Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFDHOWTO)
"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 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

[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 Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 0 121 121
TfD 0 0 1 6 7
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 1 24 25
RfD 0 0 0 17 17
AfD 0 0 0 35 35

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.

May 28, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Three best sources

[edit]
Wikipedia:Three best sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This essay has lived in my user space for the past seven years. Based on the number of times people have linked to the shortcut WP:THREE, it has become well-known. Recently, Pigsonthewing forked my essay to project space. I requested that he revert that, which he declined to do.

While I am flattered that PotW thought my essay a useful starting point for his own, I am concerned about the manner in which he did it. Using the same title in a different namespace and reproducing verbatim my distinctive writing style, will inevitably lead to confusion. If PotW disagrees with my essay, I encourage him to write his own, as Banana Republic did some time ago with Wikipedia:Multiple sources. In fact, I just noticed that where Banana linked to my essay (User:RoySmith/Three best sources – another commonly cited essay regarding number of sources), PotW has changed that to point to his own, keeping the "another commonly cited essay" language; this seems like a deliberate attempt to confuse readers.

If this is not deleted, then at least it should be moved to a distinctively different title, and a note added explaining that it is a fork, so readers are not confused. I would do this myself, but WP:INVOLVED, so bringing it here. RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. There is no valid reason for deletion stated here, just egregious ownership. I was accused of "stealing" the content (which is clearly openly licenced), for which RoySmith has yet to apologise, or retract.
I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused.
Since forking the essay - with due attribution in my edit summary - and making it available for the community at large to improve (it is, of course, not "my own"), I have already begun to modify it (as others are welcome to do), so it is no longer the same thing as RoySmith's personal copy, which remains where it was and is still available for him to refer to as he sees fit.
The accusations of "a deliberate attempt to confuse readers" is, of course utterly without foundation and an equally utter failure to assume good faith, and I invite RoySmith to retract that also. For shame! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused. Okay, but I don't really see why that's a problem. It's allowed to be where it is. It's not disruptive or anything for an essay to just stay in the user namespace and there's no reason to demand moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. It's fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I demand it be moved there? I've explicitly said that he is entitled to keep his preferred version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that "steal" was a poor choice of words. I've struck that. RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the redirect that was initially created at this title. RoySmith is allowed to keep the essay where it is, and this title as a project space redirect was sensible as a means to allow editors to quickly find it. Hijacking the redirect to the essay for whatever it is that Pigsonthewing is trying to do here is not appropriate. The appropriate place to do something like this is on a subpage in your own userspace, or in your own user sandbox. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate place to host an essay for the community as a whole to edit and use is not my (nor anyone else's) user space. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Jonesey95's proposal of moving this to another name and then restoring the redirect. That seems reasonable. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a different name and restore the redirect. Some people may intend to link to the userspace essay from this page, and that long-standing link should be preserved. It's fine that this repurposed text exists, but it should not usurp the original links created by the first author. Improve the new version of the essay, create a new name for it, and create a new, snappy shortcut for it. (I have removed wikitext from the page that claimed it was linked to from a shortcut that actually points to the userspace essay.)
    Repurposing the essay in Wikipedia space removes a disincentive for other editors to improve the essay; we are discouraged from editing pages in other people's userspaces, even pages that are commonly linked to from discussions. Removing that disincentive is a good thing; Pigsonthewing and I have already polished the text, and more will probably happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and restore redirect per Jonesey95.--Launchballer 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I note that Roy previously wrote that forking the article was an appropriate thing to do, as long as the forked text doesn't imply to be his opinion. As it stands, he acts as sole guardian of his essay, which might serve his purposes but does not necessarily serve the higher purposes of the Wikipedia community. I would hope that he would be proud to have given birth to the essay, and with the bold input of a range of editors I would hope that this new, community version might be subject of an RfC to become a guideline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat as a naming dispute—start an RM to determine where the (original) essay shall be. This is about a single page, a literary work whose proper title is "Three best sources". To get the tecnically complete Wikipedia page title, this can be preceded by "User:RoySmith/" or by "Wikipedia:". There is disagreement on whether it should be one or the other. Whenever a name is disputed, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requested moves. The community is able to change a userspace essay to a projectspace essay even if the author of the essay disagrees. Delete the redundant copy. Treat what has been done as an improper and incomplete cut-and-paste move.
    Pigsonthewing said: I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused—so start an RM.—Alalch E. 14:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging everyone else to agree with my analysis, in order to procedurally close this and migrate the process to Wikipedia:Requested moves: @RoySmith, SilviaASH, Jonesey95, and Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for considering.—Alalch E. 14:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USERESSAY seems to say that Roy is entitled to keep his version, in the form and location in his userspace that he prefers, and others may work on a separate version with a view that it becomes 'proposed', with a hat tip to Roy. Not ideal per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays but Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay No. It is unfair to Roy to say this. By looking at the page history, there's zero evidence of Roy's (as-would-be-legitimate since it's his userspace) ownership of content of the page; the essay was edited by multiple people. He's not been exhibiting a desire for control. Interpreting this dispute in such a way is a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to have other people write essays based on mine. If you disagree with what I wrote, that's perfectly fine. Write an essay espousing a different point of view. Stand up and proclaim to the world, "Roy Smith is wrong, and this is why". If you want to reuse my text, technically I can't stop you. CC-BY-SA gives you that right, and leaving a link in an edit comment certainly fulfills the legal obligation imposed by the "BY" part of that.
    What I'm not happy about is taking something I deliberately wrote in the first person in my user-space to express my personal opinion and republishing it with instances of "I" changed to "reviewers". And doing so under the same title, which has been well known for years. What possible reason was there to do that, if not to confuse people? AGF has its limits. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Curb Safe Charmer. Roy should be allowed to keep his version in his userspace, if he so wishes, while the community may work on another version of the essay. However, if Roy would rather this be dealt with at RM as you propose, then I say deal with it at RM. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, the community can still move the essay in a consensus process. And it doesn't appear that this is an essay that RoySmith doesn't want others to edit, it's just an essay that he believes works better as a user space essay for the whole community. He just needs to be told by multiple editors that it is a good essay for project space, and additionally, that there's nothing that distinctive and colorful about the writing style of the essay. It is written in a balanced and serious style, making it indistinguishable from any good project space essay in style, and many project space essays have more "personalized" writing style. In addition, the viewpoint presented is widely accepted and not anything like a minority opinion.—Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I support moving this to RM. The Manual of Style does not apply to project space; essays can be written whatever way the author(s) may please. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I do that? He's entitled to keep his version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't want his version, he disputes moving the essay to project space. It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content. He believes that for the entire community, the essay in question should be a page titled "User:RoySmith/Three best sources". It appears that this is because it is written in his "distinctive writing style", but that may not be because he is interested in maintaining that style as such, but because he doesn't believe that essays in project space should be written in such a style. —Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch E.: I don't know why you wrote "It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content" when he clearly does... a few quotes from Roy on the essay's talk page: ""I'm trying hard to keep it terse" ... "working fine as is" ... (by another editor) "I tried to broaden the essay to be AfC inclusive but RoySmith reverted" ... "I have on occasion (not too often) accepted changes people have suggested" ... "people keep messing with it in ways I don't agree with" - these all indicate a desire to tightly control the version in his userspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't, that's not remotely the level of control over content that is only appropriate in user space and not appropriate in project space. All pages are edited on a consensus basis. —Alalch E. 15:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Did you actually read WP:USERESSAY? To quote policy: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." ... "The author of a personal essay located in their user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have read it. I understand what you're saying very well, but I don't see evidence, in the page history, of RoySmith using such prerogative on multiple occasions to the extent that goes beyond what an author of a project space essay might do. So, in project space, an editor might also say "I prefer it staying the way it was on grounds of style", and the two editors could then discuss it on the talk page. In all important aspects of the essay, on substance, there haven't been significant attempts to change its message. That's because what it says is pretty mainstream. —Alalch E. 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a thought on alternative approaches - could the content be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources which already has the redirect WP:3SOURCES pointing to it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:One hundred words

[edit]
Wikipedia:One hundred words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a procedural nomination. I deleted this essay per WP:G7 yesterday, but said I would restore it and file this MfD if it proved controversial, which it has. I am neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The new page is not the original essay, but is intended to be some kind of placeholder to explain what the essay was. As far as I am aware, we do not create placeholder pages like this for important deleted project pages, let alone for obscure pages of no importance or interest. The number of incoming links is tiny, and most of them are duplicates or non-citations. The essay was very rarely cited in community discussions. It will never be cited again, and should never be cited again because it no longer exists. No-one cares what it said. It could not have affected consensus (WP:DETCON). It cannot affect future consensus. It makes no difference to the project. No one (apart from new page patrollers and MfD participants) is going to read the new page due to the small number and obscure location of the citations. If no-one wants an essay on this subject, there should no page. It is not clear what purpose the new page could be used for other than WP:DEADHORSE, though I think it will probably be used for no purpose at all. The new redirects are positively harmful, as they could make editors believe that the essay still exists. The essay should simply be forgotten. James500 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am not familiar with whatever drama led to the current state of this page, but the essay that previously existed here advocates a worthwhile and agreeable viewpoint. I think it should be retained in some form. Ideally, I would advocate restoring the old revision of the essay, and, if necessary, improving it to address whatever concerns or criticisms that editors may have expressed about it in the past. However, at the very least, the explanatory note should be left on the page as it is, and the original essay should be accessible via the page history to any interested editors. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant, influential, project essay on a still unsolved controversial and troublesome question. It was cited in important discussions, including by me. If it is not the original essay, restore the original essay. James500 is a smart Wikipedian, and there is a lot of wisdom in the history of his posts, even if he is not perfect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deny User:James500‘s wish to deassociate from the essay. James is prominent in the history of WP:N, #40th editor to the guideline, and #23’rd (231 posts) to its talk page. James was an articulate inclusionist, and measures of “significant” as written into the WP:GNG, are crucial in the inclusionist-deletionist balance. WP:100WORDS (nite that most links are by shortcuts) is a strong claim, noting the context, secondary source content directly addressing the topic.
Even if James were to exercise his right to vanish, it is an important record that the same account that was so influential at WP:N is a major author of the notability essay, and when. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and mark historical and without a snarky summary please. Don't think we should outright delete as there are too many incoming links which would break archived discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or outright keeping also works. Either or. Curbon7 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't a snarky summary, you've misread the page's history —Alalch E. 09:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ritchie333 is the procedural nominator and the material initiative to delete comes from James500 (who made the most contributions to the essay and tagged it for WP:G7). Other editors also made substantive contributions. James500 has stated that the essay is causing him problems and wants it deleted and "forgotten" (essentially, erased from history). The essay needs to be kept as deleting it is not consistent with the deletion policy, and the community should help James500 with the problem he's been having in some other way, if possible.—Alalch E. 09:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original - Looks like this has been cited/referenced by several people other than the primary author and had some nontrivial edits by other users at time of tagging. If there's harassment going on, that's something that should be addressed, but CSD probably isn't the way. Perhaps if James500 feels strongly that he does not want to be associated with this essay anymore, he could relinquish his authorship, we delete it, and someone else could just recreate it with the same content. Unorthodox, but perhaps that would satisfy everyone? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "he could relinquish his authorship, we delete it, and someone else could just recreate it with the same content": That would be acceptable. James500 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any volunteers here to be the first edit of a new page with the same content? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If James500 does not want to be associated with the essay, he can simply voluntarily stop associating with it (acknowledging it as 'his' essay, editing it, etc), and the community can retain it to use and improve as is desirable. If he is being harassed for creating the essay, then the people who are harassing him should be blocked and/or banned. However, that is a discussion more appropriate for WP:ANI or some other such venue. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: Doing that would be a forgery. Analogous to a forged document. It isn't consistent with WF ToS and WP:C. You can't retroactively remove attribution from the work once you've "stamped" it with an irrevocable license demanding attribution. I.e., you can't release with a license requiring attribution that is irrevocable and revoke that license to cause the work to become an abandoned work (someone else could claim it as their own) or transmogrify the attribution retroactively so that someone else is somehow supposedly the author. A freely licensed work is not an abandoned work. Pinging Whpq for an opinion. But I am again noting that others' contribution are not so negligible and are in fact substantive, which may make this theoretical.—Alalch E. 14:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you can't release with a license requiring attribution that is irrevocable and revoke that license to cause the work to become an abandoned work - Yes, of course you can. You can't regain rights you've released, but you can release more rights up to and including donating it to the public domain. That only means you cannot act as though the more restrictive license is still in force. I hope that we do not arrive at a situation where people want it to be kept, but only if it can also be primarily attributed to someone who has disowned it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should James500 agree to release his contributions to the essay into the public domain, making attribution to him unnecessary, I support this compromise. It is important to note, however, that other authors must remain attributed (per WP:DUAL). If there is some mechanism by which James' attribution can be removed (deleting his revisions, perhaps?), this would resolve the issue.
    @James500: Would you be willing to dedicate your contribution to the essay to the public domain so that any attribution to you could be removed? silviaASH (inquire within) 15:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the attribution to me, including my username, and the links to my userpage, and my editcount, and the list of my userrights, is removed from the page history of the essay, I am perfectly happy to release my contributions to the essay into the public domain. I do not know if that is technically possible with the software. James500 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Changing visibility settings, it does appear that it is technically possible to remove the attribution. This would be a very atypical use of WP:REVDEL, so an administrator's opinion would be required here, but I personally think it would be appropriate in this case if consensus for it is attained. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites is correct. James500 still holds the copyright to their contribution, and as the copyright holder they can choose to release it under a more permissive license which does not require attribution. As for removal of attribution in any page history, the removal of the username is possible via WP:REVDEL and I believe it would meet condition R6 for revision deletion but other admins with more experience with revdel policy weighing in would be helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'd contest that a little bit by saying that you can't relisence a thing that was once released with a particular irrevocable license, you can only create a new copy/version with a more permissive license. I don't really disagree with Rhododendrites, but my point is that you can't change the license of edits made; you can republish the same content with a different license. Can't do anything retroactive to already existing copies. I'd say that an entire new page would be needed. Am I wrong? —Alalch E. 16:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can relicense the same work with a new license. The CC license is irrevocable but effectively nullified via a dual license with public domain declaration. So yes it would need to be copied (what I was getting at with Any volunteers here to be the first edit of a new page with the same content. The tricky bit isn't James' license but the other users who contributed and how best to credit them if it started fresh. If there were support for this, probably have to do something like (1) blank the page, (2) revdel, (3) restore the page, referencing its own history. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think James should create a brand new page at possibly a temporary name with all the content which is originally is, while being careful to exclude any content that is not his and can be construed as substantive contributions (for example, if someone else added the nutshell, that is a substantive contribution), and add that it it is released under a suitable license in the edit summary, and in the second edit, he or someone else can copy over all the other contributions with an edit summary listing those other contributors (WP:RIA), and only then could James' initial edit be revdelled, and the original page should be deleted, and the temporary page should take its place. —Alalch E. 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably be much simpler for an admin to use RevDel to remove James' name from the revisions in the already extant essay page. If I understand the details at WP:REVDEL correctly, it looks like it is possible to remove only his name and leave behind the text of the revisions. Since he has already agreed to this, it seems to me that this would be the best option. I think it goes without saying that if this is done, I would say the essay should be restored afterwards. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When the community has decided what, if anything, I need to do, please let me know. James500 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revision deletion of James500's username within any diffs on the page in question. James, I've been a victim of OWH myself - I can confirm it is such an unpleasant experience, and I am sorry you had to go through it. I hope you understand my belief that the essay is useful and informative, and should stay in some capacity. But I also agree that, for your safety and comfort, we should be taking steps as a community to safeguard you from further harassment and stalking. Patient Zerotalk 03:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shreeman VS Shreemati

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

Fails WP:CAPITALISATION and also entirely stolen from Draft:Shreeman Vs Shreemati which was made by the official producers themselves through paid edit. which results a violation of WP:PLAG. plus the topic already exists on mainspace BengalMC (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rough Tree 3 Estimate

[edit]
Draft:Rough Tree 3 Estimate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The entire "article" is just a 400,000+ digit long number (estimate of the extraordinary large number TREE(3), with Kruskal's tree theorem). While it is kinda cool, I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for this sort of stuff; this estimate seems to be original research which you couldn't feasibly write an article about. There's no NOTWEBHOST equivalent for drafts so I'm nominating it here. ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: This would have been deleted in 14 days via WP:G13, but now you've now reset the 6 month timer. Leave abandoned drafts alone, the process takes care of them automatically. I do not think there is a valid rationale for early deletion of draft, but seeing as the timer was about to expire, wouldn't have issue if it was deleted. Curbon7 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to vote to keep what is obviously unsatisfactory but I echo the advice above: leave drafts alone unless they are blatant attacks or other bad stuff that requires immediate attention. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: This should have been left alone, but now that it's here it may as well be deleted. It clearly has no potential as an article and I can't see how the author could have imagined it would ever be an article. However, in the future, recommend that nominator ignore submissions like this unless they are urgently problematic in the ways laid out at WP:NDRAFT. This could also have been a WP:G2 candidate. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as pas SilviaASH. When someone asks to delete something from draft space because it is useless, we can ask whether it was about to be deleted by the self-clearing G13 process. There is no set definition for "about to be deleted", but this was about to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We're already here and there's no chance of this becoming an actual page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 26, 2025

[edit]

User:Pookiebear69/sandbox/Igloo effect

[edit]
User:Pookiebear69/sandbox/Igloo effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is just the WP:Article wizard placeholder with the addition of "started page". It has no chance of becoming an article, and has been abandon since October 2023. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator An alternative to deletion is clearly appropriate here. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a WP:RAG. Leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I found this through Category:Stale userspace drafts. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. If it's very important to clear that stale category, you can just remove the template at the top. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STALEDRAFT is valid. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, guidelines are valid. And this doesn't qualify. How is this page "problematic even if blanked" for example? Digging around other people's userspace looking for stuff like this to delete is not a good use of anyone's time. What exactly are we accomplishing by creating a whole discussion page (this one) dedicated to what's effectively a test page in a sandbox that nobody will ever see other than the creator and people looking for unnecessary work in other people's user space. (Sorry, I know I'm coming on strong here and you're relatively new to this -- I tend to comment on these [IMO] frivolous userspace nominations because userspace is supposed to be a safe place for people to experiment, draft, make mistakes, and play around. It includes serious drafts as well as notes, wikimarkup experiments, and all manner of stuff. And that's ok, because it's not indexed and doesn't affect anything else. There's just no gain to balance against (a) having an extra discussion, and (b) potentially initiating unnecessary conflict with the user whose space it is, or (c) demotivating users who now feel like they've done something wrong. For things like the category you mentioned, there are typically other ways to clean it up, like removing a template. FWIW.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can withdraw the nomination, I'll blank this page and move on. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. You can withdraw it if you so choose: WP:WDAFD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have taken a quick look at that maintenance category, and I think it is clear what is needed, which cannot be done by MFD and cannot be done by Ragpicking. There are 39,560 stale userspace drafts in that category. Any human-based process is the wrong way to deal with the category, regardless of whether the category needs dealing with. What is needed is a bot to walk through the category and determine which of the authors are in good standing, and notify those authors that they have stale drafts, and to produce a report listing the indeffed users who have drafts in that category, and how many drafts each indeffed user has. Some of the users have simply forgotten that they started work on those drafts, and notifying them will reduce the number of drafts in the category. That is the first step. The second step may be deciding whether a third step is necessary. We certainly don't need to discuss thousands of useless drafts. I was thinking of draft space drafts when I wrote Leave Useless Drafts Alone, but it also applies to userspace drafts. We don't need to review them one by one, or one dozen by one dozen. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The existence of these 39,560 stale user drafts is an interesting situation. Reviewing them for deletion at MFD is the wrong answer, regardless of whether there is a right answer or even whether the situation is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • About withdrawing: Legend of 14 You can only unconditionally withdraw triggering a speedy keep. You can not state that you withdraw as the nominator while continuing to advocate for an outcome other than keeping for that withdrawal to have the same effect as a procedurally full and proper nominator withdrawal. The discussion can't be closed early based on your "withdrawal" here. For a close based on withdrawal there can't be anyone left in the discussion who supports any outcome other than "keep", and "blank" is its own oucome, different from "keep", and as you clearly support blanking, you are invalidating your own purported withdrawal.—Alalch E. 10:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mhgsalim/sandbox/MHGsalim

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

This is just a placeholder that looks like it came from the WP:Article wizard. It doesn't look like it will ever be viable as an article. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:OComainDraft

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

This is a WP:POVFORK. The Ó_Comáin article already exists. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering may I ask why Bastun is attempting to delete the draft article when there is an ongoing Talk discussion here Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was already explained to you in the section you linked. It is a WP:POVFORK. We do not improve articles by having a draft and live version of an article; we work on the live version. It's the way Wikipedia has worked for 24 years. There is no reason to change that now. Work on the live article, where everyone can see your work, rather than a tiny number of editors who are aware of your draft being expected to follow updates. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note I could have just replaced the draft with a redirect to the live article, as generally, drafts of articles aren't kept when there's already an article. It's possible an admin may still do that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does appear to be a CFORK of the original article. It is hard to read through much of the llm-discussion, but in doing so I'm not seeing how this Draft will help. Part of the past issues were huge-scale changes that were hard to parse, and the creation of a separate draft reinforces that challenge. This could be userfied, but it doesn't really work that edits to the draft are done which are then moved to the actual page. Better to keep all the edit history together. CMD (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this deletion nomination. The draft was created in good faith due to NEW secondary sources. This was not an attempt at a POV fork, but a required refresh in light of new matertial. I created a pre-emptive talk page discussion before any edits and, in fact, this draft page was recommended by an admin (@Asilvering) for section-by-section review.
More concerning, however, is that this nomination comes after repeated dismissive commentary from Bastun and Fram—accusing me of bad faith, suggesting I “move away from all related articles,” stating I “expect minions,” and that Irish clan content like this "belongs on Wordpress, not Wikpiedia". Bias against Irish clan material as a subject category—is not neutrality—it’s selective gatekeeping. Scottish clans are broadly covered under a dedicated WikiProject.
I’ve improved the article using reliable sources, community input, and transparent drafting. If there are flaws, I’m happy to fix them collaboratively. But deletion here would punish good-faith editing and send the wrong message about openness to cultural history on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irish clan content absolutely has a place on Wikipedia. What you are doing, though, is adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is poorly sourced and has included multiple copyright violations, reads as promotional, contains appeal to authority language, and is not WP:NPOV. Perfectly fine for a privately hosted clan website (except for the copyright violations, obviously!), not so much for an encyclopedia. When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! Requiring editors to stumble across a reference on the talk page to a separate draft article where "improvements" are being carried out, where we are expected to changes to the draft article, and the main article? That is not how Wikipedia works. This has been pointed out to you many times, but WP:IDHT. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the latest salvo in a content dispute where both sides have, for a long time now, continuously assumed the worst of each other, making it completely impossible to reach any sort of consensus. You can see some of this even in the back-and-forth above: Kellycrak maintaining that there is some kind of bias against Irish clan material as a subject category (they have been repeatedly explained that this is not the case, and that their contributions have issues with sourcing and WP:DUE), Bastun acting as though there is something deeply nefarious or incompetent in Kellycrak's attempts to take feedback, eg When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! (the copyright violations referred to here were to post images of sources to Commons, so other editors could see the text - an obvious copyvio, and a situation where editors very commonly email copies of sources to each other when necessary, eg for WP:GAN purposes). -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That my repeated attempts to get the editors involved to calmly and politely discuss specific issues of disagreement has been characterized below as continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering is a pretty good illustration of the problem. I'd be at ANI suggesting mutual IBANs if I thought it would do any good, but since that would basically cede first-mover advantage to Kellycrak, that's obviously not ideal. Good luck, MfD regulars. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unreliable WP:OR with POV issues added. Today, I said about another draft by the same editor:

"The Inisfallen sources seem to pose problems quite regularly, in Draft:Célechair mac Commáin as well the claim is made that "The Annals of Inisfallen (AI705.1) state: "Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin." (“The battle of Corco Mruad, in which Célechair son of Commán fell.”)" The actual Annals say "AI705.1 Kl. Flann Fína son of Oswy, king of the Saxons, rested." Basically, every single thing you post needs to be doublechecked as much of it is just wrong. "

So what do they do just now, under the guise of "source review"[1]: add a reference "1. The Annals of Inisfallen 704/5 Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin. " (layout original).

Despite the continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering, it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months, with continued copyright violations (not just the ones discussed above by Asilvering, but uploading someone else photo's as their own, or copyvio text which had to be removed today), misrepresentation of sources, copying sources from other articles without checking them, and so on. Fram (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram writes: it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months. Those are conduct issues that are out of scope of MFD. I think that the editors at MFD should avoid trying to decide the content issue of deleting this draft when the conduct is complicating things. This is a dumpster fire, and we should not worry about whether to rescue papers from the dumpster or throw papers into the burning dumpster. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conduct isn't complicating things, it is making it more clear that this is an unhelpful attempt to get their POV into the article by writing it separately and then giving an ultimatum at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you very well know @Fram from our ongoing Talk, I said I'm currently working through the sourcing with a fine tooth comb. It's a DRAFT page!
According to Cotter; Annals of Inisfallen in 751 (Mac Airt 1951, 110) notes the death in Aran of Colmán mac Commain.
@Fram once again, instead of constructive feedback, you’ve chosen to escalate things into a personal attack. "booted off Wikipedia completely"—this isn’t critique, it’s hostility. It's nearly every interaction I’ve had with you, and it’s not in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has a 751 entry for Colman to do with a 704/705 entry for Celechair? You do nothing substantial with feedback, making the samy type of mistakes or even the exact same mistakes over and over again, and then answer completely besides the point, like here. Fram (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in the lead is for the name appearing "in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" so yes it's relevant, Colmán mac Commain appears there, I've also added Celechair correct referencing (Gibson and Cotter suggest they're brothers). Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn´t explain why you added a completely wrong reference here, while claiming that you were actually doing a source review and when it had been already pointed out to you today that you made the exact same error on another draft before. The kind of issue we have had way too often already. Fram (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. The 3 subpages I'm not working on yet. What 's the point if this page gets deleted. The correct citation is in the lead now for "which appears in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" if you still see a problem with it let me know and I'll fix. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2025

[edit]

Template:User en-cyr-5

[edit]
Template:User en-cyr-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This userbox may not serve any usefulness at all, being used in just one User page. It is themed to be English written in the Cyrillic alphabet, which I have never heard of. In fact, there might be users who would not even learn the pseudo-language(?). ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 19:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

[edit]


May 19, 2025

[edit]

Template:User Wiktionary/Administrator/fr

[edit]
Template:User Wiktionary/Administrator/fr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Can use the following instead: {{User Wiktionary/Administrator|French Wiktionary}} (No design differences) YeBoy371 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 12, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Culture of disrespect

[edit]
Wikipedia:Culture of disrespect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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

What an absurd nomination. CIVIL does not mean one can't voice opinions about serious systemic problems in the editing environment. We are not required to have what you consider good attitudes, or to remain silent with what you consider bad ones. Stop trying to suppress dissenting essays—that's what would "do damage to the project". Yes, the essay is anything but humorous. By the way, it existed on my user page for quite awhile until a different, quite experienced editor saw it and made it an essay in the WP space. Thank you for advertising this essay, I've always felt it needed more attention. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to express your views in a civil manner. Nobody is disputing that. I agree with commentators below that the essay in question is inflammatory. If it were userspace content, I would find it distasteful but acceptable in that context. If it is going to be in the Wikipedia namespace, there needs to be a higher bar. Wikipedia has a reputation (unfortunately) for being a rather inflammatory and unwelcoming environment. This is a tragedy, and we need to do more to promote a positive atmosphere for those who would wish to dedicate any amount of their time to its improvement. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (or alternatively, userfy without leaving a redirect). It seems here that Mandruss is seeking to get away with having an unpopular and inflammatory opinion and claim immunity to criticism by saying it is "ironic", which is inappropriate and disruptive. Sarcasm and irony fall under the banner of humor, and Mandruss's conduct surrounding this essay violates the spirit and goal of the longstanding consensus reflected at WP:HREQ. I'd strongly prefer to delete this essay because I similarly see no project value in it, but if consensus for deletion is not attained, then it should be userfied, without leaving behind any Wikipedia space redirect to it to lessen the possibility that new editors stumble upon it. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ping the editor who created the essay, as his subversive, conspiratorial activities apparently need correction. He's less active these days, but he might receive the ping in time to comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping, Mandruss. FWIW I did not create this essay, I only made one edit right after it was published. Galobtter created it, apparently based on something you wrote elsewhere. I don't care one way or the other about deleting this essay, as you mentioned I have been mostly inactive for several years now. Got tired of the unending discussions about wording issues, bias, sourcing, sealioning and pervasive bickering. Enjoy! — JFG talk 02:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but edit, but rewrite it to be serious, not ironic. Keep, because it is a multi-authored project-related opinion, and a quite serious one at that. Rewrite to be serious because the humour/irony is not very good and can confuse too easily. It’s also an effort to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - That is, delete the current version of the essay as not humorous or ironic and as divisive and inflammatory. Deletion will not salt the title, so that it can be rewritten to be serious. An editor who wants to start with the current version can copy it to their computer before this MFD is closed. Edit or Rewrite are not workable closes, but are reasonable actions that can be taken by an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Rewrite entirely. This one is tricky. On one hand, there is no problem with an essay about either the reality of people being rude online, times where being rude might still be "okay" despite civility rules, or both. On the other hand, it's absolutely not this rambling wreck of an essay. If people are okay with it, I could take a shot at rewriting it, but I don't think there's much lost from just userfying it either. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reminded myself that I semi-retired some time after this essay was created. One of the tenets of my semi-retirement is that I avoid trying to help improve the larger problems in the editing environment; inertia is too strong a force. At en-wiki, apathy is beneficial to one's mental well-being, and my motto is now DGAF.
    So I now regret commenting here at all. Delete, userfy, suppress constructive discourse in whatever way you deem appropriate, rewrite because you don't like my choice of rhetorical style for this case, or leave it alone; I DGAF. Semi-retirement is remarkably freeing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, this sounds like the snarky opinion of a single editor rather than an actual community consensus. Not appropriate for project space
Update: Now that Mandruss has manually moved the essay to userspace, I am changing my vote to delete without leaving a redirect for this page. ApexParagon (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and SilviaASH. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's looking like Keep is unlikely, I have copied the essay back to my user page where it originated. It will enjoy higher visibility there than on a separate page in my user space. Userfication therefore no longer makes any sense.
    If this creates an attribution problem—not all of what I copied was written by me, though I fully support and endorse all of it—I'm completely open to guidance on how to fix that (ping me here or post on my UTP), or to anyone fixing it themselves. I don't really understand all that, but I know similar things have been done before without objection.
    Or, barring that, I'm prepared to restore what was originally on my UP and then apply the few additional edits there, thereby making them my own.
    If it's important or necessary to preserve the six uses of the shortcut, the redirect can be retargeted to User:Mandruss#Culture of disrespect. I'd just redlink it as unimportant, but that's me. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mandruss: You can repair insufficient attribution by leaving a particular kind of note in an edit summary at the target page (list all contributors) -- as seen in Special:Diff/1246354078. —Alalch E. 15:21, 27 May 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=1292715059#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion"