Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

[edit]

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 7 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

[edit]

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit]

How to list pages for deletion

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

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

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

[edit]
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 36 0 36
TfD 0 1 11 0 12
MfD 0 0 5 0 5
FfD 0 1 11 0 12
RfD 0 0 50 0 50
AfD 0 0 41 0 41

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

Archived discussions

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]
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.

July 2, 2025

[edit]

User:DVdm

[edit]
User:DVdm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:UP#GOALS: "Writings, information not closely related to Wikipedia's goals." The information was removed/rejected from the Herbert Dingle article. Discussion of it here. It seems like it was done to circumvent community consensus regarding the addition of the content to Wikipedia by placing it on their User page. TurboSuperA+(connect) 07:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm disregarding any arguments about the merits of the mathematical equation - I personally don't see the problem with it, though others may disagree. However, the userboxes on the userpage clearly fall under WP:UPYES, and predate the MFD nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 1, 2025

[edit]

Template:User SandBox Project

[edit]
Template:User SandBox Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This userbox is for a project that never really got off the ground back in 2012. I ran into its main page (a User page) and then discovered this associated template. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 28, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Trajko Boškoski

[edit]
Draft:Trajko Boškoski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Edit: see below; my original rationale was due to suspected sockpuppetry, but inappropriate before investigation.

Edit: actually should be a speedy delete due to G5. Very likely created by an IP sock from a blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atanasp123. Reason is because they went on the Wikimedia WP:DISCORD on an account that was authenticated to a blocked sock and asked for help on this draft that "a friend" created. The IP can be geolocated to liverpool, the sock's profile's favorite football team is from Liverpool. Shared interest in North Macedonia. Very likely sock. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Context: me and grapesurgeon were both in the discord at the time the user appeared) I can confirm that the user's Discord bio did mention their favorite teams and nationality. I do however question whether the draft itself should be deleted. The subject appears to have significant coverage in North Macedonian sources, has articles in the Bulgarian and Macedonian wikipedias, and there is even a memorial dedicated to him. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with policy on this matter; is there policy on what to do with sockpuppet writing? I feel like if we defend/keep it, we incentivize them to keep coming back because their writing will be kept around. I'm partial to punishing by deleting or undoing. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nvm, this should have been WP:G5 speedy deleted. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok then. Speedy Delete. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks plausibly notable. G5 is not a deletion reason at MfD, but is a reason to tag {{db-g5}}. MfD is not and must not be a forum for discussing sockpuppety. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an odd technicality. Because I missed tagging speedy the reason becomes invalid? Why is there this inconsistency? Seems like a Wikilawyeresque argument; arguing to the letter rather than intent of policies grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t work out whether it is a G5. If you can, tag it. This is the wrong forum. You should not be publicly connecting accounts to IPs, or bringing in Discord evidence, here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to tag for speedy while a deletion discussion is ongoing? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can tag it if you want to. Use {{db-g5|user=Example}} and replace Example with the name of the blocked user. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I tagged it, thanks. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:BusterD declined it.
I don’t agree that MfD should decide questions of suspected socks. Take it to WT:SPI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I may do that and then renom for deletion afterwards grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I concur with SmokeyJoe 100% AfD is the wrong forum in which to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry. I can't claim I spent a lot of time on it, but I didn't see any direct evidence presented, which would make such claims unproven assertions and as such WP:Personal attack. I'll assume good faith this is a misunderstanding. I'd suggest User:Grapesurgeon IMMEDIATELY either: 1) create a new sockpuppetry case with diffs and sourced assertions, or 2) retract any accusation of sockpuppetry from this formal process (including the bolded addition to their OP) by striking through. Please accept my feedback as friendly advice, not instruction. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that sounds good. Yes it was a misunderstanding. Despite my high edit count it's almost entirely content focused; I only recently started doing SPI and dealing with vandalism etc. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And we appreciate your eyes on this matter. I do have a question... Do you have ANY stated reason for deletion? It looks like you've withdrawn this entire delete assertion. Am I misunderstanding? BusterD (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppet assertion is really the only concern I have. I think this deletion discussion can be withdrawn until the SPI case I submitted is concluded. I had submitted one after SmokeyJoe's last comment btw grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 27, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Sidewalk Clock, 783 Fifth Avenue

[edit]
Draft:Sidewalk Clock, 783 Fifth Avenue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is only tangentially about notability, because drafts don't need to meet notability. The issue is the disruptive creation and recreation by Henderson's sock and ToadetteEdit. Henderson's account and socks have been globally locked and Toadette has been site banned.

Epicgenius noted that this clock is unlikely to be notable, but the topic of sidewalk clocks is notable but there is no merger target in such article and Fifth_Avenue#Individual_landmarks could be an ATD along with the Sherry Netherland Article.

That said, I don't think we should reward disruptive creation. If someone wants to write an article on this clocks or clocks as a whole, theyc an do that. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 20:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This might be allowed to wither on the G13 vine, but infinitely preferable is to refuse to reward Greghenderson2006, a long term abuser of WMF sites, and also ToadetteEdit who made all sorts of wrong choices including furthering this draft. Salt main and draft spaces. Any future article may request unsalting. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with the rationale in the nom. It's likely not a notable clock, there are a whole lotta street clocks in NYC, and it is doubtful they are all worthy of an encyclopedia article. The history of disruptive origins further complicates matters. Netherzone (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TNT makes sense as @The Grid suggests as a deletion rationale. I had also thought about a redirect or merge, but there is no acceptable target. If there was an article on the "Sidewalk clocks of New York City" based on the NRHP report, that would make sense, but I don't think that option exists. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore. Sockpuppety is a worse reason than notability to bring something to MfD. Creating this community discussion page is contrary to WP:DENY. Either G5 applies, or get a checkuser or SPI clerk to request deletion. Do not try to turn MfD into a shadow SPI forum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe not at all trying to create a shadow SPI forum. The G5 was declined because Toadette is not a sock. I happen to disagree with @Explicit (courtesy ping, no action needed) but that doesn't mean their decision was incorrect. I just see it differently since TE directly used the blocked sock's now deleted article to create theirs so IMO that's the same as socking. Explicit sees it differently. No SPI needed as there is already one for Greg and no one is arguing TE is a sock of Greg, just making some poor decisions in deciding to proxy as was discussed at ANI Star Mississippi 03:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that any request for a page deletion due to sockpuppety should be made, or at least be supported, by an SPI clerk or a checkuser. MfD is not competent to judge without their advice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and leave for G13. We should not try to decide whether this draft subject is notable. There is nothing inherently wrong with this draft except its history. The fact that it was created by a later-banned editor after being created and deleted by a sockpuppet does not mean that this is inherently different from other useless drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This really is an odd MfD. If the issue is the history and editors involved, wouldn't WP:TNT be sufficient? I see potential for the material to exist in Wikipedia under an article about NYC but not as its own article. – The Grid (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to TNT, but that ends up in the same place as deletion since with the source deleted for unrelated reasons, there's no attribution issue that I'm aware of.
    If there was an ATD it would be easier and cleaner, but there isn't Star Mississippi 00:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/Nicktoons task force

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/Nicktoons task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

An overly specific task force created by one participant in 2013, which has never been active since then, i.e. it never really worked as a task force. The only participant is placeholder. Solidest (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/The Fairly OddParents task force

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/The Fairly OddParents task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

An overly specific task force created by one participant in 2013, which has never been active since then, i.e. it never really worked as a task force. The only participant is placeholder. Solidest (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a member of WikiProject Television? Do you have WikiProject support for cleaning up the WikiProject subpages?
I think you should archive by redirection to the WikiProject top page, instead of creating a page and a discussion to clean up an old page that does not harm and needs no attention. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this task force was abandoned by its creator the same month it was created, since they didn’t even add themselves to the list of participants. I'm also not sure why the project should be discussing something that was never used by it, but got duplicated three times under different names. It was even already deleted once. Such pages are actually harmful now, as they appear among active projects on the recently added special page, cluttering the list. (However, today I made a bulk edit to add a specific P31 on Wikidata for all task forces, so we’ll see how that affects the page after the update.) I have no objection to listing task forces that were once operational but are no longer active — but this one looks like an abandoned stub from the very beginning. Solidest (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This task force doesn't even have a talk page, but redirects to the talk page of the parent task force. That means that this task force never did anything and was never even properly set up to do anything. There was never any activity on the talk page of this sub-task-force, and then the talk page was redirected, which acknowledged that the subordinate task force had never done anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/Invader Zim task force

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/Invader Zim task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

An overly specific task force created by one participant in 2013, which has never been active since then, i.e. it never really worked as a task force. The only participant is placeholder. Solidest (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Scottish television task force/River City task force

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Scottish television task force/River City task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

An empty task force page with no tasks or goals. Solidest (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Shannara task force/User Shannara task force

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Shannara task force/User Shannara task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox for defunct taskforce Solidest (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was it ever used? It is annoying to find deleted Userboxes in Userpage histories. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 25, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article

[edit]
Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I am usually rather inclusionist when it comes to humorous essays, because I would rather see someone rebut the premise of an essay with another, opposing, essay, than to delete it because it presents an unpopular viewpoint. However, this essay seems to me to be simply nonsensical, and it does not really offer anything potentially useful in terms of editing Wikipedia. It sounds to me like a riff on WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, mixed either with WP:No Nazis, or Godwin's law. But the Trump-related essay actually addresses an issue about content, whereas it's entirely unclear whether the nominated essay is criticizing the Trump essay, criticizing Trump, or criticizing editors who find fault with Nazis. It strikes me as just making a dumb joke. After all, it's not like we have too many users creating pages about things Hitler did. Ultimately, I think it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. I suggest that it should either be deleted, or moved (back) into userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion of Poland and the annexation of Austria are new events, they are very unlikely to have any lasting effect or significance. They are brief news stories that will be forgotten in a day.
This sentence in the essay should probably tell you that the essay is parodying speculative comments. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The point of this page is clearly that it's riffing on WP:CRYSTAL, pointing out that if Wikipedia had existed in 1939, editors would have debated whether or not these events warranted articles. The (fairly salient) implication is that perhaps in the future the Trump essay will be out of date, and maybe, once we know how history will have shaken out, it'll look very funny that editors were arguing over whether or not events that may seem obviously significant in the future warranted inclusion. Same general stripe of humor as Before they were notable, but taken to an extreme. I found the joke funny. I think it should be kept. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy per Tryptofish's comments below. Another essay improving the core idea of this one may be written if someone would wish to; however, this one should be retained in some way given that it clearly has a credible claim of value to the project. However, given the issues identified with the way the argument is made, I think it's reasonable to say it shouldn't be in project space. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I have reservations with the underlying thesis of the essay, it's pretty clear that this is a counterexample to WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, used to demonstrate that sometimes the major headlines really are notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. 10:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The challenge is to merge short similar essays. There is no justification of deletion. Maybe come back to MfD if the merge attempts are unreasonably blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t oppose re-userfying. I don’t understand Tryptofish’s strength of feeling here.
    The essay doesn’t come close to a NOTWEBHOST criticism because it definitely is project related. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your giving thought to my comments, and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to explain in a way that makes sense to you. For what it's worth, I don't understand how you could have said that there "is no justification" for my view. I've clearly given justifications, even if you disagree with them. As I said at the beginning of my nominating statement, I'm usually inclined to give wide birth to essays that express views that I might not agree with. And I get the feeling that you and I have somewhat similar perspectives, in that something that is credibly project-related should be kept (and rebutted by another essay, if someone wants to). But I draw a line, based on whether or not the project relatedness is, in fact, credible. As I tried very hard to explain below, Hitler is the wrong vehicle for making this purported project-related argument. And it's not just that it's mistaken, in my opinion. It's that it's fundamentally wrong and offensive, to the point that I find the claim of project-relatedness preposterous. The fact that one can look at it and see parallels with the Trump-related essay does not make it a counterpoint to that other essay. It's just a sophomoric joke, based on a wildly offensive premise, hiding behind a mimicry of the other essay. Perhaps it offends me, more than it offends other people, but I just find that to be sad. I find nothing in the essay that serves an actual project-related purpose. There's no real rebuttal of the other essay, just a sophomoric imitation of it. It serves no good to keep it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “No justification” means that not one item of your criticism reaches the threshold for deletion of a Wikipedia essay. Userfy, yes, delete, no. “Nonsensical” is a reason to Userfy. A riff on another project space essay with a mix of another two? That’s a strong “keep in project space” rationale to me. Criticism and comparisons are excellent features of project space essays.
    To my reading, this is a WP:Notability essay, written in satire, arguing that new event topics should get leeway with respect to notability tests.
    Hitler is the wrong vehicle? I don’t think it fails WP:GODWIN; it does not connect new current affairs topics deletionists to Hitler. Further, as per the 2nd paragraph of Godwin's law, “In 2021, Harvard researchers published an article showing that the Nazi-comparison phenomenon does not occur with statistically meaningful frequency in Reddit discussions”, Godwin’s 1990 observation had faded. “Nazi”, like a “deletion Nazi” now means a “zealot”.
    By “sophomoric”, do you mean juvenile? I think Wikipedia should welcome the sophomoric mindset in the backrooms.
    What is wildly offensive? “Hold your horses mate” tells the reader that the author is an uncouth plain-speaking Aussie, with more baggage from the Burma Railway than Hitler.
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been giving careful thought to the arguments in favor of keeping. I now understand that the intention is that this essay should provide a counterpoint to the Trump-related essay, in the context of WP:CRYSTAL: that some content related to Trump (and perhaps other kinds of content about recent events) should be kept because, who knows, with the passage of time we may come to see some things that appear trivial now, as actually having historical significance. I think that an essay making that case could be of value, and could be one well worth keeping.
But this isn't that essay. This essay says, in effect, that some content related to Trump should be kept because, who knows, with the passage of time we may come to see Trump the way we now see Hitler. Whaaat?
The Trump-related essay is framed in terms of "outrageous" things Trump says or does, and the lead image gives the example of not needing to have a page about every golf game he plays. The nominated page, on the other hand, is framed in terms of the events that began World War Two. A logical counterpoint would have used examples of things that seemed trivial at the time, but are now seen as historic. The examples chosen by the nominated essay do not illustrate what the essay claims to show.
Even more importantly, Hitler is simply the wrong choice to make the case the essay intends to make. Most people do not think "notable historic figure" when they first think of him. More likely, they first think "archetype of the personification of evil". Although it's possible to make humor about Hitler, it's very, very difficult to do that successfully, and this essay isn't funny. It's arguably offensive, and that gets in the way of understanding the point the essay tries to make. There's an abundant supply of notable figures who have done things that might have seemed trivial at the time, but which have come to be widely agreed to have been history-making. Hitler simply is not one of those.
I can easily think of examples that would work. The Boston Tea Party might have seemed, at the time, to just be some rowdy trouble-makers doing nothing of historical importance. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry might have seemed to be some crank making trouble, and no more. Rosa Parks might have seemed some woman who sat on the wrong seat on a bus. The anonymous Tank Man of Tiananmen Square might have seemed to just be some random guy who stood in the wrong place. And on and on. There are so many ways to illustrate how something that might look insignificant today could come, with the passage of time, to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes. And without seeming like a tasteless and offensive joke.
The solution is not a matter of merging. Maybe there are other essays that should be merged. This essay needs a WP:TNT rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thesmarthuman/sandbox

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

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3AThesmarthuman%2Fsandbox&rev1=840606940&page2=Kim+Jong+Un&rev2=840302206 Paradoctor (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessibility feature

[edit]
User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessibility feature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

this is less a case of "let's try this again", and more "let's raise some other points". in this case, i thought i would have only one or two issues, but it actually spiraled out of control the more i read it, so...

  • the premise is fine enough on paper. however, by making one single statement and wording said statement in a conclusive manner, it can then exclude people with disabilities (like me, if the autism diagnosis i got wasn't just a shitty respiratory system) who don't see it exactly that way, like having issues with warnings, or preferring direct communication
  • it does, however, fail to actually elaborate on which disorders might affect it, or how. the former might also be fine, don't wanna skip to naming names, but the latter leaves everything past the first glance up to hoping that the reader already knows a thing or two about the matter of dealing with people who have disorders to such an extent that it fundamentally changes how they approach wikipedia. it ironically comes off as having a barrier of entry to fully understanding the essay in the first place
  • the second paragraph (or would it be the first section?) doesn't really indicate or even imply any relation with the lead, and comes off more as a non-sequitur or thinly veiled attack against another editor, as seems customary of the creator (as indicated by this other mfd discussion about an essay they wrote)
  • it also seems to contradict the lead, as it then conclusively states that dttr is an ableist argument that people with disabilities will take issues with, which... you know, has a pretty obvious hole. i can say that the diagnosis i got as a newborn was right on the money and that i take no issue with being templated, and now that entire paragraph isn't really all that valid, is it?
  • it then links to another essay that i really like (why is beyond this discussion, though), but also that contradicts the second point by not presenting them as barriers to communication, and also not making conclusive statements about what any user "will" think about them beyond "it's not going to kill them". it also says the opposite of what this essay says about dttr, which is admittedly really funny

to summarize it, i think the essay is a bit of a mess as is, as it promotes two ideas that are equally conclusive, unclear, and contradictory, and then promotes an essay that outright disagrees with both points it makes, seemingly as if it didn't. if not deleted, i'm 99 + 1% sure it should be almost completely rewritten (as in probably everything past the title, and maybe even that), at which point... why not just nuke it and start from scratch? consarn (grave) (obituary) 15:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2025

[edit]

User talk:Jsonantenor

[edit]
User talk:Jsonantenor (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Star Mississippi 01:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but unencyclopedic ramblings from the user (mostly in Filipino) and one random unintelligible comment from an IP who may be the same person or an offline acquaintance. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

[edit]


June 23, 2025

[edit]

Draft:PubKey

[edit]
Draft:PubKey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Subject does not meet GNG, and someone keeps on submitting the draft for review after it got rejected without making any actually significant changes. I'd support userfying this too. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for WP:G13. User:Gommeh misleads, the draft has not be resubmitted following its only rejection. Rejection and decline are different.
Support for Userfying is asserting of plausible notability and is a reason for keeping, subject to G13. Don’t Userfy if they don’t ask. They are welcome to Userfy, see WP:DUD.
AfC has good processes. Learn them and follow them. Don’t skip ahead. MfD is misused by drawing attention to bad drafts. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts where they don’t waste others time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what the difference is then? I'm still new to AFC. But for these purposes I'm probably going to treat them as if they were the same. » Gommeh (he/him) 22:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the question at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This draft has not been resubmitted after it was rejected. Rejection was the proper action on the eighth submission after seven declines. There is no need to nominate a draft for deletion immediately after it is rejected. Stopping the resubmission is what rejection is for. If a draft is resubmitted after rejection without discussion, deletion is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patience, i.e. Keep for now and just let standard AFC and Draft policies deal with it. Creators(s) were slow to learn from declines, and it does seem unlikely this will ever pass muster as an article. Hence the most recent rejection. No need to do anything else now. Absent disruption, either WP:G13 or more focused editorial effort to improve the article significantly and demonstrate suitability (seems unlikely, but it is possible) will take care of the matter. Martinp (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, G13 exists for a reason and taking drafts to MFD is always best avoided. If a user were to continue to keep submitting after a reject, that's a different matter, but that hasn't happened here.
CoconutOctopus talk 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Flashnet

[edit]
Draft:Flashnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Reads like an advertisement and the company is not notable enough. See WP:ARTSPAM. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Ignore. “Reads like and advertisement”? Are you thinking WP:G11? Where is your CSD log? It is rarely productive to bring non-G11s to MfD. “Not notable”? WP:NMFD. Notability is not required in draftspace.
“Advertisements masquerading as articles”? This issue was solved by inventing draftspace. Drafts, with the prefix “Draft”, not not mistakeable by promoters as Wikipedia articles and don’t lead to UPEs being paid.
The draft has been declined. WP:AfC has good processes, follow them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator tried to submit it twice for AFC - it was pretty much the same article both times. WP:NMFD says "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". We could also just let it go and wait for it to be deleted after six months or so. But I doubt the draft will change much by then. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Twice is a harsh interpretation of “repeatedly”. The AfC reviewer is supposed to leave comments. The draft proponent can take six months to read and reflect on those comments, before the draft and associated comments are deleted via WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie

[edit]
Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:OBJECTSHOW, all pages, documenting object shows are not allowed because they're lacking independent, reliable sources for them CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Object shows are not categorically disallowed. If reliable sources surfaced for them, they would be permitted just like anything else. The purpose of WP:BFDI is not to tell editors that the thing they like is categorically excluded from Wikipedia (which would drive away productive editors), but to inform them of what it would take for BFDI (or anything else that has been similarly ignored by the media and academia while being quite popular) to have an article.

    Although consensus against allowing article development on BFDI specifically has been developed, this does not mean that the same applies to any similar works, until and unless editors pushing for their inclusion become similarly disruptive. Unless this is the case, deleting such drafts is simply WP:BITING potentially productive editors. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this mean? There's not a reliable source for this. It might have been obviously invented by the creator of the draft? Or is it fake? Should the draft be occasionally edited to prevent speedy deletion of G13 criterion? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:NDRAFT and WP:LUDA. In general, if a draft on a non-notable topic has not been tendentiously resubmitted by its creator and poses no other problems (see here), we should leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per MOS:PLOTLENGTH the summary is far too long for any reasonable article. Obviously this doesn't disqualify it from existing, but the sheer amount of plot compared to the real-world parts of the article makes it verge on the edge of WP:JUSTPLOT. The fact it only has unreliable sources (random guy on Twitter, IMDB and two literal comics) does not help at all. GarethBaloney 20:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you could fix the problem by clicking the [Edit] button and removing unnecessary details, then the page shouldn't be deleted.
The real problem is the lack of ordinary reliable sources. But in the Draft: namespace, we leave those alone. After all, we don't want to delete a page on Monday, only to have the original creator come back on Tuesday to say "Hey, where'd the article go? This film just got featured in a huge article in today's Film News, and I want to add the source!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. AlphaBeta135talk 03:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:What's a forint?

[edit]
Wikipedia:What's a forint? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No connection with the goals and processes of Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation)

[edit]
Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Hatnote is sufficient per WP:TWOOTHER. There was no consensus to use this page at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55 § Redirects in WP:DABCOMBINE? —Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hatnotes are low quality information in the prime real estate of the page. DAB pages are better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page can be used in the hatnote to make it more concise: {{Redirect|WP:DAB}}, which yields...
"WP:DAB" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:DAB (disambiguation).
P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1298475485"