Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Shortcut 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.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding log
Files
today all closing log
Categories
today all category closing log speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing log
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

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

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

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:

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 to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as 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

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.

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.

User:Goveganplease/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I don't send many pages to MFD but I stumbled upon this one and I think it should be deleted. I found, through investigation, that it is a copy of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision, an ARB case talk page that was intentionally blanked. This editor came along several years later, copied the contents which were hidden, and put it in their sandbox. They were later blocked for operating multiple accounts. I don't think CSD U5 would apply as they did many edits not in User space so I'm submitting this for a deletion discussion as I can't see a reason for preserving this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sensible edge case that policy doesn't quite deal with. WP:POLEMIC may be most relevant. If it were a good faith user, and they kept it for a long time, blanking and a trout would probably be appropriate, but it doesn't seem like there's any constructive use here. So the spirit of WP:POLEMIC probably applies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, based primarily on Use Common Sense. This leftover record of conflict preserved by a now-blocked user should not have been preserved and should be redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. No reason to be here. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no valid reason or use case to restore the courtesy blanked content on another page. Even if it is still available in the page history, that doesn't mean we need to put it in a spotlight. WP:POLEMIC likely applies ApexParagon (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

A very controversial move, but someone had to discuss this matter someday. So there's this humorous essay, which has nothing except for a nutshell. As it turns out, this was supposed to be an essay to poke fun at "assume good faith" like how the essay Wikipedia:Assume bad faith does it, except it kind of just turned religious (see page history) and got stripped of most of its content leaving only the nutshell. The talk page seems to agree that this might be better deleted but so far no one has actually put it on XFD, except now. What does the community actually think of this "failed joke"? And does it warrant the essay being deleted? For me, i'm Weak delete. Yelps :/ critique me 15:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So, User:SilviaASH has greatly improved the essay from a failed joke to a readable joke since this MFD started. So...

• Weak Delete - This is not humorous and is more likely to confuse or annoy than to amuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I thought that the concept for the essay was amusing, so I fleshed it out. The current revision of the page is for all intents and purposes a completely new essay which I would argue should be kept as it is now actually meaningfully humorous and relevant commentary. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on balance - I found it kind of funny, personally. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been significantly improved and changed into an actual humorous essay since this discussion started. ApexParagon (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: due to being made into an actual humorous essay now. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Turkish involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wholly unsourced POV fork, whose talk page is being used to promote conspiracy theories, needs salting. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for multiple WP:NOT violations. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not seeing what justifies deletion here more than other typical declined drafts. Misuse of the talk page should just be addressed with the users directly. --Bsherr (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a silly POV fork. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The What Wikipedia is NOT issues and the POV fork are reasons to decline a draft, not to delete a draft. The talk page is being used as a general forum, which is a violation of talk page guidelines, not of draft guidelines. Deleting a draft because the talk page is being used as a forum is like using a hammer to swat mosquitoes. It is more likely to break things than to kill the parasitic vectors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to say that Turkey and China have joined in the war, is totally misleading and a good reason to delete this draft. Catfurball (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant misinformation is extremely important to remove. Geschichte (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not per the nominator's reasons, but for being a WP:HOAX, falsely claiming that China and Turkey have joined the war.

ApexParagon (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:CaseOhheartattack/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unsourced version of Draft:CaseOh with BLP-problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Draft:CaseOh. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Draft:CaseOh, unsourced BLP articles are iffy even in user-space. And this article doesn't meaningfully expand on the already-existing draft. ApexParagon (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The draft has been rejected multiple times for lack of notability and doesn't appear viable, so I don't see a point in redirecting. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicative/POV fork of an existing draft. JFHJr (㊟) 02:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abortion survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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]

• 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:

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:

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

NBC NEWS:

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

CNN:

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

THE TELEGRAPH:

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:

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29420410/
• https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610400025945

(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 assessingA 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 willnever 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 willnever 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. — 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.IntentionallyDense ^(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]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates