Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion

2909:- The deletion rationale is the same as for the first deletion nomination in March 2024, which was closed as delete. The work of a WikiProject is normally done at its talk page. The talk page of this project had 159 pageviews in the year 2024, which is less than 1 daily pageview, and 113 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024, in connection with the previous MFD. The project page itself shows 399 pageviews in the year 2024, or approximately 1 daily pageview. and 117 of those pageviews were on 18 March 2024. The activity for both the project page and the project talk page is in two clusters, the first between 13 March 2024 and 1 April 2024, and the second between 18 September 2024 and 20 September 2024. It appears that this project and its project talk page were entirely unused between 2 April 2024 and 17 September 2024. 7001:- There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. 115: 935:; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Knowledge (XXG). Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG), consider 47: 4381:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. (Note: I assume that you nominated the empty draft's talk page rather than the draft itself by error) 2556:. It is true that the project is inactive. The work of a WikiProject is mostly done on the project talk page, and the talk page for his project had 9 pageviews in the year 2023 and 30 in the year 2024. Those are annual pageviews, not daily pageviews. The project is already marked defunct, and should be left that way. 2853: 2835: 2011:: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is: 1959:

was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself

5791:

if there is evidence that the draft is a hoax, not just a lack of verifiability. This draft in particular states that it is not ready to be submitted for review, but can be updated when the film is closer to release, and then submitted when the film is released. This draft is a stub, and stubs in

5380:

I might not necessarily have a whole lot of experience on policies; but to create a draft of animated television series slated to be released five years from now is ridiculous if you ask me. There are probably animated television series that’ll end up being released in 2029 that haven’t even begun

2191:

You have 237 edits. You arrived to go straight into XfD stuff. Now you’re clerking very old userpages of blocked users, and you’re telling me you known the behaviours of CUs. I suspect you to be violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace not using your main account. What prior accounts have you

2436:

It's possible to truly delete wikiprojects (and all subpages, templates, and categories), but that is done with the abortive new ones created out of process that in addition to nominally existing maybe only spam talk pages with banners and don't exist as a group that does something (usually one

4663:

This is going too far. The listing of bluelinked movie professionals on a draft about a sequel that they are probably involved with is not BLPPRIVATE and is not a BLP violation. The page is presumable correct, about intentions. It’s failure is being unsourced, but being unsourced is not

808:(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) 2239:. They are primarily a Commons account with 33,000 edits. If you look at the pages that have been nominated, and the contributions of the former editors who created those pages, you will see that the editors who created those pages came to Knowledge (XXG) user space twelve years ago, 6718:. The article and the much older abandoned draft don't have a shared history. The draft is about a living person and is poorly sourced and mildly promotional. There was no need to nominate this for deletion because involvement of administrators and other editors is not required.— 6202:. 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 3025:

Good point about the user not editing since April, I should've caught that but just wanted the page out of my sight at the time of nomination (seems like an IP submitted it for review)... I'm still standing by my deletion nomination as this is a pretty obvious violation of

2035:

Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it.

7026:, I find this unusual construction compelling as a menu. I'm also interested in the intact digital artifact. Because of the coding, many older-style portals fall apart when moved from portalspace, but this one should move to project space fine. FYI, while pagecreator 2864: 2848: 5947:

732:

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

6774: 6801:

It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back.

3101:

It's Commons files. The standing sex vid was kept in a deletion discussion, and the cunnilingus one is used on the Asturian Knowledge (XXG). In general, these files aren't going anywhere. They're not low-quality enough for a Commons consensus to delete.

5446: 5301: 5012:.The incorrect parts can be removed and the correct parts can be sourced without having to delete the draft. Not sure if he is or isn't notable (he appears to have directed several films, so he might be), but that alone shouldn't be an issue for MfD. 2655:

Not a RFORK. No articles involved. Do not bring draftspace junk curation to mfd. There may be some unimportant copyright noncompliance. Fix by redirecting the new draft to the old draft with a note that the new one is a partial copy of the old

830:

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

2885:

due to no deletion rational proffered by the nomination. This should be a talk page discussion. The claim, This project has now attracted about 20 editors, and we've made a significant contribution to wikipedia. Please see the campaign here:

2386: 203: 2176:

To be clear: this activity all occurred in 2012, and, as far as I'm aware, all of the users involved have been dormant since then. It's beyond stale; there's no chance whatsoever that CU will intervene here, and I don't expect them to do so.

1727:

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

5321:: The list's topic is suitable for Knowledge (XXG). There are no examples to fill it right now, but there's no harm to keep it in draft space until such examples appear and the list can grow to a decent size (and rest assured that examples 2137:

This software is no longer available, so these pages no longer serve any purpose. I'm nominating them for deletion as part of a cross-wiki cleanup; some of them are linked to from pages created by Planotse on other Wikimedia projects (cf.

6914: 6906: 2820: 5922:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 5766:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 5616:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 5183:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 4938:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 4773:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 4610:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 4506:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 4248:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 4126:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 3927:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 3762:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 3595:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 3452:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 3235:. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. 2816: 2993:

This was submitted to AfC draft review queue - user space page filled with obscene/graphic content (warning to discussion participants) ostensibly to prove a point about WP being uncensored, but seems like a clear violation of

2678:

in draft space. Do not redirect to the other draft, which was rejected. The two drafts can each be reviewed independently. This draft is a draft, and will self-destruct in six months if left alone, but not if diddled with.

2119: 4357: 2740: 6759: 2808: 6755: 5431: 5286: 6088: 5996: 5637:. Drafts are only deleted as hoaxes if there is evidence that the draft is a hoax, not because of lack of verifiability. The one completed movie and the redirect in mainspace are evidence that this is not a hoax. 1874:. While there is no need to delete technical no-harm copyright violations from the history, in this case all the history is a gross copy. These things should be deleted, even if the copyright violation is fixable. 4406:

pages confirm that there is an untitled Don Hall project. As previous editor notes, nominator appears to have tagged draft talk page rather than draft page. Can an admin rename this MFD or otherwise clean it up?

1453:

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

5427: 5282: 5159: 5069: 6747: 2371: 2283:

A review of the contribution histories of the contributing authors shows that none of them made any contribution to Knowledge (XXG) other than these edits to peddle software, so that these pages all qualify as

3804:

An IP editor turned this page into a Redirect to a new draft article where they copied all of the content from this article into the new article, effectively erasing notification of this deletion discussion.

1778: 5419: 5274: 4102: 2367: 4482: 1949: 1702: 2812: 2359: 459: 857: 5466:: It is all unreferenced, yes, but it is an unsubmitted draft, let them fix things. And no, it is not all a hoax: at least the Asterix & Obelix film already has a subpage in the Netflix site. 4224: 5919: 5763: 5613: 5180: 4935: 4770: 4607: 4503: 4378: 4245: 4123: 3924: 3759: 3592: 3449: 3232: 1964:, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for deletion. 335: 325: 3787:

violation. The name of the founder links to an article about a real person who has nothing to do with the studio. This is the work of a group of IP addresses that have created other hoaxes.

921:

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

3011:: Page seems to want to intentionally shock the readers, and that's not what userpages are for. Doing so to make a point only makes it worse. (Note: the user has not edited since last April). 6461: 6261: 3648: 2059:- A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. 378: 368: 274: 264: 4342: 2725: 6694:

this is older than the article that was created is (2017 vs 2023), and this editor has been inactive over 7 years and non-responsive to their talk page. All appearances of being abandoned.

3211: 3121: 2803: 2795: 6837:. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading 6636: 4338: 2721: 5537:. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a huge number of drafts made by a group of editors using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. 4914: 3428: 2986: 2624: 241: 224: 6123:: User named "Brown consulting group" (spaces added for clarity), and his only edits were to make this advertising on his sandbox. Clearly the work of a SPA. User is already blocked. 6073: 2099: 5898: 5808: 5742: 4749: 2109: 6842: 5592: 5502: 3571: 6069: 5423: 5278: 5144: 4330: 2713: 2115: 7069: 6742: 6734: 2363: 1714: 350: 5843:. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. 5104:. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. 3683:. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. 3156:. Speedy delete, as a hoax.This is one of a large number of drafts made by an editor using numerous IP addresses, posting fantasy material from Fandom and other similar sites. 5140: 5001: 1763: 764:

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

3903: 563: 496: 307: 297: 4087: 6061: 4467: 1934: 3087:) thinks should be deleted. They may be correct, the videos are of dubious encyclopedic merit, and I believe that amateur self-photography submissions were discouraged. 1843: 279: 6834: 3251:“In November 2024, it was announced that Miramax had picked up Sheepish earlier in the year, and would be releasing on its theatrically service in 2026. DNEG Animation.” 1759: 2040:

given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding.

1330: 5414: 5406: 5269: 5261: 5132: 4463: 4083: 2319:

It doesn't matter whether there were three humans behind the accounts, or one human with three accounts, or if one human did all of this with one account. It is spam.

1930: 918:, 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. 2354: 2346: 2130:

intended to generate wiki content. All of these users appear to be sockpuppets created with the express intent of hosting one of these mini-sites and, in some cases,

2210:

if you're concerned about my low edit count on this project. Additionally: some of these subpages are actually linked from other projects using direct URLs, e.g. on

6891: 578: 4209: 1751: 1110:: 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 573: 345: 6887: 4455: 4075: 1922: 636: 7022:

I'm generally inclined to keep the portals which are left as examples of type (like old ships kept in "mothballs"). This is a portal of a very odd style; like

2867:. The few new editors that just signed up to Knowledge (XXG) is hardly a sign this project will survive. At best that needs to be a task force (if even that). 340: 6446: 6246: 4205: 3723: 2243:, but to peddle software. The fact that they used four accounts is not the reason why their stuff is being nominated or why it should be deleted. This was 2089: 6319:

Drafts are not deleted based on notability. And it's not unusual for just one editor to be working on a draft. How would other editors know it even exists?

2747:

This is a horrible "template" that makes the simple process of adding or following discussions on a talk page, extremely hard. It's also a duplicate of the

3196: 888:

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

447: 1244:

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.

6879: 6621: 6442: 6242: 4571: 3719: 522: 3738: 3511:- I answered the above question. The statement about the September 2024 revival announcement was put into the draft in July 2024. That statement is a 302: 3073:. Attempting to achieve an outcome by shocking AfC reviewers is maybe disruption. I see this as a collection of links to Knowledge (XXG) content that 4899: 4197: 3413: 3192: 2971: 2609: 2494: 2460: 2425: 2302:

their software to new users. That would have been a reason to block them. This is a deletion request, and the reason for deletion is that this is a

406: 6580:. I'm not sure what the original source was, but it certainly doesn't seem to have Thiru9959, and in this context we can err on the side of caution. 5204:

which refers to November 2024 in the past tense, and is also the work of a pool of IP addresses (likely one human) who have submitted other hoaxes.

5039:

which itself doesn't appear to be notable, so no RS on this side. Koetsier is probably non-notable, but, again, the draft can be kept in my opinion.

1111: 420: 383: 149: 6617: 5883: 5727: 4734: 4567: 6918: 6751: 6434: 6234: 5577: 4895: 4586: 3711: 3556: 3409: 3292:

Sure. Blocking IP vandals is not trivial, but here it looks like a single person, and a bit of effort may be justified. Alternatively, consider

2967: 2605: 429: 2708: 2700: 2139: 2998:

to me. I don't see a real reason for this page other than trolling AfC reviewers and wasting time that could be spent on more important tasks. ~

5879: 5723: 4985: 4730: 3184: 1991: 1573: 1556: 316: 246: 6609: 5573: 4559: 3967: 3552: 2453:

I know. I do not know why you tell me this. I deliberately softened my phrasing to make it a less offensive way of saying BS nom. Thank you!

1669: 1652: 1597: 1580: 1511: 1507:

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.

664:

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at

359: 255: 32: 4887: 4325: 4317: 3888: 3401: 3218:

Revival section is a hoax. Page creator has created a bunch of drafts that were complete hoaxes. Likely this one is completely unreliable.

2959: 2597: 1979: 1926: 487: 178: 5871: 5715: 4722: 2095: 1828: 942:

Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.

6925:

to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and

1429:

in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as

981:|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move. 6938: 6396:- Liz is right. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. This draft is at the point where it should reasonably be Rejected if 6279: 5565: 5053: 5026: 4846: 3884: 3544: 2207: 2105: 330: 5354:

of IPs whose good faith has been lacking. When a good-faith editor wants to create a good-faith entry in the list, they can request

1693: 1676: 907: 215: 6922: 4459: 4079: 1824: 373: 269: 4523:- There is no evidence that this is a hoax, and there is evidence that it is probably correct that this is a film that has been in 2026:. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see 1645: 1628: 288: 28: 1994:..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. 6350: 5375:– I was only being nosy looking through stuff; not necessarily intending to comment on anything; but I’ve got to comment on this. 4697: 2309:

The fact that the three contributors were probably sockpuppets is only an observation and not the reason for requesting deletion.

2131: 7088: 3278:- It isn't one user account, but IP addresses scattered all over IPv4 and IPv6 space. It isn't obvious who or where to block. 2752: 1961: 6293: 4334: 3876: 4832:. Couldn't find any evidence of a "Kevin Asbury" playing a role in either of these films. Agree that this is probably a hoax. 1956: 1917: 1909: 6883: 6829:(which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the 1816: 806:

including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing.

515: 7083: 6065: 2759:. While projects can style their project pages how they want (within reason), the talk pages should be as simple as needed. 2027: 1034: 1028: 669: 483: 438: 6929:

is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because

6821:, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of 5386:

Now that said; when we get to about October, November of 2028; I would fully support someone drafting this. But until then

2717: 693:

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

6838: 5136: 4201: 2488: 2454: 2419: 4680:

The renown Canadian studio (as everyone else knows it) has been in business since 1971. Shouldn't we convert this into a

2887: 1022: 655: 478: 161: 6585: 4450: 4442: 4070: 4062: 3084: 1755: 6167: 6056: 6048: 6019: 5974: 5831: 5688: 5525: 5247: 5092: 3849: 3671: 3369: 3144: 1016: 964: 665: 473: 189: 6986: 6238: 1463: 913: 452: 5127: 5119: 2748: 1002:, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space. 6683:

I could find. Please note that that sandbox was moved to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.

4529:

The nominator should stop making idle claims that drafts are hoaxes,especially when there is some evidence of truth.

4637:

criterion should be, if the studio exists or existed in the past, for the author to correct the dates, and provide

2162:

using mfd to background clerk MfD. Do not delete unless the request is agreed to by a SPI clerk or a checkuser. —

2014:"If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's 1746: 1738: 234: 2408:

I've got no problem at all with deletion, if it comes to that, but don't we usually just template these things as

551: 145: 7006: 6874: 6866: 6671: 6512: 6438: 6405: 6356:

The bulk of Bharti's works where I could find a publisher are self-published. Call me cynical, but it feels like

6145: 5953: 5797: 5667: 5642: 5488: 5363: 5209: 4972: 4820: 4795: 4654: 4535: 4412: 4285: 4152: 3963: 3792: 3715: 3617: 3520: 3499: 3348: 3319: 3283: 3059: 2914: 2684: 2561: 2331: 2256: 2064: 1898: 508: 3314:. I have not checked whether any of the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are being blocked and do not intend to check. 3188: 2923:

Neither the deletion rationale or the circumstances are the same. The March 2024 MfD was not closed as delete.

2211: 1193: 76: 6807: 6613: 4891: 4563: 4192: 4184: 3948:

violations, using the names of real people without verification, and we do get strict with BLPsde;ete. Likely

2963: 2601: 2219: 2182: 2149: 2085: 1975: 6826: 3405: 2192:

used, and how do you come to concerned about these very old pages, which have no pageviews or incoming links?

1326: 861: 546:

decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized

543: 5875: 5719: 6822: 6680: 6581: 5569: 4726: 3706: 3698: 7045: 6400:

resubmitted. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete drafts. COI is not a reason to delete drafts.

5655: 3955: 3179: 3171: 2553: 1967: 6978: 6945: 6429: 6421: 6273: 6229: 6221: 6128: 5927: 5771: 5621: 5471: 5330: 5188: 5049: 5022: 4943: 4842: 4778: 4615: 4554: 4546: 4511: 4386: 4253: 4131: 4113: 3932: 3767: 3634: 3600: 3548: 3512: 3457: 3240: 3016: 6357: 6008:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

5820:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

5514:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

5081:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

3880: 3660:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

3133:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

2236: 2215: 2178: 2145: 1046: 1040: 600: 555: 173: 125: 6163: 6015: 5970: 5866: 5858: 5827: 5684: 5521: 5243: 5088: 3845: 3667: 3365: 3140: 6269: 5560: 5552: 4426:. There may well be a problem here somewhere, but the nomination lacks sufficient quality to proceed. 2019: 1416:

If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

1059: 89: 17: 7023: 7002: 6667: 6653: 6646:, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. 6604: 6596: 6508: 6482: 6401: 6373: 6344: 6340: 6305: 6141: 6110: 5949: 5793: 5663: 5638: 5484: 5391: 5359: 5205: 4968: 4816: 4791: 4694: 4650: 4531: 4408: 4281: 4148: 4024: 4020: 4002: 3959: 3788: 3613: 3516: 3495: 3344: 3315: 3279: 3055: 2910: 2680: 2645: 2557: 2398: 2327: 2252: 2060: 1894: 1861: 758: 229: 7049: 6926: 5387: 2292: 2240: 885: 647: 129: 7053: 6963: 6803: 6719: 6705: 6567: 6542: 6529: 6525: 6287: 5906: 5750: 5600: 5454: 5309: 5226: 5167: 4922: 4882: 4874: 4863: 4858:: Unsourced possible hoax and possible BLP violation. The hypothetical son is a private person. 4757: 4669: 4594: 4490: 4431: 4365: 4306: 4232: 4173: 4110: 4051: 3979: 3911: 3826: 3746: 3579: 3480: 3436: 3396: 3388: 3301: 3266: 3219: 3103: 3092: 2954: 2946: 2928: 2895: 2779: 2664: 2592: 2584: 2574: 2534: 2506: 2472: 2438: 2412: 2197: 2167: 2045: 1971: 1879: 1793: 1210: 1199: 929: 868: 769: 698: 138: 6841:

and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the

5940: 5784: 5634: 5355: 4812: 4298: 4165: 4043: 2529:, do not delete. Consider tagging defunct, or archiving, or redirecting to a larger WikiProject. 810:

If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.

559: 6850: 6037: 5710: 5702: 4717: 4709: 4403: 2854:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound (2nd nomination)

1820: 1185:

if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as

194: 81: 6643: 6496: 6468: 6096: 3047: 2865:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound

2631: 2299: 2248: 960: 2126:

These pages were all created by in 2012 to document and promote a piece of software written by

864:. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as 7035: 6935: 6124: 5923: 5767: 5617: 5467: 5326: 5184: 5040: 5013: 4939: 4833: 4774: 4611: 4524: 4507: 4382: 4249: 4127: 3928: 3763: 3630: 3596: 3539: 3531: 3453: 3339:- Revival section states that development was restarted in November 2025. This is probably a 3236: 3012: 2635: 1514:, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members. 1455: 789: 5944: 5788: 5343: 5201: 4960: 4633:, and has other dates that are in the future presented as though they were in the past. The 4628: 4277: 3949: 3780: 3340: 3293: 780: 80: 5346:. The one reference returns a 404 error. References are not required in drafts (except of 4147:

violations: Full of names of real people with no verification of their involvement. Hoax.

3078: 2872: 2764: 1336: 785: 78: 6393: 6361: 5659: 5351: 5347: 4964: 4956: 4921:

Most of the information on this page is incorrect. Edited by IPs that have created hoaxes.

4645: 4634: 4273: 4144: 3945: 3784: 2487:

No problem at all! Always good to get affirmation, and extra eyes is no bad thing. Cheers!

2313: 2303: 2232: 2023: 2015: 999: 936: 832: 821: 734: 596: 550:. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an 547: 7056: 7039: 7027: 7010: 6991: 6967: 6949: 6854: 6811: 6795: 6722: 6710: 6675: 6657: 6648: 6589: 6570: 6555: 6545: 6532: 6516: 6486: 6477: 6409: 6378: 6365: 6330: 6310: 6297: 6162: