleted at MfD if there is a consensus that it meets one of the reasons for deletion under the deletion policy and that it is unlikely to ever be a viable article. Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.

That page has consensus behind it - unlike WP:NDRAFT which is an essay that explains one view that we do not assess quality of drafts. But this isn't about quality, this is about exactly how it is unlikely to ever be a viable article.

CFCF (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That a page with the same title was deleted X years ago also does not really matter for draftspace (unless it's tendentious), as the topic could have become notable between now and then. You and others keep saying this draft will never pass AfC. However, I would disagree with this, as I see a productive draft here: it is being actively worked on, the sourcing isn't terrible for it being in such an early version, and the page history indicates the creator is open to moving to a different title which - call me an optimist - indicates the creator is likely open to further collaboration on other areas where you may think the draft falters. Thus - and again call me an optimist - but I can see a world where this draft could be capable of eventually passing an AfC. Curbon7 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is like saying that a draft on "People who hate hamburgers" could be made into a legitimate article on "Hamburgers" - and therefore we should let a draft stand. This is a misinterpretation of policy. I think some subject matter expertise, in connection to knowledge of the disputes surrounding it on Wikipedia clearly indicate that the draft is WP:TENDITIOUS. CFCF (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It will never pass AfC". That is AfC's call to make. Is MfD AfC? No, it isn't. Cremastra (u — c) 23:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It's not common that we delete active drafts like this, but WP:DRAFTS allows for deletion if it meets an articlespace deletion criterion and is unlikely to ever be viable, even if improved. To that end, I guess it's a fine nomination. Part of me wants to !vote keep on principle since it's draftspace, but this topic does seem likely to be deleted even if improved, so why waste the article creator's time? In fact, this subject has been deleted at AfD before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion survivor (are past deletions flagged on new drafts? the plural article title seemed odd). I can't see the content of the old version, but the OR concerns there and the WP:SYNTH above suggest similar problems, at least. So I guess I wind up with a non-vote-vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I think this page could use some cleaning up, and a few more credible sources, but that isn't reason to delete it. DarlingYeti (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would 100% agree that the article needs cleaning up and much more sources, and that's why it is a draft. Articles don't get written and finished in a few days; they require a lot of work, and that is why draftspace exists. I don't think the proposer for deletion understands what drafts are, and how they don't follow the same criteria as mainspace articles. DocZach (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is all POV based OR. - Unless a source mentions the subject of this article "Abortion SURVIVOR" than it is disallowed WP:SYNTH to relate it to this topic. We had this discussion the last time someone created an article with this name and it was deleted. All of the sources I've seen do NOT talk about "Abortion survivors", the medical sources listed by WAID say: "Unintended live birth", and the "sources" in this draft are the same. Calling this "Abortion survivors" when NO SOURCES call it that is POV based WP:SYNTH.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great and all, but everything you just stated doesn't apply to drafts. Yes, you are correct that there are not enough sources right now and that the article needs to be significantly edited to align with the expectations of articles. That is precisely why it is a DRAFT. Please read over WP:NDRAFT for a more thorough explanation. DocZach (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page you link to is an non-consensus essay that explains that drafts are not judged on their quality. If you look at the agreed consensus interpretation of policy it reads WP:NMFD:

Drafts that do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion can still be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion (MfD). A draft will be deleted at MfD if there is a consensus that it meets one of the reasons for deletion under the deletion policy and that it is unlikely to ever be a viable article. Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.

This is on top of the fact that the article was already subject to a deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abortion_survivor previously. CFCF (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:NMFD, which you keep citing, allows for deletion of a draft only when it is "unlikely to ever be a viable article" AND meets at least one reason under the deletion policy. This draft concerns a notable and well-documented phenomenon: live births during or following abortion attempts, which is covered in medical literature, government reports, international media, and law. This is most definitely a topic that warrants its own Wikipedia article. You yourself even said that "one could conceivably write an article on the legitimate topic.” That alone settles the issue under WP:NMFD — deletion is not appropriate for notable topics with a realistic path to improvement, even if right now they are not up to standard.

Second, you cite WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTSOAPBOX — policies designed for mainspace, not to prematurely purge imperfect drafts. WP:NOTWEBHOST says nothing about deleting good-faith, in-progress encyclopedic drafts. In fact, WP:NDRAFT (yes, it's an essay, but one that reflects actual practice) exists because the community has consistently supported giving editors space to develop articles without constant threat of deletion. Unless this draft contains BLP violations, is abandoned, or has been repeatedly resubmitted without improvement, it does not meet the bar for MfD deletion. None of those apply here.

Third, citing a prior AfD on a page from years ago with a similar title is not relevant unless you can show the current draft repeats the same content or problems. First of all, I can't even access the content of the old article that you are referring to, but from what the very small discussion that occurred on the AfD covered, it appears that it does not relate to your concerns with this draft at all. This draft is actively being developed and revised, and I plan to continue doing so. I do not plan to submit this article until I am confident that it meets the policies and expectations that Wikipedia has for articles. I have even indicated that I am willing to change the title to something else if people would propose different ideas — something you’ve refused to acknowledge.

Finally, your suggestion that this is “not worth the time” or that it’s inherently “POV” seems to rest less on policy and more on a disagreement with the topic’s framing. But draftspace exists to refine framing. It’s not uncommon for early drafts to need de-biasing, improved sourcing, and structural work. That’s what this space is for. Deleting the draft now — when it’s clearly being worked on and when I am responsive to feedback and willing to collaborate with other editors on developing it — is premature and a mockery to the entire point of drafts in the first place.

If your goal is to suppress any mention or coverage of abortion survival, you've certainly done the opposite by drawing this much attention to a draft that isn't even part of the encyclopedia yet. DocZach (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it bluntly, nothing from the draft would make it into a legitimate article. That is what prompted the deletion request. Nothing, from the framing which has massive WP:NPOV issues, to the sources which are either WP:SYNTH or not WP:MEDRS-compliant. CFCF (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious attempt to create a WP:POVFORK; extensive WP:SYNTH with no real chance of ever producing a viable article; additionally, it's a recreation of a previously-deleted article. WP:NDRAFT, which people have cited in an effort to defend it, is a low-quality essay with no consensus behind it, which directly contradicts the actually relevant policy - as noted above, drafts that meet the standard criteria for deletion under AFD are supposed to be deleted. And by citing a low-quality essay like NDRAFT as their sole rationale to try and prevent deletion, the article's defenders implicitly concede that it does in fact meet the criteria to be deleted; they just disagree with policy. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some continue to point out that this is a draft and not finalized, and therefore should be treated differently. While I do agree with that notion, that doesn't mean that drafts can't or shouldn't be deleted. If we look at the draft thus far, there are some glaring issues. The article name itself, is not in my opinion WP:NPOV, not to mention that the name is confusing, as outlined but others. If we were to try to restructure and rewrite this article in a way that complies with Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not sure how much of the article would actually be salvageable, as there are so many biomedical claims made without WP:MEDRS sources. In fact for an article that has so many biomedical claims, I was only able to find one MEDRS source linked. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IntentionallyDense Atomicdragon136, The creator has already indicated they will change the name after this close to "Failed abortions". Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, where was this said? I’m on mobile right now and having a hard time finding that. The name is only one of the various issues. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page history. Curbon7 (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that edit was self reverted which doesn’t make believe they are willing to change the name. they also haven’t said this explicitly.Intentionally Dense ^(Contribs) 19:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am willing to change the name. After reviewing available sources, I think a better and more neutral name for the article would be: Live births following abortion attempts. DocZach (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense, it was only self-reverted because moves should not be made during deletion discussions, as they note. Curbon7 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't know that! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand that this is a draft, but as per other responses, this is not a viable article, it and the name itself fails WP:NPOV. Not much information can be salvaged as a majority of the sources don't meet WP:MEDRS, and any medical information about failed abortions can be merged into abortion. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 20:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to change the name, but the idea that the content does not meet NPOV or have enough good sources does not justify deleting a draft. Of course there aren't enough reliable sources yet, because the article is still being written. It's not done. It's not published. I haven't even been able to get to the section involving the medical implications (which I have multiple MEDRS sources for) because of this attempted deletion. DocZach (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•keep @DocZach has clearly demonstrated that their willing to improve upon wp:npov issues in this draft that have been raised in this deletion discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#c-DocZach-20250418001900-IntentionallyDense-20250417192500, making deletion unnecessary.

As for being merged into Abortion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#c-Atomicdragon136-20250416205400-CFCF-20250412163400 it already has a wp:length problem. Cognsci (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so this editor can work on it in peace. This editor obviously has a strong point of view on the topic, and it can be difficult to write without that point of view coming through, which it glaringly does here. But while writing from scratch is hard, editing what's already written is easy. This editor says they're still working on it; maybe they can turn it into less of a hot mess. DocZach, for future reference, creating drafts in your user space lets you work at your leisure. Creating in draft space typically is viewed as "Anyone should feel free to edit", which can include nominating for deletion. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this being Userfied. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, how do I create a draft in userspace? DocZach (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't ask me but all you have to do is type in the adress bar "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YourUsername/Titleofdraft" IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aquillion, verbatim. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 15:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NDRAFT.—Alalch E. 21:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - per aquillion this is probably a content fork. Alalch is right tho, WP:NDRAFT applies. Probably can't be accepted as an article as is though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - read nmfd, this draft hasn't been rejected multiple times yet, but aquillion is right, if this is a content fork and is unlikely to be accepted, it qualifies for deletion per WP:NMFD Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prove how this is a content fork. Show me what content is forked. And tell me how you are able to make that judgment when the draft is not nearly even done. I find this quite entertaining considering the fact that this entire discussion has given MORE attention to this draft when so many people here seem desperate to delete and hide it before it even becomes an article. DocZach (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't even know where to begin with responding to these delete comments. Clearly someone is working towards the aim of Wikipedia, which is to be encompass all fields of human knowledge, even if they have their own point of view. For alternative to deleting this draft, move it to userspace. 11USA11 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a draft being poor quality is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. NPOV issues are surmountable. And I don't think the subject qualifies as a "content fork" or is impossible to write an encyclopedic article on, given the sources other editors have provided.

ApexParagon (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates