This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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
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, 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}}.
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
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.
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.
Keep: Although this user's contributions seem questionable, they are clearly a good faith editor and their block is actively being discussed on their talk page. I see no urgent need to delete this page. It's not particularly funny, but it's also not disruptive and we don't delete humorous user subpages just because they're not funny. WP:RAGS applies. silviaASH(inquire within)01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per silviaASH. The page may not be "useful" but it's not harming Wikipedia either. As long as the activity on it is just joke comments rather than actually disruptive/unacceptable material, don't see a reason to delete.
(Also, the page was created months before the user got blocked, and the block is not related to this page.)
Delete - It's true that we can leave bad drafts to age into G13, but in this case, the creator of the draft left it to languish until notified of the impending deletion, and then submitted this unaltered copy. AFC reviewer time is also valuable. As an added bonus, there are copyright issues as this is an unattributed copy of a Wikipedia page. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User Mauriziok has copied over 300 pageant articlesover 650 pageant articles or templates, and related biographies to their userspace in apparent contravention of the WP:User page policy. They did not respond to my inquiry placed January last year nor another placed in August, although actively editing frequently since then. This is at least a problem for attribution, and makes one wonder if this is a hedge against deletion or something, looking at their talkpage a lot of stuff they created is now redlinks.
The copied articles are so extensive, it is difficult to pare them down, but here's a sampling of userspace subpages:
Unfortunately there are extensive biographies copied as well, so it's harder to just give a good search link for them.
☆ Bri (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not voting at this time because I am still spot-checking the nominations, but will almost certainly vote Delete All within a few days. The biographies appear to be (not surprisingly) of pageant winners. This is both a content issue and a conduct issue, although MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently, I am working on several editions of Venezuelan pageants: Miss Venezuela, Miss & Mister Turismo Venezuela, Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela, Mister Universo Venezuela, Caballero Venezuela, Mister Handsome Venezuela, which requires a lot of time to organize... However, I can start eliminating the drafts of the Mister Venezuela, Miss World Venezuela and Miss Earth Venezuela editions, that I have already finished editing and the international contest, but don't erase the rest cuz i'm editing those. --Mauriziok (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I could reference them better. I'm going to go through all those drafts, to gradually blanking them. I'll just keep the ones I'm working on. In a week, I might be able to whiten the drafts I'm no longer using. Give me a little time please. Mauriziok (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I could handle all the draft issues. However, I had a lot of time away from the projects and couldn't complete them. Anyway, so far, I've already blanked out around 40 drafts and I'm still doing so. Maybe in less time, I'll be able to delete all the ones I'm no longer working on. Mauriziok (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Weak Delete as gibberish - This page had been ignored in draft space and would have expired in one month except that the nominator restarted the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC) ended today on 30 April 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.
Delete - As the nominator says, this is a Fake Article in user space. That wasn't in doubt before the author replied, but the reply removes any doubt. This is also promotional, but that isn't a reason for the deletion of drafts, but this isn't exactly a draft. This author is not here to contribute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On taking a very brief look at this, I thought it might either be AI-generated or be thought to have been AI-generated. Then I saw the history. This proves that humans can write stuff that reads like it was AI-generated. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - Objection to the grounds of the nomination, but it's possible it should qualify for some speedy as unambiguous promotion given the provided context. It's just not a "fake article" -- it's a draft article, which are ... allowed in userspace. My sense of a "fake article" is if I wrote a Wikipedia article about myself, never intended for mainspace, and put it on my userpage. I mean, that's something we allow plenty of long-timers to do anyway, but that's my understanding of what that means. It's even followed by a guideline that deals with userspace drafts, which would presumably be unnecessary if all userspace drafts were fake articles. Of course, if it's the same article that was deleted that's another story. It's in userspace; it's not indexed, and nobody will ever see it who isn't doing internal maintenance stuff. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear why this essay was written or what exactly it is about. It seems terribly out of date, given that it was written about 16 years ago and Wikipedia's response to vandalism has evolved a lot in that time- I don't know if vandalism "won" in 2009, but it certainly isn't winning in 2025. Also arguably not written with respect to WP:DENY. I think that, if not deleted, it should be tagged as historical. silviaASH(inquire within)12:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete a very strange essay which offers one idea in a roundabout way that has some support, and that is the prevention of IP editing of article space, and otherwise seems to be using statistics to confuse the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I'm not opposed to deletion ("highly eccentric" is somewhat more polite than the word I was thinking of), but it's been around for a while and I don't have a problem with preserving the history for historical purposes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal rambling that never should have been in the Wikipedia space at all. Userfy as a second choice but delete the Wikipedia space redirect then - breaking the links Graham87 mentioned is good not bad, the whole point is we don't want to highlight this at all. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 29 April 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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
“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.
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]
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.
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]
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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:45, 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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
Delete. This article has been gamed to avoid a G13 deletion for almost two years without any improvement. This article is not notable in any way and cites no sources. Wikipedia is not an indefinite host for this trivia. -1ctinus📝🗨19:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore. Busywork nomination. The ability to edit and postpone G13 is a feature, not a bug. There is nothing in this page that is a problem like what motivated the creation of WP:G13. For those interested in the page, read WP:DUD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that no real work is being done to improve this article in any way by the people postponing it. In the last 15 months (three cycles of WP:G13), a grand total of one entry has been added and the list remains completely unsourced. This reeks of people gaming the system just because they like it, instead of making something encyclopedic. -1ctinus📝🗨00:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it will be another 6 months before this is eligible for a standard CSD G13. No reason to rush to delete this draft. The "problem" here is that someone moved User pages into Draft space when they should have stayed in User space. LizRead!Talk!18:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic value to list songs that contain some word in their title. There are no scholarly sources that discuss such weird criteria. --Altenmann>talk13:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not “weird”. Self-referential things are commonly covered. There’s a lot of this to be found on Wikipedia. It’s plausible that a good source in self referential songs will be found. This page is focused narrowly on titularly self-referential songs, but it could be broadened easily. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G13 an entirely mechanical criterion that is not translatable to a deletion rationale in a full deletion process. The point of G13 is catching the bad pages, and non-bad pages are sacrificed in the process, in a socially acceptable trade-off. When G13 isn't catching a page that it otherwise would and the page isn't a page that editors would want to delete in the absence of G13, that is not something that should worry anyone.—Alalch E.00:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination rationale is not G13, just the opposite: the nominator mentions G13 precisely because it is not applicable. And this edit with edit summary "ME to forestall G13 status" indicates an attempt to game the system, rather than to create encyclopedic content. Of course, as someone noticed, it is not forbidden; in fact, small tricks like this are even recommended sometimes, but this says something about the status of the page. --Altenmann>talk01:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about we are here to build encyclopedia? Wikimedia is not free webhosting service or cloud storage for personal hobbies. It is fairly obvious that the page will never ever reach the status of an encyclopedic article. --Altenmann>talk20:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, this would violate WP:FAKEARTICLE. I'm honestly quite surprised by the amount of deliberation on display as to what to do here. This draft is never going to become an article, as it is salted in mainspace, AfD already established consensus to delete it, and it fails the inclusion criteria under WP:INDISCRIMINATE besides. The situation of someone resetting G13 to keep the article around is an appropriate exception to WP:NDRAFT. We should just get rid of it. silviaASH(inquire within)20:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as userspace should only be used for active work towards an article, not for personal hosting. The past 18 years since the AFD have mostly proved that this is not and will never be a viable article. Also, the user who this draft page was originally with has not edited the page in over a year now. As for the deleting the draft, I abstain for now. TruenoCity (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have seen some appetite for deletion of similar userboxes recently, I am doing a group nomination of userboxes clearly and unambiguously supporting historical figures that were or are clearly and unambiguously considered dictators. It is in my opinion obvious that these boxes egregiously violate WP:UBCR, because there is no way any of these could not be considered "inflammatory or substantially divisive".
Since I have not done a group nomination before and am unsure if I am doing it right, here are the links to the six individual boxes:
Delete all as inflammatory and divisive in a way that harms collegiality. Them being dictators does not in itself make the userboxes inappropriate—it's the fact that these userboxes are harmful to the project, which would be the case for any userpage content praising or criticizing a controversial figure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸21:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Same points I made about the Qaddafi and Ian Smith userboxes, I think its important to know people's biases, especially on an encylopedia anyone anywhere with any perspective, can edit. Its arguably even more useful to know a person's biases when those biases are radical and extreme, because those people are probably more likely to use wikipedia as a soapbox. These are useful to the project to have. -Samoht27 (talk)04:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I am increasingly able to appreciate political or other opinionated user boxes as handy red flags, I still think their potential to drive newcomers away is greater than their usefulness when dealing with POV editors. Even with this kind of editors, I still want to be able to AGF, otherwise it quickly becomes difficult to not assume WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at every corner. I guess the question is, do we really want to keep stuff only because it is useful "bait" to the benefit of other editors? I am not sure it is worth it honestly. Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅💬⋅📋12:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just think its useful as bait for those not here to build an encyclopedia (though it can definitely serve that purpose). I think there are probably good faith editors who have these perspectives who we should also be aware of. If someone supports an individual, no matter how good faith their editing is, their editing is still affected by how they feel. -Samoht27 (talk)15:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Salazar at least. It doesn't violate UBCR any more than userboxes promoting modern US presidents, which are just as divisive. There was actually more political violence in the US in the past decade than in Portugal under Salazar. I don't care if it exposes any "bias" of mine because I don't edit those kinds of articles really.
I would definitely like to see US presidents user boxes gone as well, this nomination is about testing the waters by attempting to get rid of the worse offenders in terms of political leaders userboxes. Your bias disclosure (if I may call it that) somewhat proves my point, which is that if an MfD discussion can engender discussion about if it's worse to live in the US currently or in Portugal under Salazar, then the existence of the miscellany in question is clearly counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅💬⋅📋12:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, for obvious reasons. I should stress that I created a couple of these userboxes, some years ago. At this point, I have no idea why (probably as some kind of test edits/creations). As their creator, I have no problem to see them gone. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs)14:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely out of principle. Why should you be barred from stating what you believe on your own userpage as long as its not truly egregious? I will NEVER agree with the ideologies/people above for obvious reasons, but if for some reason you really want to say those things, why not? I predict these infoboxes will rarely, if ever, be used, but for those who do want to use them I feel like their presence will serve as a red flag for other editors approaching their page to know what kind of ideologies they're getting into. Its not really Wikipedia's place to police editors on their beliefs, just their contributions, and if someone wants to have a controversial infobox like this on their page— it will still serve its intended purpose of letting you know more about the editor, even if what you learn is that they're extreme, which can prove useful in discussions. The decision of this nomination will also serve as a precedent for future deletion discussions, and I personally see more reasons to keep rather than too delete. Cheers! Johnson52403:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on others but bordering on Soft Delete for any use box that identifies you as a Francoist. This includes the above one and this one, which is actively worse for identifying as a Falangist, which was the most openly fascist element of Franco’s regime. No one seriously identifies as a Falangist or Francoist without also identifying as a fascist, because the two ideas are undeniably closely associated, if not borderline identical. If we are going to keep these because they are not actively spewing racism, then why don’t we have a box that says "This user is an Italian fascist" or "This user thinks Mussolini was good for Italy". Those are not actively spewing racism, but they are openly fascist, and if we were to hypothetically delete them, it is strange to not delete the Franco ones. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible for Wikipedia to become infinite.
We shouldn't have a pool for something that is impossible. No one can ever win the pool. Fish567 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We only delete humor if it might be offensive or is inappropriate in some way. This is a parody of some of the other very-large-number pools, which probably should also be marked as humor. Unlike some sports betting, no one gets ruined by betting on this. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert. I was initially going to vote move per SmokeyJoe and IVNH, but after looking at some other pool pages, I do not think this one actually stands out, as many are quite unserious anyway (in a lighthearted, inoffensive kind of way). Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅💬⋅📋08:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move, It's an April Fools Joke, it's marked as such, no real reason to not keep it. Moving the page to reduce clutter also sounds useful. It also might be worthwhile to mention Wikipedia:Last edit pool, another humor pool with a similar theme. -Samoht27 (talk)04:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
