Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:NfD)
"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 Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 0 77 77
TfD 0 0 1 9 10
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 1 9 10
RfD 0 0 0 29 29
AfD 0 0 0 5 5

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.

June 28, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Trajko Boškoski

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

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]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/Computer Programming/to do
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily deleted as G8.. Subpage of a non-existent or deleted page. (non-admin closure) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject/Computer Programming/to do

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject/Computer Programming/to do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused project page. Redundant anyway since Computer programming falls under the scope of WP:WikiProject Computer science and utilises the /to do list of that project. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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]

User:Trilletrollet/Userboxes/Heroin

[edit]
User:Trilletrollet/Userboxes/Heroin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Can cause an inconvenience to editors who might put it on their user pages and attract interest of law enforcement on suspicions of illegal possession. (Recently recreated; deleted in 2007, G4-deleted a few days ago; undeleted per request, because the speedy deletion was contested.) —Alalch E. 13:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I already stated on the talk page, heroin/diamorphine is used as a medication in some countries (including the UK), so it's not illegal if you have a prescription. Would renaming it to User:Trilletrollet/Userboxes/Diamorphine be ok? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're gonna start deleting drug userboxes, we also need to get rid of most boxes related to alcohol, since it's illegal in some places. And being gay is a crime in many countries, so why don't we delete most of the stuff on this list too? Better safe than sorry, right? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those slippery slope examples are not plausible, and heroin and other drug use content is something that internet is actively monitored for. What I am concerned about is plausible. Heroin is the benchmark for an illegal drug in the US, it's the archetypal controlled substance, scheduled as having no medicinal use in the US, and Wikipedia is a US-based website. Such content is generally prohibited on all major platforms as content which, even if not illegal content in itself, is one step removed from illegal content, and may create an inconvenience for the users and the website. What you created is particularly provocative, because it's heroin. —Alalch E. 15:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Trilletrollet. The Wikipedia community needn't concern itself with policing user activity based on what may or may not be illegal in other countries, as long as their editing activities are not existentially threatening the project; otherwise we wouldn't have pages like WP:TOR or Help:Censorship and would just geoblock people in countries where Wikipedia editing is illegal from accessing the website. If deleting userboxes like these was legally necessary, we would already know because someone at the WMF would tell us as much. I would not disclose what potentially illegal drugs I may or may not be taking on my userpage or anywhere else online, but if someone else wishes to do so and risk the attention of law enforcement, that is their prerogative. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TOR and Help:Censorship are about enabling users—readers and volunteers—meet the prerequisites to benefit from and contribute to the encyclopedia. They are about something very important for Wikipedia's mission. This isn't. Editors should not be brought into jeopardy of attracting law enforcement interest by making the "I use heroin" statement available to them in templatized form. About WMF, we do not need WMF to delete. —Alalch E. 10:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So then do we also need to remove the freely licensed photo of legal prescription diamorphine from the heroin page, since the person who took and uploaded that picture to Commons might also be risking attention from American law enforcement while (presumably) being in the UK? I just don't see the issue here. Like, it's not Wikipedia's business what country anyone is in or what they're doing there on their own time. A British user taking the drug legally won't be at risk of prosecution from US law enforcement and thus won't have any issue displaying it, while a US-based user who might be taking it illegally will hopefully be competent enough to know the risk of displaying this statement on their user page and will make the proper judgment.
    And if they admit to breaking the law online, that's their responsibility, not Wikipedia's. I don't advise that they do it, I certainly would not admit to breaking any locally applicable laws on the internet even if I had done so, but it's not my business to tell someone what they should or should not disclose about their activities. If someone wants to announce loudly on a highly publicly visible web page that they are breaking laws, their poor opsec is not anyone's problem except their own. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I'd say if the primary issue is that the wording could be construed as encouraging illegal drug use, and the possibility of it being taken that way is really such a big deal, the solution is simple: just reword the userbox text to specify that "This user has a legal heroin/diamorphone prescription" or something of the sort. This way, the userbox's description would categorically exclude any illegal drug users. I think this is what should be done, if anything, rather than deletion. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A heroin user might not be competent enough to know the risk of displaying this statement on their user page and might not be able to make the proper judgment because they are under the influence of heroin, which impairs the brain. All this does is enable users to signal to police that they might be interesting. —Alalch E. 09:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely they were competent enough to know the risks of taking heroin before they took the heroin. In any case, it is not our business. We may sanction people if they are disrupting the encyclopedia under the influence, of course, but Wikipedia is not the place to help with issues of drug abuse or facilitate one's recovery from addiction. Certainly we ought not, and do not need to, impose a primarily US-centric anti-drug view on users in other territories where drugs are not necessarily nearly so blanketly stigmatized. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Heroin is globally a scheduled substance and is globally "stigmatized", and medicinal use in a country such as UK doesn't change that. We can say "it's not our busuness" but we can also delete and avoid making this uncomfortable and ethically dubious statement. —Alalch E. 22:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well, I don't think it's an uncomfortable or ethically dubious statement, the drugs that people take or do not take and the legal or physical risks they may or may not be taking in doing so is simply not something I care about or am offended by. But that's a subjective opinion, so whatever.
    You've still not acknowledged my compromise suggestion of changing the wording to specifically specify taking medicinal diamorphine legally, and not just "heroin" with no qualifications, so that it could not be interpreted as encouraging illegal drug use. Trilletrollet suggested renaming the userbox to this effect, and I think this would be a decent compromise, but you didn't acknowledge that suggestion either. Is there any particular reason why you believe such a change would not be sufficient to address your concerns? silviaASH (inquire within) 00:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not responding to these compromise proposals sooner. I think I needed a bit to think about them. So, yes, renaming to User:Trilletrollet/Userboxes/Diamorphine (less important) and rewording to say "This user takes medicinal diamorphine legally" (more important) is acceptable to me as an alternative to deletion. @Trilletrollet: Would you be okay with that? —Alalch E. 09:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trilletrollet and SilviaASH. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 23:08, 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]
  • 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 23, 2025

[edit]

User:ThisIsNotABetter/IBM z

[edit]
User:ThisIsNotABetter/IBM z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3AThisIsNotABetter%2FIBM_z&rev1=1053418894&page2=IBM+Z&rev2=1053168854 Paradoctor (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/Right to hold dissenting views about social issues without malice
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. When weighing the policies behind both perspectives, the edge to delete is there. BZPN, please consider the community's response to this and the userbox and decide what you want your editing future to look like. Star Mississippi 01:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BZPN/Right to hold dissenting views about social issues without malice

[edit]
User:BZPN/Right to hold dissenting views about social issues without malice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This essay expressing this user's opinion on why they should be allowed to express anti-LGBTQ views on Wikipedia is inflammatory and divisive, violating WP:UPNOT#POLEMIC and WP:NQP, is not in any way meaningfully related to building the encyclopedia, and should accordingly be deleted. See also the related userbox nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/LGBT. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Many userboxes and user essays are divisive, and inflammatory is a question of personal perspective. If you were to fairly everything in userspace that someone finds inflammatory, that would probably include everything written in support of communism, socialism, capitalism, or anarchism, everything written for or against law enforcement or military, everything expressing anyone's viewpoints on a particular religion or religion in general, the rights of indigenous peoples, any certain country's right to a territory, among others. I will quote from WP:NQP (an essay, which itself does not provide justification for deletion): "If you try to change the first sentence of LGBTQ to All LGBTQ people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy...—or insist on talk pages that this is the case and Wikipedia needs to take your POV seriously". BZPN has not been editing articles to express something like this, but rather using userspace for this topic. This should not be deleted per the essay's summary: "This essay is not a call for confrontation or ideological warfare. It is a call for mutual respect, and for the basic human dignity of being allowed to hold traditional, religious, or culturally informed views - even in spaces dominated by different norms." 166.140.230.94 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC) — 166.140.230.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    166.140.230.94, you should not be engaging in projectspace while logged out. WP:Register for the benefit of yourself and others. At the very least, consider signing your posts with a pen name. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community didn't want IPs participating in project space discussions, then it wouldn't even be possible for IPs to edit pages in the project space in the first place. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CFF:1B48:7CC7:88B1 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don’t even sign a pen name, how do we know if we are talking to the same person? Are you Special:Contributions/166.140.230.94?
    If you have a reason to post here, then you should. But if it is to be a habit, register. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there are any rules against IPs participating in XfDs. One or two are regular participants at RfD. Cremastra (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have a main account, it is sockpuppety. If they have never registered, they should be encouraged to register, for their own privacy, and for accountability.
    Special:Contributions/166.140.230.94 has posted a very interesting !vote. I would like to read their related comments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this aids editing or content here. It's about an editor's personal POV about non-Wikipedia matters. It also reads close to using Wikipedia to right great wrongs. These are the types of personal POV that are best not dwelled on here. Seek to avoid anything that can cause offense, and it is totally unnecessary for the editing experience and the improvement of the encyclopedia to mention these things. Take it to your church, your group of friends, your missionary work, your activism, just don't bring it here. Essays should be directly related to editing, policies and guidelines, and article content here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Valjean, not helpful for collaborating on an encyclopedia, and per WP:POLEMIC. dbeef [talk] 03:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP; Wikipedia is not censored and this is a perfectly valid counter-essay to the standard essays on this topic. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCENSORED is about article content, not user page content. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Essays are not supposed to be supplements to our articles. They are supposed to be supplements to our editing needs, our PAG, and our MOS. They should be focused on Wikipedia's encyclopedic function and production, not on the topics of articles, such as social issues unrelated to producing this encyclopedia. They should not violate WP:POLEMIC or WP:Advocacy. Take it away from here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IP is exactly right. How does my essay relate to Wikipedia? It allows me to feel safe in my own space, which allows me to contribute constructively and effectively. Just as thousands of This user supports LGBT rights userboxes on thousands of user pages are not deleted because those editors feel good about it, so too should my essay be. And let me remind you that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a community, and writing essays is one of its rights. Just as others have the right to have userboxes and essays about LGBT (e.g. the well-known WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA, which also does not concern Wikipedia content), so too should I have the right. BZPN (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Political essays (or infoboxes for that matter) should not have a place on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTADVOCACY. The scope of the essay is defined as whether it is acceptable to respectfully express disagreement with certain aspects of LGBT-related policies or ideologies - and since Wikipedia's goal is to create an encyclopedia and not being a think tank for views on LGBT rights (or any social cause for that matter), it simply doesn't belong. It doesn't matter if they promote conservative or progressive causes. This essay, in a way, also encourages editorial bias in articles by asserting moral, legal or popularity arguments, when Wikipedia's goal is exactly not to have it (see also here).
That essay probably might be salvageable if it was meant to say "look, there is a diversity of opinions in the world, what is mainstream in the Western world may not necessarily be so in, say, India. Respect these opinions, including from non-mainstream perspectives, so long as they do not stand in the way of proper editing practices" - fine. This take actually implements certain policies and guidelines and is a perfectly valid topic. However, I have ample reason to believe that this essay is a political manifesto. The user was banned from Wikimedia Discord for UCoC violations (which is ironic because the essay claims to be based on UCoC) after quoting the fragment of the Bible that is commonly seen as prohibiting homosexuality. Since the user is from Poland, there is also the political context of LGBT-free zones (technically termed "Zones free from LGBT ideology"), which were a big thing just a couple of years ago. And yes, the user cites the Polish Constitution to say that because his views are supported by the highest law of the land, his views should have a place on Wikipedia. The user is free to believe whatever they want. But again, Wikipedians are supposed to write an encyclopedia and not engage in culture wars on-wiki just because "my country bans same-sex marriage and the population isn't that keen on this concept anyway" (or alternatively "my country allows same-sex marriage and only fringe politicians oppose it"). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, please refer to WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA (or WP:GENDERID), an essay that is a manifesto defending LGBT, which right to exist you do not question, in the context of my essay, which right to exist you do question. BZPN (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is a bit different. It is one thing to say "do not insult LGBT people" and another to say "Wikipedia should allow me to insult LGBT people", even if you don't consider your speech demeaning (WP:POLEMIC covers it). That said, I don't like the Queerphobic beliefs section for what is essentially trying to define an encyclopedic concept that is part of culture wars as a binding guideline (it's an essay but you don't write essays for no reason). I get where they are coming from but I don't approve the current wording (as do, in fact, 18 other editors on the talk page of NOQUEERPHOBIA, for various reasons). WP:HID is so much better. Still, it is more based on policies and guidelines than your essay. WP:GENDERID explains the application of the Manual of Style guideline and, even though it concerns a hot-button topic, presents a proposal to deal with the issue based on cited policies and guidelines, and our current scientific understanding of sexuality. It is a valid essay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete let's call this essay what it is: OP is arguing that they should be allowed to be a bigot without consequences. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so you can openly insult me by calling me a "bigot", but I don't have the right to declare opposition to an ideology? BZPN (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally, yes. You are espousing bigotry, while using the word "ideology" as a shield to try and protect yourself from backlash. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it an insult to be called a bigot when you dislike LGBT people? You wrote a whole essay about your beliefs, don’t be ashamed when people recognize them. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Wikipedia should be about ones contributions to the project and not a place to air one's opinions on religious, political or other personal matters. fr33kman 13:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UPNOT, part of our user pages policy, which states

    In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology).

    The example given, "racist ideology", is obviously expandable to homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, and queerphobic ideology. It is not permissible to fly an anti-LGBTQ flag in your userspace, and it's not permissible to encourage others to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that this essay falls into the category of bigoted ideology that the disrepute clause refers to. The essay is mild and at its most strong refers only to non-support for "LGBT rights". That's broad, and can encompass things that one can not support without engaging in ideological bigotry. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've read the essay. It's not a homophobic rant or even all that polemic. It's just saying that if you're socially conservative, you can speak your mind without being rude about it. I don't see much harm being done here. Cremastra (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point! I forgot that when people want to dissolve my marriage, reverse my gender ID and call me a faggot, I should debate them back politely. I mean, we don’t want any feelings hurt around here, this is a safe space! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone was saying that, it would definitely fall into the "rude" camp. Look, I don't like this guy or his beliefs, but the essay is not that bad, compared to the userbox. Cremastra (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But he’s actively using the existence of the essay to justify the userbox right now. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because this essay will not serve the goal of a collaborative encyclopedia. BZPN's essay makes it clear they poorly understand LGBTQ+ issues and are seeking to create a lampshade for potential future POV pushing. Their claim on the other MfD that the discussion of deleting an infobox that calls queer identities an "ideology" is unlawful on the basis that they live in Poland (which apparently has some homophobic laws) is likewise poorly informed and counter-productive to a collaborative environment. WP:NOTBLOG applies here. This essay is contrary to collaborative editing. If BZPN wants to express their views about queer people they'd be better served going to Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider blocking the creator per WP:NOTHERE. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CFF:1B48:7CC7:88B1 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Utterly pointless, like most essays, but at least gives balance to the other such essays on this topic, whether we agree or not. Jevansen (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Balance seems like a weird thing to pursue when it comes to discrimination. If someone was to write the opposite of WP:NONAZI I'd want it deleted too. dbeef [talk] 03:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So would I. It's not fair however to equate NONAZI with No queerphobia. The latter isn't exactly nuanced and it's highly questionable that everything listed can be classed as anything close to discrimination. Jevansen (talk)
  • Keep - If we delete this essay, we will be illustrating an oppressive culture of left-wing political correctness. I don't like having to write this, in a country where the oppressive culture of right-wing political correctness is a greater danger to a 236-year-old tradition of democracy, but oppressive political correctness is oppressive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. It will simply be Wikipedia protecting the ability of queer editors to collaborate with others without fear of open discrimination. 11:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a terrible argument, devoid of both logic and WP policy. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jevansen. I'd like for all of these essays about what views one is and is not allowed to personally hold while contributing to Wikipedia to go, but short of that this one should be allowed to exist. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are those who view attitudes to LGBTQ through a universal human rights, societal maturation point of view; and those who view those attitudes as culturally relative, and likely to be (right now) and evolve (going forward) differently based on geography, generation, and religion. That can generate tension when people from different cultures meet, and that tension is highly relevant when writing a single, global (English-language) encyclopedia. So we don't get to say that this is not relevant to building en.wp. That leaves the question of whether this page is written in an inherently or hopelessly inflammatory, divisive, or polemic manner. It does not; it merely articulates a point of view that is distasteful to those on the universal-rights side of the spectrum. I respect that some would like the community and culture at en.wp to reflect the ideals they would like society (globally) to aspire to, but we have to allow it -- within eason -- to reflect attitudes, in all their diversity, such as they are. Bottom line, there would clearly be anti-LGBTQ (or anti-whatever) screeds that would be divisive, inflammatory, or polemic enough to delete with fire as unhelpful, but this one isn't it, even if it doesn't describe views one agrees with. Martinp (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not for the reason the author wants. If the author wants to tell people they are a bigot in their own userspace, that's fine, although they should also then understand that their edits on relevant topics will be scrutinised more than those of other editors. But I have to ask this question, yet again; if the author was a racist, would we allow this to exist? Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious trolling, needs blocking frankly ( see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/LGBT). Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I kindly ask you to refrain from calling me a bigot — that's an offensive and unjustified label (because it assumes that I hate someone, and that's not true). Please also stop using false analogies to racism, because it completely distorts the purpose of this essay. My essay explains my intent clearly (as I’ve said multiple times above): disagreement with ideology is not hate and is not directed at individual persons. What exactly is wrong with that goal? BZPN (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definition of bigot (OED): "a person who is prejudiced against ... people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". However much you may try to excuse this on the basis of religion, the fact that you clearly believe that the rights of LGBTQ+ people should be restricted brings you into that category. Sorry, but that's simple semantics. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And actually, I have another question: if you are not actively discriminating against LGBTQ+ people on Wikipedia, why do you even need this essay? Without it, people would not know your views, and I dare say most would not care. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreement with certain policies or beliefs ≠ discrimination or prejudice. My essay explains this distinction clearly. I'm not excusing anything — I'm defending the right to express views respectfully and in good faith. I also don't recall a specific part of this essay where I wrote that LGBT rights should be restricted (because there is no such part in my essay). As for why this essay exists — it's because I have faced accusations and exclusion for simply holding views rooted in my culture, values and origin. If those views are misrepresented or labelled as bigotry, I believe it's fair and necessary to clarify them openly. That’s not hate — that’s honesty. The essay also exists because if I am to contribute effectively to Wikipedia, I should feel comfortable with my views here in my user space, and not surrounded and attacked. BZPN (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. let me also remind you of the words of the last paragraphs of my essay:
    This essay is not a call for confrontation or ideological warfare. It is a call for mutual respect, and for the basic human dignity of being allowed to hold traditional, religious, or culturally informed views - even in spaces dominated by different norms. Let us build a Wikipedia where respectful disagreement is possible, and where truth and civility guide us all. BZPN (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think you're missing the point. In your essay you say it should not be inherently wrong to say ... this user is not supportive of same-sex marriage. This is effectively equivalent to "this user is not supportive of equal rights for <insert demographic here>". Would you be OK with (to take an example) a Saudi Arabian editor saying "this user is not supportive of equal rights for women"? Would it be OK for them to write the same essay? Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But this may result (in response to your example) from Muslim culture, traditions, beliefs and law... If it is just a civilized and calm expression of opinion without hatred, accusations and attacks, why should they be discriminated against for it? Read the Personal context section in my essay and maybe you will understand it. Furthermore, WMF operates under US law, which does not appear to prohibit not supporting mainstream ideologies and supporting others (slightly off-topic for context: racism is prohibited and illegal, but not supporting, for example, same-sex marriages is not prohibited; likewise, none of the WMF's internal rules prohibit the holding of one's own opinion which is in accordance with the UCoC). To be clear: I absolutely do not support discrimination, but I try to distinguish it from unpopular, honest opinions, to which everyone is entitled. And is it OK to write essays/userboxes in support of LGBT movements postulates? Yes. Do I have the same right to express my opinion as other users? Yes. Martinp described this relationship and coexistence in their statement above, I recommend reading it carefully. BZPN (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're effectively saying "I absolutely do not support discrimination, but I believe it is OK to discriminate on the basis of religion". Do you not understand how this is completely nonsensical? Frankly, you'd be better off being honest about it ... which your essay actually is - hence my initial comment. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realize that by calling my religion discriminatory you are discriminating against me and 1,409,000 billion people in the world? BZPN (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so you're now speaking for 1.4 billion people? Spectacular. Most people - and indeed most Catholics - in my country couldn't care less whether LGBTQ+ people get married or not, because it doesn't affect their lives in any way. Incidentally, I work in a Catholic school ... a school which, like every single other one in my country, teaches its children that they shouldn't discriminate against others, regardless of what their own views are. Also, your userbox says This user does not support LGBT+ ideology which I'm pretty sure is unrelated to religion, just your political views. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And then you should know that the Holy Scripture we use is not discriminatory, and everything I say, I say in good faith, respecting everyone and not referring to anyone personally... I was raised exactly like the children you mentioned, and I do not discriminate against anyone. I am only expressing such an opinion as indicated by the foundations of my religion ;) BZPN (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. we have already gone very off-topic, so I propose to stop this discussion. BZPN (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It being part of my religion to punch people in the face doesn't excuse my behaviour. Cremastra (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe person x was convinced by their parents or environment to believe (in the name of "god") that discriminating against people is morally correct. We can pity person x, but it's not an excuse. Modern religions is not above everything else, it's just a system of beliefs like any other. Cremastra (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, while I think this editor's ban from the Discord server was justified and that this editor is bigoted to a degree, you aren't exactly in the position to accuse others of bigotry when you started a discussion about how conservative Christians should not be allowed to close political discussions. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you can point me to where I stated that they should not be closing any discussion, as opposed to one particular discussion. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't work. The religiously unaffiliated are just as politically homogeneous as evangelicals. If the community had to ban the editor in question from closing that discussion, a good chunk of our administrators would also be restricted in what they can do. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have strong views about some things. I tend not to close contentious discussions on those things. It's not difficult for admins, or indeed any editor, to avoid them if they believe they may be called out on it ("you said X, so you shouldn't close Y") whether that statement is reasonable or not. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FFS this is obvious trolling that we shouldn't give the time of day
  • User with <150 edits (~100 before the essay), after 6 months of inactivity starts pride month by
    • 1) Creating this essay
    • 2) Creating an infobox saying "This user does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons" [1] which links to essay and is headed to a SNOW deletion[2]
  • The same user banned from the wikimedia discord for homophobia
  • The very first line of it respectfully express disagreement with certain aspects of LGBT-related policies or ideologies, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage or adoption - is opposing LGBT adoption. "Marriage" is a red herring, opposing the right of gay people to adopt is just the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory being worded nicely
  • It's also just filled with nonsensical statements:
    • freedom of belief and expression protects the right: to support same-sex marriage, gender, and LGBT rights, and to not support them - is gender a belief now?
This is a concern-trolling WP:POLEMIC that serves absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia and is a prime example of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a userspace essay on what behaviour should be allowed on Wikipedia, so I don't really see any basis for deleting it. Is it wrong? In just about every respect. IMHO. Essays are meant to express differing views, so they are allowed to be wrong, especially in userspace.--Trystan (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC, as clearly divisive and inflammatory; I would also support blocking the creator per WP:NOTHERE. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 21:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no respectful way to tell someone they should be denied rights by reason of their sexuality. Transparent polemics are harmful to the collaborative environment necessary for the project's function, and should be removed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:POLEMIC. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and this essay interferes with that goal because it is "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (quoting WP:POLEMIC; specifically, the view that LGBTQ people are not entitled to the same rights as other people falls under this definition of polemical statements). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents the views of mainstream reliable sources; it is not a platform where users can directly debate with each other about real-world politics or religion. There are other websites for that. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content of the essay is far from polemic or divisive. In short, stating disagreement with some values didn’t mean that it is divisive or inflammatory. The essay argued that people should have the right to reject LGBTQ values, and they are right. If we place certain value as something that cannot be disagreed against that is something wrong. The essay is not advocating to “kill the people” or doing anything violent. The essay is not advocating people to act differently to LGBT people. The essay merely stated that their right to disagree with some societal norms should not be immediately construed as “divisive and inflammatory” opinion. If supporting LGBTQ is “accepted” loudly not supporting them should be acceptable as well. The editors that feels differently about LGBT issues should not be compelled to silence. Finally, while LGBT acceptance is considered a societal norm in the Western world, the reverse is true on some cultures. The main point is this - there is no violence or discrimination intended at this essay. It should stay ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 06:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not correct. The essay claims that it is okay to use Wikipedia discussion pages or user pages to advocate directly for the view that LGBT people should not have the same rights as other people (e.g. to marry). It is not okay to do that because such statements have a divisive and inflammatory effect on the Wikipedia community. To be "divisive and inflammatory" does not merely require advocating for violence: it also includes whether such content makes people feel unwelcome or attacked because of aspects of their personal identity. Wikipedia discussion pages and user pages should only be used (1) to discuss how to improve Wikipedia, and (2) to a limited extent, to share a little bit about oneself so that others can get to know you—they should not be used to share controversial viewpoints that threaten our ability to collaborate together on building an encyclopedia. To be clear, this discussion is about whether an editor should be allowed to make divisive statements on Wikipedia pages—they are fully free to advocate their views on other websites that allow for and are intended for free and open discussion. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. This essay is precisely so that in the future the community doesn't have to bother with such pointless discussions of worldviews. This essay is so that editors know that there is also a second point of view here, to which they have a right, and how they can express themselves on such topics. If there is WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA, then this essay has a right to exist as well. BZPN (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your essay suggests an approach that will only lead to more pointless discussions. The core of your argument is that you get to express your views criticizing the rights of others, but that those views must not themselves be subject to criticism. You stated elsewhere that you "feel unwanted, discriminated against, surrounded and attacked" as a result of this discussion. Imagine how editors in a same-sex marriage or parenting children feel reading that you think core aspects of their life are invalid and wrong. No matter how "politely" you try to frame those views, LGBTQ editors are going to (entirely validly) consider them dehumanizing. And if you want a right to express those views, it follows that others get to respond. And on and on it goes.
    I supported keeping your essay because I think wrong essays are permitted and can even be useful. But the only approach that works is that all editors get to exist, and be treated with respect, and we all shut the hell up about how we really feel about each other. There's an encyclopedia to write.--Trystan (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote up an entire comment defending this user's right to have this as a userspace essay if they so choose, however much I disagree with their views, but FNS makes a good point that this is not an established editor, but rather someone with 116 edits deciding to barge in during pride month and make a fuss about this. I wasn't sure if they were an established editor on plwiki, and it looks like they were a fairly active editor but also recently had TPA yanked over there for personal attacks, so that doesn't inspire very much confidence either. That feels rather different than someone who, in addition to a wide variety of productive work, decides to write an essay about this. So I guess I come out as a very weak keep, on general principle, and also deeply unimpressed with BZPN both for their views and for what I am now beginning to suspect is in fact approximately concern trolling rather than a good-faith attempt to express a personal view on wikipedia editing, which is what userspace essays are actually for. Noting for the record that I am here as a result of a discussion on the discord, though it did not directly link or mention this MfDRusalkii (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this thread of people feeding a troll has certainly demonstrated why this essay is a bad idea for Wikipedia I'd think it would be wise to close this deletion discussion before it devolves to the point of participants pulling a block. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this also trolling? I don't think so. Please don't compare me to vandals, because that's unfair and offensive. BZPN (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your Polish WP block log says a bit. [3] And, yes, this essay and the associated infobox are obvious trolling. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it looks like your trolling has been received no more warmly on Simple English Wiki than it was here. [4] Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Wikimedia Discord Block (BZPN). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an essay in userspace. It's not a good essay (notably it seems to contradict WP:HID, which is a good essay) but it'd have to be pretty egregious for me to support deleting an essay in userspace. Loki (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thinly-disguised argument for bigotry. This editor is clearly not here to do anything positive for the project, and an indefinite block is warranted to accompany the one he already has from our Discord for the same bigotry. — Hex • talk 21:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please look here and consider again whether I have really made no contributions to the project. BZPN (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that I'm not a permanent editor here because I'm active in other projects, but I don't think the number of edits should affect my rights as a community member. BZPN (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The essay's author is entitled to their own opinion; but there is no automatic right for them to express that opinion here, when doing so is clearly detrimental to the well-being of the project. There are plenty of alternative outlets for them to proselytise their religious ideology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So - according to your understanding - we should delete all essays like WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA per there is no automatic right (...) to express that opinion? BZPN (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ***
  • Delete As a Catholic myself who disagrees with many editors here about a lot of things related to social issues, keeping this essay would set the precedent for explicitly allowing discriminitory viewpoints towards people of faith. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other !votes – Supertian8 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Supertian8:, it'll be easier for this discussion to reach consensus if you go into a bit more detail. Were there particular arguments in the other !votes that were persuasive to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PossiblyNotGeorgeW.Bush/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:PossiblyNotGeorgeW.Bush/sandbox

[edit]
User:PossiblyNotGeorgeW.Bush/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User:Vrisphoria/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two more fantasy election sandboxes which exist solely to pretend that past elections had different candidates and winners than in reality. Again, sandbox is not just a free playground to write any alternate history sci-fi you want to for the funsies, and is for working on stuff that's meant to be transferred into mainspace when you're done -- but obviously a 2024 presidential election in which Taylor Swift defeated "Elizabeth W. Grant" (who's actually piped over a link to Mitt Romney) and a 2000 presidential election in which Al Gore defeated John McCain cannot be. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Retkimunaa/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox

[edit]
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Retkimunaa/sandbox6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sandbox pages existing entirely to alter the results of various elections. By and large the creator hasn't been changing the body text of the election articles they're copying, but they're mucking around with the infoboxes to portray very different results than the elections really had. Also note misuse of images: the Canadian one here is fought between four party leaders who keep the same names as they had in reality, but are all straight-up clones of Mark Carney in their appearance — while #3, which is actually crystal-balling a future election instead of fucking around with a past one, is fought between two YouTubers and a real political figure who all look exactly like Kamala Harris despite none of them being named Kamala Harris. (And even that one's using an otherwise unchanged copy-paste of the 2020 election for its body text despite being infoboxed as 2032.)
But as always, sandbox is not a free playground to do just anything you want to for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's actually meant to be transferred to mainspace when you're done, which obviously these can't be.
This appears, further, to be the creator's sole editing interest: in the two months that they've had a Wikipedia account, their edit history has been exclusively on these, with not a single mainspace edit at all, so they're clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/LGBT
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. It's SNOWing in a Pride Month heat wave. Star Mississippi 00:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BZPN/LGBT

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

see WP:UBCR and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. Seems to be inflamatory/divisive political/religious advocacy, see also Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric#Criticism dbeef [talk] 10:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. Before voting in this unlawful discussion, I ask all interested parties to familiarize themselves with my essay, which is inseparable from this userbox. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "unlawful"? It is not against any policies and guidelines to nominate userboxes for deletion. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, before voting, please ask yourselves the following questions:
    • Would this userbox be controversial if it said This user supports LGBT rights?
    • Does stating respectful disagreement, linked to a full explanatory essay, really qualify as inflammatory?
    • Are userboxes only acceptable when they reflect one ideological position?
If the answer to any of these is no, then this deletion request is not about civility — it’s about silencing dissent. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple examples I can give of userboxes that on one "side" merit deletion and on the other "side" does not.
Should a userbox be deleted if it said This user believes women should be allowed to vote? Should it be deleted if it said shouldn't?
What about a userbox that said This user believes X people should be allowed to exist? Should we keep a userbox that said shouldn't?
Framing one idea as in opposition of another idea, does not inherently make it okay. When this is about groups of people and the rights they should have, discriminatory statements would make other people feel unsafe and unwelcomed. (not that we should, on the other hand, try our best to make bigots or people who support the discrimination of LGBTQ+ people feel welcomed)
Framing my existence as an ideology is already dehumanizing as a start. dbeef [talk] 13:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not continue debating here. At this point, I feel unwanted, discriminated against, surrounded and attacked — not for any violation of civility, but for peacefully expressing a lawful viewpoint rooted in my conscience. If anyone is genuinely interested in understanding where I am coming from, I strongly encourage reading this and this. Calling others bigots and accusing of supporting discrimination while demanding inclusion only creates division. If inclusion only applies to those who agree with you, then it's not inclusion — it's ideology. I have never attacked your identity. I have never said you shouldn’t exist. I have never denied your dignity as a person. That's all from me. BZPN (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you interpret my comment as me calling you a bigot? I don't think that has happened. And why do you think you are being discriminated against? Are you a part of a minority social group that are being systemically denied rights or access otherwise given to "normal" people? Or have been the target of stereotyping. I don't think those have happened here either..
Anyways, you haven't responded to my point: freedom of speech does not mean you are free to express disagreement when said disagreement actively disparages or incites negative attention towards a group of people. That is because the "two sides" to the argument are unbalanced. People who advocate for LGBTQ+ rights are not actively trying to take away the rights of non-LGBTQ+ people, people who oppose LGBTQ+ rights on the other hand are actively trying to deny access of non-LGBTQ+ people to things. LGBTQ+ rights has never advocated for taking away the rights of a man and a woman marrying each other.
But that is still offtopic to this page. You haven't expressed why you think your userbox should be kept or deleted. dbeef [talk] 15:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BZPN I !voted to keep your essay. The problem with your userbox is that it is labelling an entire group of real people as part of an "ideology" as opposed to actual people. This is cruel. The existence of people being gay is nothing new and is certainly not some kind of political dispute. You surely agree that a userbox declaring "this user opposes the existence of males and "male ideology" due to religious, legal, and moral reasons" is bloody ludicrous. Cremastra (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NQP and WP:UPNOT#POLEMIC. We absolutely should not allow users to freely post openly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric on-wiki with no respect to how it impacts the community. They can do that on X, The Everything App. See also Paradox of tolerance. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – If I am expected to contribute efficiently and constructively to Wikipedia, I must also be allowed to feel safe and respected in my own user space. This userbox does not insult anyone – it simply expresses a lawful and personal belief about some movements and ideas, not people. Free speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution (WMF servers are located in the US - WMF is subject to US law), and Wikipedia should reflect that by allowing respectful dissent. Please read the full discussion before rushing to judgment. BZPN (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFREESPEECH silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, so let me also not mention the userbox you have on your user page, @SilviaASH. BZPN (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to nominate that userbox for deletion if you feel it violates the guidelines. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something is not an insult does not mean it is not insulting; if I was to say "I support segregation", it would offend anyone of a different race, despite not directly demeaning them. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You: “what I like and what I don't like is my private business”
    Also You: “This userbox does not insult anyone”
    Here is a hint… just as you cannot dictate what other people like, you can’t dictate what other people find insulting. You can think it is a stupid question reason to be insulted, but at least have the dignity to be honest about your beliefs. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the precedent from 1M1W deletion discussion is clear that userboxes like this are a violation of the userbox guidelines and needlessly divisive. Wikipedia is not a social network. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically per WP:NOTADVOCACY and to a lesser extent WP:POLEMIC. Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia and I believe advertising your own political, social or religious views is violating WP:SOAPBOX. Also BZPN, a public service announcement for you: the First Amendment only protects free speech from government abridgment. The Wikimedia Foundation is not the government and so there is no inherent right for your essay or infobox to stay based on the First Amendment. Loosely connected: [5]. Also, answering your questions you asked: (1) it may be controversial, but it would definitely fall within WP:NOTADVOCACY, so yeet it; (2) I guess a lot of LGBT folks will be offended for reasons that are not really related to editing on Wikipedia, so yes, it's inflammatory (3) no, users should not advertise their political views unless this means a declaration of COI (e.g. party membership). This is not to question your views. You may believe that a council of gods on Śnieżka created three-legged unicorns to bring prosperity around the world - I don't care. However, if the views define your editing patterns, your relationship with Wikipedia or if they are very likely to offend at least some editors who are otherwise productive on Wikipedia, you won't stay here for long. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UBCR; stating that one "opposes LGBT+ ideology" is divisive and inflammatory, as affirmed by numerous prior deletion discussions. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we shouldn’t have content - political, religious, or otherwise - that can be perceived as needlessly offensive by any reasonable person on our user pages. While disclosing affiliation (faith, party membership) or one’s gender and sexuality is fine, political statements that can sour the relationships with your fellow editors are a very different conversation. This (as seen above) clearly can and should be deleted to prevent such disruptions, whether as a userbox or in text.FortunateSons (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And suggest that, if BZPN dislikes queer people, they'd be best advised to keep that to themselves. A project like Wikipedia that depends on collaboration is not served by things like this. Furthermore I'd gently remind BZPN to avoid tiptoeing so close to the edge of WP:NLT as they are above by describing this as an unlawful discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would like to gently remind you that what I like and what I don't like is my private business, and I would kindly advise you to re-read the content of the userbox carefully and with understanding. BZPN (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You called my life as a bisexual an ideology in a userbox. That you created and displayed on your user page. I always try to AGF but such behaviours makes it very difficult. Which is why the userbox should be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can like or dislike whatever you want. But our policies prohibit userpage content that is needlessly inflammatory, which is what this is. Userpages are a place to declare your interests and say one or two things about yourself and even your politics without needlessly pissing people off or dehumanizing other editors. Cremastra (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you like and don't like is your private business, all the more reason for keeping it private and not parading with it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the essay I was okay with. The problem here is that it is specifically targeting LGBTQ people as part of an "ideology" as if people being gay is some kind of dispute over the finer points of taxation we can all sit down and have a reasonable dispute over. Someone's existence is not an ideology, although bigots frequently frame "people being gay" and "people having a gender that happens to be different from their sex" as some kind of "new", scary "ideology" introduced by those damn progressives. Cremastra (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW delete. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CFF:1B48:7CC7:88B1 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I seldom vote on userboxes, and I don't like having to support right-wing expression in a country where democracy is more threatened by right-wing political correctness than by left-wing political correctness, but deleting this userbox will be illustrating left-wing political correctness. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem like a policy based reason to keep this essay. dbeef [talk] 03:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; in general I find political userboxes social media-y at best and at odds with the spirit of NPOV at worst, but as long as they exist, this one should not be disallowed. "This is inflammatory and divisive" does not convince me—lots of views much more controversial than this one are allowed expression in Wikipedia userboxes, including Stalinism, religious rightism, Zionism, Francoism, opposition to abortion, radical feminism, and more. Interpretations of the userbox as classing the very existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons as "LGBT+ ideology" (and thus as expressing opposition to the existence of LGBT+ persons) do not follow from its text, which only implies that LGBT+ ideology exists and is opposed, and does not imply that "LGBT+ ideology" necessarily includes all LGBT+ existence. Compare to the leap from "this user opposes Christian ideology" to "this user opposes the existence of Christians". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really reaching to defend this. References to "LGBT Ideology" are intrinsically dehumanizing. As I said before statements like that are deeply corrosive to WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: please note that the word ideology refers to:
    Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes of political and social action ([6]).
    This is a precise, academic term - not a slur, not an insult, and certainly not a denial of anyone’s humanity. I opposed a set of beliefs and public goals, not your existence. Please make that distinction. BZPN (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My being bisexual is not a system of beliefs. It's part of who I am. If your intent is not to offend then I have WP:CIR concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: I would strongly encourage you to take a deep breath, read through the entire discussion again carefully, and try to separate facts from personal offense. If you're unable to acknowledge that distinction, then perhaps it's best to take a step back from this thread. This is an MfD discussion, not a courtroom for personal feelings BZPN (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said my piece about this patently inappropriate userbox. Do not tag me again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Belief in such a thing as "LGBT+ ideology" does not imply that your (or anyone's) bisexuality is an ideology. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ideology" is an academic term. "LGBT ideology" isn’t. It’s just a right-wing dogwhistle. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the expressions "Catholic ideology", "right-wing ideology", etc. are okay, but "LGBT ideology" is not? Does the word ideology change its meaning in any way when compared to the word "LGBT"? BZPN (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The adjectives "Catholic" and "right-wing" primarily have to do with beliefs. Being catholic is synonymous with believing catholic ideology. Being right-wing is synonymous with having right-wing ideologies.
    Being LGBT is not synonymous with "believing in LGBT ideology", whatever that means. The same reason it would be ridiculous to say I oppose male ideology or female ideology.
    But as you illustrate here, part of what makes this offensive is what lies behind the assumption that LGBTQ+ identities are tied with the invented term of "LGBTQ+ ideology". The same way conservatives invented the term "gender ideology". (cc [7] but of course self published sources are not reliable) My being attracted to people of the same sex as me does not entail months-long indoctrination sessions at the local gay community center, nor did I make a choice in which genders I was attracted to.
    It's a dogwhistle term because it conceals whatever the true meaning is. Does LGBT ideology mean LGBT existence? Or LGBT rights? Some people might want to say, "I don't oppose LGBT rights but I'm opposed to the extremists", and I'd ideally want them to clarify what exactly are the extremist positions they're trying to oppose.
    I don't think this userbox is nuanced enough and it's hard for me, at present, to imagine a defensible argument that includes reservations about adoption rights. dbeef [talk] 08:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how references to "LGBT+ ideology" are intrinsically dehumanizing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They suggest that, since ideologies are belief systems, that every L, G, B, T, or + person has the same beliefs (and, indeed, apparently non-LGBT+ people who support them). Which is plainly utter nonsense, even if you allow that ideologies (i.e. "right-wing ideology") encompass a spectrum. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a necessary implication at all! The reference just posits the very existence of an “LGBT+ ideology”—it doesn’t define it, and taking it to consider the very existence of LGBT+ persons as a loathed ideology is just a completely maximalist interpretation applied in the absence of any specificity. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase doesn't exist in a vacuum. LGBT ideology sets out some of the discourse around it. We are under no obligation to contort the words into some improbable meaning divorced from how it is widely used: to delegitimize the existence and rights of LGBT people.--Trystan (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is defining/referencing "LGBT ideology" relevant to editing? That is probably the question we should ask regardless of whether anyone believes that "gay agenda" is real or a big deal. Because I can't see use cases when that could be germane to editing. This discussion, however, is evidence that the community is losing manhours that could have otherwise been spent on (ideally) writing articles, or (which is more likely) at least bickering about them. All because apparently some think that making political statements on-wiki is a good thing. Cue millions of people complaining about "woke" editors. And they may be wrong, but at the end of the day we are trying to write for people regardless of their political beliefs, amirite? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This userbox is as relevant to editing as the five hundred “this user likes toast” “this user longs for the reunification of the Soviet Union” and “this user is a Francoist” etc boxes that exist without challenge. Selectively applying the argument that userboxes irrelevant to editing (or mentioning politics) ought not exist at all to a single userbox is dishonest. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my whole point. Yeet them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d support a group nomination. But you cannot selectively apply that just to this userbox, which is what’s happening here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:POLEMIC. This editor should go get a blog or social media account instead. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either we're being trolled here, or the user genuinely can't get it into their head why this is offensive. Either way, we don't need it. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UBCR; clearly divisive and inflammatory.--Trystan (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Textbook example of being divisive, in setting up the strawman of an overaching "LGBTQ ideology" and then stating their opposition to it. This is just pot-stirring. Note I have !voted Keep on the linked essay which is also up at MfD, since it is possible to have a nuanced and non-divisive discussion about how our treatment of views on the range of LQBTQ-related topics needs to also consider the lens of geographical and religious differences in attitudes, and that essay makes a credible attempt to do so. But this userbox then builds a divisive edifice on top of that, which is why it should go. Martinp (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we please get an uninvolved editor to close? There is long since an obvious consensus about what to do with this pride month trolling excursion. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UBCR, as being obviously divisive and inflammatory. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I already expressed my opinion about the userbox, but there is a Village Pump discussion about userboxes you may want to join. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This userbox doesn't support my existence. I don't support this userbox's existence.  — Hex • talk 00:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very clear WP:UBCR violation, following the precedent set in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A userbox like this is inherently divisive and inflammatory. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LGBT ideology? What's that? The belief that LGBT people are human beings who deserve the same rights as everyone else? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's long-standing precedent for the community deleting userboxes like this. That precedent is good and we should follow it here. Loki (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The essay's author is entitled to their own opinion; but there is no automatic right for them to express that opinion here, when doing so is clearly detrimental to the well-being of the project. There are plenty of alternative outlets for them to proselytise their religious ideology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Divisive, inflammatory, etc.—Alalch E. 14:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:UBCR. Elestrophe (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia Is Not A Forum For Free Speech, and as I'm sure BZPN does actually know - the US constitution has no bearing on that - as it refers to what laws the US House Of Representatives may pass and not what a privately owned website may do. Futher, the irony cannot be escaped of calling this an issue of Free Speech and refering to this as an Unlawful Discussion in the same breath. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So also - according to your understanding - we should delete all userboxes like "This user supports LGBT rights", "This user supports feminism", or "This user supports Palestine" per WP:NOTFREESPEECH, right? It's very obvious what double standards apply on Wikipedia. BZPN (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere in that comment, which was not a long comment, did I suggest deleting any userboxes. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but I didn't say you suggested that. I just asked you a question based on your comment and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. BZPN (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's prety obvious that my position is not in favour of deleting userboxes where they do not interfere with creating an encyclopedia. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. NOTFREESPEECH means that free speech can't be cited as the reason to keep a page, not that absolutely no room for free expression is allowed. You are doing the former, and are thus violating it. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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]

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]

Old business

[edit]


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=1297838338"