Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{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

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	2	9	11
TfD	0	7	7
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	14	14
RfD	2	50	52
AfD	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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.

April 4, 2025

It is impossible for Wikipedia to become infinite. We shouldn't have a pool for something that is impossible. No one can ever win the pool. Fish567 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Artaxerex/ Guity Novin

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User+talk%3AArtaxerex%2F+Guity+Novin&rev1=273927467&page2=Guity+Novin&rev2=273826962 No significant edit since 2009, user has been inactive for the last four months. Paradoctor (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It isn't obvious that the rule against copies applies to user talk subpages, but it is clear that they don't serve a useful purpose and are redundant forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
copied to userspace for short-term, active drafting or experimental purposes (my emphasis)

Unless we're talking about drafts on user main or talk pages, where they don't belong, all userspace is subpages. Paradoctor (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Indo-pakistani race war of looksmax org

Doesn't technically meet WP:G3 or WP:G11 nor any other speedy deletion criterion but this is clearly an inappropriate use of Wikipedia space and we are not a webhost. Were it in user space, I would have requested WP:U5.

It basically appears to be an 'article' written about some mates messing around on an online forum. No amount of editing would ever make this a viable entry and the repeated submissions are a waste of reviewer time. We'd be better off just deleting to discourage any further messing around. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing approaching reliable sources here. This appears to be an edit war on a site other than Wikipedia. Doesn't meet any part of GNG or V much less NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also full of anti-Pakistan sentiment. One such example is On the Pakistani side, there were no notable achievements or victories recorded. The sheer numerical superiority of Indian users, combined with the psychological blow dealt by chudltn’s deception, ensured that Pakistan had little chance of recovering or claiming any kind of moral victory. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Internet trolls being Internet trolls. I'd also slap a WP:CT/IPA warning on the creator's page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's a joke page. Never gonna be worthwhile. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. This is an account of misconduct on a web site, not exactly an edit war because it was more like a mock battle in cyberspace. This may encourage conflict on the Wikipedia web site between two communities who are already often at odds with each other. I agree with giving a India-Pakistan warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox13

Violation of WP:COPIES from 59th National Film Awards. Srf123 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox12

Violation of WP:COPIES from 59th National Film Awards. Srf123 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sanbox10

Violation of WP:COPIES from Swami Vivekananda. Srf123 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox8

Violation of WP:COPIES from History of India. Srf123 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, honestly, we deal with bad copies in userspace so much at MfD it should probably just be a speedy criteria at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox7

Violation of WP:COPIES from Kahaani. Srf123 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox4

WP:RFORK which a violation of WP:COPIES from Religion in India. Srf123 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox3

Violation of WP:COPIES from Satyajit Ray. Srf123 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article that is a redundant fork. It appears that all seven of these were created eighteen years ago and so are considerably out of sync with the article, which is why these forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:S. Naga Vamsi

Draft:S. Naga Vamsi should be deleted because it is a less-complete version of Draft:S Naga Vamsi. They were both created by the same editor Ustadeditor2011. They cover the same topic. It makes no sense having both. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add from my side, I know this guy is good, notable producer with movies which I have seen, also know for his comments against youtube reviews and all. Would like to work on this subject. Admins can delete one, and can tell on which one to work on. I can work upon it. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We, the editors at MFD, do not need waste our volunteer time reading two drafts to determine which one is more complete and which one should be deleted. They can be left in draft space, where perhaps one of them will be worked on and accepted into article space. If either of them is ignored for six months, it will expire. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Advice to User:Herodyswaroop - If you are interested in working on one of these drafts, you can review them, and decide which one is better to start with, and improve it. My recommendation to MFD is that we leave the task of deciding which one is better to you, or to any editor who wants to work on a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 3, 2025

User:Panda Vídeo/sandbox

WP:PROMO userspace page about a company that doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP, created by a now-blocked WP:CORPNAME account obviously connected to the company. Previous nom as db-spamuser was declined. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I think it should just make its way through the WP:AfC process if anything, assuming it fails, it gets speedied pretty soon after anyway. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I see no need to delete promotional drafts if they are not subject to speedy deletion. Let it expire, unless an editor in good standing cleans it up. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Joey and the Pencilcartoons

this is a random draft from 2022 that was moved to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia; that list is only for long-existing hoaxes. charlotte ^👸♥ 02:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not ever a long-existing or even public hoax hosted by Wikipedia. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax about a hoax. But see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joey and the Pencilcartoons, in which we, the editors at MFD, had a previous chance to delete this thing and moved it here instead. We can get rid of it this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2, 2025

User:AirplanePro/Satanhater

Even if this is a joke, saying "I maybe hate Hinduism, Buddhism, and Muslims" is probably not acceptable for a userbox. This is inflammatory and inappropriate for a Wikipedia page, not just a userbox. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unused, openly hateful userbox. SK2242 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for obvious reasons. Promotion of any kind of hate can't be tolerated, even as a bad attempt at joke. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlike prior discussions, this userbox specifically calls out hating certain religions, making this a delete for me. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. While there is some rope given, this is just hateful. Does extremely Inappropriate. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 15:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Userboxes shouldn't just be I hate [insert group here], its in poor taste. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 1, 2025

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal government of the United States

(Serious MFD) Possibly a poor-taste joke AfD, the April Fools page states not to create joke pages on politically contentious topics. Xeroctic (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User has no sense of humor and is WikiLawyering. Wikipedia:Rules for Fools does NOT say anything about about politically contentious topics. _pbp 15:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The rules don't say to avoid contentious topics full stop, they say to be considerate and not violate BLP by disparaging living persons, and this joke does not personally attack nor disparage Musk or Trump. Won't be funny to everyone, but it is a reasonable joke that works if one agrees with the underlying political outlook. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless joke, not disruptive and wasting ironically less time than its MfD nomination itself. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's ok for a joke nom and doesn't violate R4F, it doesn't say anything against any living people. I think its fine. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the topic is contentious, but I don't think this AFD is problematic enough to warrant deletion. There have been problematic joke AFDs in the past, but this isn't one. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith

I am taking the liberty of nominating this userbox for deletion again (this is its third nomination so far). It is an obvious violation of WP:UBCR, and very inflammatory and divisive. Its message of support for the premiership of Ian Smith, the leader of the former White racist state of Rhodesia, is not different than showing support for apartheid in South Africa, or any other racist system in general. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in my opinion any box supportive of a specific politician is already in breach of WP:UBCR, but this one is fully in dog whistle territory as well. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I think Userboxes showing support for certain figures can be useful sometimes. Imagine if someone is a prominent editor of the Ian Smith or Rhodesia articles, it would probably be useful to know their preconceived bias to know what to look out for in their editing. Maybe even userboxes like this could be used to show what topics the user should probably stay away from editing, due to professed bias regarding the subject. On the topic of Ian Smith's beliefs, I think he was of course a horrible person, but Wikipedia is something anyone can edit, and this includes people with beliefs most of us would find repugnant. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not very appropriate for Wikipedia 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 14:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While consensus can change on Wikipedia, I don't think anything has truly changed since the last 2 MFDs of this very user box, one of which ended as Keep and the other as No consensus. This particular userbox is clearly an edge case between our fundamental tolerance for people expressing support for controversial points of view -- which has been used to successfully justify userboxes expressing support for public figures who are viewed as controversial -- and the disallowance of "inflammatory" userboxes per WP:UBCR. Those 2 principles can clearly sometimes clash, and this is an example of that. We've twice before failed to reach consensus that this one is far enough over the line, and I don't see anything having fundamentally changed since then. (By the way, it is worth noting that WP:NORACISTS is an essay, not policy; so as justification for deletion it at best can only serve as evidence that expressing support for people who have acted in a racist way is indeed viewed as sufficiently inflammatory, not as an automatic policy-based reason to delete this.) Martinp (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Projectspace pages by The Master of Hedgehogs

Wikipedia:Aidepikiw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Bosses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Jail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Action Cards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Drivethru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Forum Store (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These are a bunch of mostly one- to two-sentence projectspace "humor" pages that are not funny, are orphaned, and appear abandoned/unfinished by their creator, The Master of Hedgehogs (talk · contribs). Previous consensus for another of The Master of Hedgehogs's pages was to delete (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AAAAAA!), which has apparently not deterred the user from creating more of these pages. --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're nothing but harmless humor articles, that serve a Department of Fun purpose. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 12:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these are not humorous, nor do they provide any sort of insight into Wikipedia . -- Whpq (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a humor article doesn't provide any insight into Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be deleted. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 21:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and Whpq. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some, Strong Keep for Wikipedia:Bosses, In my opinion, most of these aren't particularly good humor pages. However I think the "bosses" page is a novel concept, and I think its nice to have some stuff that maybe isn't useful, but is neat regardless. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What insight on wikipedia does the bosses page bring? -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humor pages don't need to bring any insight. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 21:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then those ones are useless and should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 31, 2025

Template:User Supports Qaddafi

Obvious violation of WP:UBCR, created by a blocked sockpuppeteer. Clearly inflammatory and divisive, as it shows support for a regime which committed grave human rights violations during its existence. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, straight to the trashcan next to the Assad and Saddam ones. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 08:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inflammatory and divisive, making it counterproductive in building an encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Again, as with the Ian Smith userbox deletion discussion, I think having Userboxes for support of certain figures, even if they are ones most of us would find awful and repugnant, is useful. If someone is editing the article on Gaddafi, knowing their biases is of value. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this nom and all the previous ones. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 29, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr. (2nd nomination)

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr.

Possible violation of WP:BLP. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an old April Fools joke. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed G7 as creator of this joke. I think it's the best to be safe than sorry especially with regard to the BLP policy, and I do believe that this joke is somewhat unfunny in hindslight. And let's be honest, I also want to leave this old joke in the past as we move onto April Fools 2025. Silcox (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case the G7 fails, I would still like to having this "joke" deleted out of precaution for our BLP policy. Silcox (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't mind a G7 or deleting it by nomination, it's a few years old at this point. 53 (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've declined the G7 since other editors had contributed to the discussion. I'm hoping that in search of amusement, User:Silcox will restrain themselves from vandalism this April 1st. If I see any such mischief, User:Silcox is warned and I will block for 24 hours immediately without any further notice. Vandalism especially on a BLP is vandalism and some administrators will enforce this 365 days per year. BusterD (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:03, 30 March 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.

March 28, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheOlis7

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheOlis7

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3ATheOlis7&rev1=409546413&page2=List+of+SpongeBob+SquarePants+episodes&rev2=409516447 Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 23:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a fake article and a redundant fork. User came, left this coprolite, departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:COPIES Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 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:Sarzsarz1

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarzsarz1

WP:STALEDRAFT #6: no potential whatsoever. Startup founded in 2022, by all appearances folded in 2023 or 2024, no reliable in-depth coverage anywhere. Paradoctor (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate user page and it should not be moved. But blanking would have been fine.—Alalch E. 23:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may or may not wish to weigh in at today's RfD nomination of Tenslam. Paradoctor (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inappropriate user page for advertising. See user page guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anyone saying "per nom" - the nom cited STALEDRAFT#6 and then quoted half of that criterion. No potential and problematic even if blanked. What is problematic about this page after it's blanked (promotional content doesn't qualify -- that's for attack pages, BLP violations, copyvios, etc.). Not a good use of MfD. Just blank it, slap a {{userpage blanked}} on it, and move on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:52, 29 March 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/Draft:2035 Men's Rugby World Cup

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: keep. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2035 Men's Rugby World Cup

Per WP:TOOSOON, I would guess the page creator is trying to be the first to create a page that will become popular, just not for another 10 ish years. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drafts are not reviewed for notability. Too soon is a common reason to decline drafts, and they can be left as drafts for a long time, even nine years. Leave Useless Drafts Alone because reviewing them and deleting them is busywork for the volunteers at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So let him be first. Not a concern.—Alalch E. 22:59, 28 March 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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 23:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC) ended today on 5 April 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

March 24, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Merger banners

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: redirect to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Merger banners

This page seems to be an outdated, incomplete, less clear version of what WP:MERGE has become, while providing instructions less useful than the dedicated merging banners templates page that is WP:TMERGE. I do not think any useful information on there has not already made its way in a better form on one of these two pages, and therefore believe this one should be deleted. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 23:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Template index/Merging (or somewhere like Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers ... I'm really not fussed about the redirect's location), or even mark as historical; no reason that its page history should be made inaccessible to non-admins, which is all deletion does. Graham87 (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. The content is redundant to Wikipedia:Merging, as stated by the nominator.—Alalch E. 16:29, 25 March 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.

March 23, 2025

User:Tomruen/List of D5 polytopes

WP:COPIES, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3ATomruen%2FList+of+D5+polytopes&rev1=&page2=D5+polytope&rev2=696520597&action=&unhide= Paradoctor (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a user page copy, harmless. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that long living copies of articles are an attribution compliance hazard, due to the two pages having parallel edit histories with different authors, and a copy-paste not properly attribution an author.

This might be more serious if the two pages had more than one author between them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomruen: I already !voted to keep, but please answer why you created this copy in your userspace; I am simply curious. —Alalch E. 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more interested in the intended future use. The page was created in 2015 and then abandoned. If archiving was the purpose, writing down a permalink would've done the job. Or just pulling it from the page history of D5 polytope, should the need arise. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a copy in user space of a mainspace article. They are not permitted by user page guidelines. These are redundant content forks and become different from the article because the article will be improved by editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a problem because Tomruen is the sole substantive contributor to D5 polytope; he later copied this article which he authored to his userspace, for whatever reason. No problem of missing attribution at the copy and I can't detect an attribution hazard either.—Alalch E. 16:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 16, 2025

User:WebHamster/religion

This is even worse than the other one I nominated. WP:Hate is disruptive. It literally could not get clearer than this. If I created a userbox saying "I HATE GAY PEOPLE" I would get blocked and the userbox would get deleted. Which is fair. But someone can do the same thing to religion and its been around for over a decade and lots of people use it? The double standard here is insane and it frustates me.DotesConks (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general note are we meant to be notifying all transcluders on Userbox MfDs? Although looking at incoming links at least 121 users have this on their page. SK2242 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think not, because that would bias the outcome of this debate heavily toward keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not determined by vote counting.

The users being accused here of unacceptable communication on their Userpage have a right to be notified that they are being judged, and, if in good standing, a right to reply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe That is WP:CANVASSING. DotesConks (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Notifying users of a discussion that involves them is not canvassing, but is required.

To assuage your concern, the notification should be done transparently, naming those affected by the discussion. Of course, those affected are not a random group, and everyone including the closer must understand that those affected by the discussion, the transcluders, are not uninvolved editors. An explicit WP:Ping to each in this discussion will clearly identify the notified involved users. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that discussions like this one basically turn into majority votes. We have policies (e.g., no discriminating against religious editors) and principles (e.g., declaring your own biases is good) and values (e.g., gay people's identities deserve extra protection; religious people's identities don't), but these conflict with each other in this MFD, so there isn't an obvious single right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:WhatamIdoing, like this? Discussions with many participants? If the discussion becomes large and compressive, WP:CROWD applies, and it looks like it comes down to a vote count? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, "like this" in terms of the subject. Discussions for which one can equally cite WP:NOTFREESPEECH (you don't have the right to advertise your POV here) and WP:NOTCENSORED (you don't have the right to prevent others from advertising their views here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the naked woman in stilettos, this one can be intellectual on both sides? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe For a user who has been on the site for 19 years, you should know better. You are drawing a partisan audience into the conversation which would obviously vote for what they believe (in this case keeping the userbox). I recommend you read WP:INAPPNOTE. Also with 121 users, notifying all transcluders is sending way too many talk page messages which is another violation specified in the inappropriate notices section under WP:CANVASSING. DotesConks (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should go to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Notification of transcluders of the MfD-ed userboxes, where this is answered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The case for deletion would be stronger if the userbox singled out an individual religion, and one could argue that this userbox only attacks a belief system rather than individuals, but its potential to offend outweighs its value for self-expression. Its hard to make an userbox about religion not polemical. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I don't like X" seems to match WP:POLEMIC to me. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "I don’t like X" is perfectly acceptable; for example, "I don’t like cats" or even "I hate apples" is not offensive or derogatory to large groups of people. "I don’t like religion" would be a valid expression of a user's opinion. The issue here is the implication that religious people make the world less sane, safe, and happy. That is polemic and offensive to a lot of people. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: probably counts under WP:POLEMIC. Keep: There's some good arguments for keeping. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The userbox would fall under WP:POLEMIC if it attacks a group of people (e.g. "...if there were no religious people"), but "religion" isn't groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Some1 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So in your mind saying that a world without religion would be a saner place does not also imply that religious people are inherently less sane than atheists? Well, I think it absolutely does and for this reason it is an attack against a group of people. Nickps (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the word "religion" with "astrology"/"capitalism"/"communism"/"caste system", etc. I wouldn't find those statements to be attacks against a group of people per se. Some1 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would. Believing that the world would be better without communism means believing that communists make the world worse. Believing that the world would be saner without astrology means believing that astrologers make the world less sane. The implied attack is still there. Nickps (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying people who criticize Islam are Islamophobic. Saying religion is stupid ≠ saying religious people are stupid. Some1 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Yes, there are many a valid reason to critisize Islam. You still don't need to criticize Islam on Wikipedia. Why do that when doing so is not the WP:PURPOSE of the site and it can lead to otherwise avoidable conflict with Muslim editors? What we should be doing instead is just documenting what the sources say about the subject in a neutral way. But here, we are giving the impression that we do the opposite. In a supposed content dispute between an editor that uses this userbox and a religious editor on an article about religion, how is the religious editor supposed to WP:AGF and not think his interlocutor is trying to WP:RGW? Nickps (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, making factual claims about a belief system that happen to paint it in a bad light is not something I consider an attack. It would be impossible to uphold WP:NPOV if it was. But that's not what the userbox does at all. This isn't a userbox that criticizes religion in some constructive way. Instead it makes a wild assertion that religion invariably makes this universe and any other a worse place. To see how absurd that is just consider that "any universe" includes universes where God is real. How is denying the existence of a real being the sane thing to do? Nickps (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a big difference between "I hate X people" (which I agree with requester should be deleted) and "I believe it would be better if people didn't believe X". While I'm not a huge fan of userboxes in general, and ones on contentious social opinions in particular, we have a longstanding tradition of accepting those which legitimately can be viewed as explaining the viewpoints/biases a user may bring to their editing. This is an example of that. Martinp (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In view of there being lively discussion, I'm reaffirming my Keep. I continue to see daylight between this userbox and divisive, attack userboxen that would say some version of "I hate X people". I've considered but am not persuaded by discussion of analogies/alternatives with different "X" than religion. Ultimately, I find all of them as written below are (in some cases marginally) plausible as commentary on forces in society and potential editor bias, as opposed to attacks on groups of people, and so I find the ones given also acceptable. I can imagine worse alternatives where the "coded attack on people with a specific characteristic" is the only plausible alternative. Then I would be against, but religion as a general concept (whose influence on socitety has been debated for centuries) is a far cry from that. There is also an argument made pro-deletion (even G5) since WebHamster is blocked as a sockpuppeteer. However, that seems to be several years more recent than this userbox, which is also used by 120+ other people. Not all of whom can reasonably be assumed to be "shit-stirring" (to quote another Delete). Net-net, I would be !voting Keep if this userbox were in the userspace of a user in good standing, and since many other people have "adopted" it, presumably with reasonable intentions, I'm not switching to Delete just because its creator has subsequently been shown the door here. Martinp (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with the idea that criticism of a concept is automatically an attack on people who espouse and/or believe in it, and thus do not think that this userbox violates WP:POLEMIC. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because this implies that religious people are less sane than non-religious people and make the world less safe and happy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this is attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Expressing a negative personal opinion in a userbox is fine (such as "This user doesn’t like dogs" or even "This user thinks religion is harmful to society"), but expressing a negative personal opinion about other people is not. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The userbox doesn't express a negative personal opinion about other people though. It says This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no religion. which is another variation of "This user believes that a world without religion would lead to greater happiness, safety, and sanity." Regarding WP:SOAPBOX, you can say that about any political userboxes, e.g. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology/02. Some1 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also think the other statement is inappropriate, because it still implies that there is something wrong with religious people. You can’t separate the concept of religion and the people who practice it when you’re talking about sanity. As far as soapboxing, I don’t really think it’s best for users to express their opinions about anything besides their interests and their identity on their user pages. But there is a lot of flexibility offered there. My example statement "This user thinks religion is harmful to society" is soapboxing, and it is divisive, but it is at least not offensive to anyone. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1, let's try some "not people" alternatives and see what you think:
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no religion" (the userbox text)
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no homosexuality"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no genders"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no races or ethnicities"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no political conservatism"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no old age"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no marriage"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no divorce"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no disability"
    
    "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no immigration"
    These are all "concepts" rather than "people". Some of these are even real-world philosophical POVs (e.g., some strains of Radical feminism want to eliminate the social concept of gender and have every person treated alike except for strictly necessary reproductive differences; Opposition to marriage is a thing).
    
    However, I can easily imagine the people whose identities align with one or more of these to feel unwelcome or disrespected by such a statement. And then the difficulty is: Why is it okay for editors to advertise that they believe the world would be better without something central to User:A's identity, but it's not okay for editors to advertise that they believe the same thing about something central to User:B's identity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples and oranges. Are you really trying to compare religion to homosexuality? 🤔 A more appropriate example IMO would be capitalism. "This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no capitalism". Is that offensive? Some1 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1 WP:IDHT. You are choosing to ignore his argument. It is not "apples and oranges". We are not trying to compare religion to homosexuality. We are saying that attacking a concept also attacks the people who follow said concept. Not to mention the intention behind the userbox. We do not follow everything literally, things have to be implied. It is implied that the creator was trying to antagonize religious people. DotesConks (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peristome/UserBox/GodMMAtheist to be offensive, but it was kept. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the perceived offensiveness of this userbox. Some1 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1 Except that is saying "God made this user an atheist, do you question his wisdom.". This is "Religion should be eradicated". Pretty big difference. DotesConks (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Some1, it's not apples and oranges. It's POVs. Years ago, when HIV treatments were new, I read a story that ran something like this:
    
    Some gay Catholic people had different views and ended up forming two different groups. One said they would follow the anti-LBGTQ rules. The other said they would not. The first group said to the other: "Religion is central to who I am! Why would anyone give up religion for something that is ultimately so inconsequential as sex?" The second group replied: "Sexuality is central to who I am! Why would anyone give up sex for something that is ultimately so inconsequential as religion?"
    
    The reason this comparison is not an apples-and-oranges situation is because religion is core to some people's identities. And so the question remains: Why is it okay for editors to advertise that they believe the world would be better without something central to User:A's identity, but it's not okay for editors to advertise that they believe the same thing about something central to User:B's identity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on what that something (that's central to one's identity) is. Some people might make fascism, Nazism, white supremacy or other abhorrent ideologies "central to their identity", for example. Since this MfD deals with a specific userbox regarding religion in general, let's focus on that and avoid getting sidetracked by hypotheticals. If you want to have a broader discussion regarding the potential offensiveness of userboxes and statements that should or should not be allowed in them, the best place to do that would be at the Village Pump or WT:Userbox. It would be an interesting discussion to have. Some1 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not WP:POLEMIC, and a defensible option to hold, and an opion that might be relevant to their editing biases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is CU blocked. This might qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:WhatamIdoing, with 124 transclusion, there’s plenty of editors in good standing who have vouched for the userbox, so G5 doesn’t apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:DotesConks has lately joined en.wiki apparently for the purpose of telling wikipedians we should get in line with their personal opinions. They have already been warned at AfD that they are not clueful enough to be making comments about user behavior or filing processes. Here they are telling us what users are allowed to say about themselves in their own userspace. Policing user thought is a bad thing for veteran, experienced wikipedians; WP:Ragpicking like this is a far worse habit for thin-skinned newbies with all of three weeks of wiki-experience. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD I was reminded of Wikipedia's policies, not warned at AfD for saying a user who created an article should be deleted because the creator was banned off the site. Which is something that you are doing, right now. Also Wikipedia is not a free speech platform and if I created a userbox saying "This user does not like homosexuality", well it wouldn't fly. Now can we please have an actual merit-based argument? Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indicates that the user is interested in religion, and might show certain tendencies (extra sensitivity to religious POV, dislike for primary religious texts as sources, or similar) when editing content that has to do with religion. The userbox does not promote hate, and it does not say that religious people are insane. It isn't reasonable to see this userbox and get offended -- sorry.—Alalch E. 16:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. They say religion is insane which implies all religious people are insane. You have to look at the intention behind creating the userbox, not the literal words. I have used this example before and I will use it again, "This user does not like homosexuality.". Clearly this user does not like homosexuals and should have the userbox deleted. But if I followed your logic, then it is perfectly acceptable because I am not attacking homosexuals, I'm attacking homosexuality. DotesConks (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take it seriously that you'd be upset over this userbox. I am not sensitive to your concerns. —Alalch E. 23:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the comparison of a common inoffensive comment about religion in general, to the nominator making hate speech about gays, is abominable and demonstrates why they needs to be topic-banned from WP: space. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've just given their opinion to an admin they should reduce the protection on Djibouti, which is an arb enforcement. We're largely at WP:Competence is required. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz Advocating for the destruction of religion is "inoffensive"? DotesConks (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More personal opinion. The user box doesn't say that at all, and nobody here has made such an assertion but you. It's like you're just looking for things to be angry about. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pretending this is about "destroying" religion? If I said that the Earth would suffer less damage and extinction if humans didn't exist, I'm not advocating or even suggesting, that destroying humanity. Now if I got into particular groups of humans - that might be an issue. Once again, I suggest you stop playing in WP: space - I see you are now getting warned by admins on your talk page about your AFDs. I think it's time to move on, and stick to main space, where your work could be more valued. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for exactly the same reason I gave at the identical nomination by this editor for another userspace infobox: The Userbox Migration (aka the German Userbox Solution)—that is, allowing things like this to exist but in userspace rather than Wikipedia: or Template: space (to make it clear they don't have official endorsement)—was the outcome of literally months of discussion. Yes, a discussion that took place eighteen years ago is maybe worth revisiting, but an obscure MfD is not the place to do so. Overruling the result of multiple massive discussions that involved everyone from Arbcom to Jimmy Wales—and which has been settled consensus for approaching two decades—would at minimum need a well-advertised central discussion. I may be the only one in this discussion who remembers just how foul-tempered the arguments that led to this compromise were last time around; putting these potentially contentious userboxes in userspace is a feature not a bug, and changing a very well established practice needs an RFC, not a unilateral decision at MFD. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. Wide latitude for personal expression is allowed on userpages. Rules on religion are divisive, and there is no evidence of this userbox causing a problem. A compromise was reached, and has been unremarkable ever since. New users coming to MfD to stir up old troubles should be discouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this userbox is WP:SOAPBOX shitstirring. Detracts from the project and does not benefit it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All 120 users are “shitstirring”. That’s improbable. The statement expressed is one I’ve heard seriously in real life. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in spite of the absurd and frankly offensive nomination statement. Userbox miserably fails both WP:UBCR and WP:UBDIVISIVE, our two most relevant guidelines here. No matter your opinion on the content, this stuff is a net negative. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 00:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – expresses an opinion on an idea rather than specific people, which in my view makes this less divisive. This is not a personal attack, but merely a comment on an idea, and relatively speaking phrases the comment in a thoughtful and civil manner – that is, it states the idea and then gets out, rather than just saying "RELIGION BAD" or something equally juvenile. Attacking people is inflammatory and unacceptable, but criticizing other ideas is a valid part of debate. This userbox happens to take a pretty extreme stance, saying that the world would be a better place without idea x, but still is not actually inflammatory. Saying "the world would be a better place without religious people" would be inflammatory, as would specifying one religion to harass ("the world would be a better place without zoroastrianism"). But this userbox is in my opinion sufficiently vague that it is unlikely to be especially divisive. (I, for example, would be annoyed but not really offended by a userbox stating the world would be a better place without athiesm. It is a debate about personal beliefs. On the other hand, a userbox saying the world would be a better place without athiests is just an attack). Cremastra (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, this userbox is not even, as others noted above, explicitly calling for the end of religion, merely noting that a hypothetical world without religion would be a better place. Cremastra (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cremastra. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2025

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheere

@Fram: raised the outing concerns both at this AfD and at the related Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#Incorrect_draftifications_by_User:NenChemist. There was no point in prolonging the AfD when no one was arguing for deletion, but I'm not sure whether the Outing concerns are sufficient to delete it even IAR, so bringing here for discussion. I'll also notify Liz on her Talk. Star Mississippi 14:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought outing (claiming editor X is real life person Y, without disclosure by X and irrespective of whether it is correct or not) was a bright line policy, requiring blocking and oversight or suppression. At least, that's what is done when "outing" even the most obvious case is done on e.g. ANI. But perhaps this only applies when someone with enough wikifriends is being outed? Anyway, that's a general ramble, thanks for starting the MfD, I just don't understand why it takes so much effort in this case. Fram (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Irrespective of whether or not the initiator of the AfD should be blocked or not (at the very least, even if OUTING doesn't apply - and it likely does here - WP:ASPERSIONS does), the AfD probably shouldn't stick around regardless of the accuracy of NenChemist's accusations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If NenChemist returns and follows a similar pattern, whether inappropriate drafts or UPE accusations, I will not hesitate to reblock Star Mississippi 01:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP:OUTING concern is justified we shouldn't be having this MfD. Oversight the original AfD and this MfD nomination because neither one should exist. Discussion should occur among oversighters. If the AfD isn't outing anyone, there isn't a point to deleting it in my view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the (supposedly) outed editor is concerned, WP:Courtesy blank the AfD. I don’t see this as being required, but defer to the editor.

In the very unlikely case that blanking is not good enough, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously, the MfD tag also appeared in the AFD log page. I've fixed it by using {{subst:mfd-inline}}. Nickps (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No real objections here; just curious why not remove the original post of the AfD and revdel? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be sufficient, and would not be acceptable if we would recognize the problem as needing that remedy (and then it should be oversight). See proof: Special:Diff/1283026476—Alalch E. 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Still, revdel (or oversight) seems preferable than deleting a whole AfD? Not that I feel strongly about it. But if I'm reading the thread right, it looks like it was just a dumb allegation based on a misreading of a name, and not any more outing than if you created the article on E. E. Cummings and I made an allegation about you due to the E. in your name. [if this is too close a reference to what happened, I'd prefer someone just remove this whole comment to a redact template FWIW]. But again: meh. No big objection, and I don't have anything else to add. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2, 2025

Historic places drafts

There are several large lists of drafts on the following subpages:

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Connecticut/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Schenectady County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts

These are all 14 years old, and mostly contain entries that have already been created, although some are redirects. The drafts that don't already exist as articles have little content, most of it automatically gathered as far as I can tell. These lists were created by a now-deceased editor and have not been maintained in many years. Wizmut (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion doesn't save hard drive space. I don't see what is gained by deletion. I don't perceive a meaningful attribution hazard coming from this content, or any other problem.—Alalch E. 13:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be offtopic but I'm curious if it should be treated as something to be maintained, or simply as archival content. Wizmut (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not as something to be maintained. Maybe as archival content. Most likely it should be treated as nothing. We don't need to delete it to be able not to treat it as anything, we can just ignore it. —Alalch E. 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to permit another examination of these pages. It appears on first examination that these are draft versions of articles that are now in article space. If that is correct, they should probably be deleted as copies of mainspace articles. It is not something to be maintained. It probably has no archival value, but another slightly more detailed, but not exhaustive, review, would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These stubs were generated in a semi-automated process by extracting information from public-domain official sources, and bear no significant human authorship. These pages if copied from, and no one is ever going to do that, would create a copy of something so generic, that attribution isn't really a topic. —Alalch E. 17:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant legacy crud. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery, and the fact mentioned by the nominator, regarding their age and lack of maintenance for years. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are draft pages created by now deceased wikipedian User:Doncram, which explains why they are unused these days. Doncram built a vast percentage of Wikipedia's article coverage of NRHP subjects, categories, templates, etc. If by keeping these pages we're keeping any tiny part of attribution history from one of the subject area's most prolific editors, then it's a clear keep. Unless I've read this incorrectly he created this list as a place to keep track of these templates. Attribution is pretty important to me, and perhaps especially to yet-to-come wikipedians who didn't work with Doncram, who didn't witness his enormous effort in real time. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that WP:Talk archiving is what we normally do for stale talk data. I'd like to hear reasons we should treat this material any differently. BusterD (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: There are reasons. These are talk page drafts aka (talk) wp:Workpages. There is a de facto tradition of keeping such material around for easy reference, in Talk: sub-pages, or rarely in User: namespace. They are not talk content, they are incubated article content. Example: Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox. They are created to serve as a collaborative staging area or for proofs of concept for changes discussed on the talk page, to address copyvios, etc. A guideline discusses them: Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses. It refers to them as "temporary", and I agree that they should be seen as temporary, but "temporary" =/= "must be deleted when done". The nominated pages were Doncram's staging areas: Each comprises the incubated initial versions of many articles; they are collective drafts. Archiving is functionally (not necessarily technically) splitting what would otherwise be an unnavigable long page into segments, and to help editors locate active discussions. It's not for workpages. My problem here with deleting is: it accomplishes exactly nothing. The difference between these pages existing as-is and being deleted is exactly zero. —Alalch E. 12:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your varying view, with which I largely concur. Any time we might be deleting material which shows "chain of custody" (so to speak) regarding attribution issues, I'd rather err on the side of keeping. I have no way of knowing what future wikipedians will like or not like about this era in Wikipedia and its human culture. If it were up to me, I'd rather make our attribution history as easy as possible to follow without undeletion. In this case, because I cannot overstate the vast range of NRHP material which Doncram built, I'm staying with my keep assertion. BusterD (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates