Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

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

Shortcut

WP:MFDND

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	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	2	2
TfD	4	14	18
MfD	0	6	6
FfD	7	6	13
RfD	0	44	44
AfD	0	19	19

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.

May 1, 2025

Wikipedia:Murder the newcomers

Intended as humor but not funny. Should have been created in the creator's own userspace, if anywhere. Bishonen | tålk 19:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not up to you what's funny and what's not. If you don't like the article then you can just ignore it. Or if you'd like, you could have just improved the article yourself rather than request its deletion. I really don't see what's so bad about this article that it needs to be deleted. This is especially true because humor is subjective - what's funny to me may not be what's funny to you. Gommeh _(t/c) 20:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'd be inclined to userfy, but it's basically an edgier version of Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies (and a bunch of other things in projectspace). I'd probably support broadly userfying humor pages (whether it's funny doesn't matter) that could be harmful without context as to why it's funny. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed except for the userfication. I tried to make the page as obviously satirical as I could to avoid making it seem too dark or anything like that. I don't think anything in the article is written in a serious enough tone that it would actually have the potential to cause harm. But I have a feeling that userfication will prevent people from reading, adding to, or editing the essay. While I'd be prepared to userfy if consensus demands it, I'd rather not do that. Gommeh _(t/c) 20:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies: As redundant. Don't see much value in keeping this edgier version of that essay. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy while we're not the fun police, we are also not the local drama theatre either. It's probably better to keep this in the editor's userpage as a decent compromise. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Inappropriate in project space and inappropriate in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tóraí/Ireland (state)

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=&rev1=451483321&page2=&rev2=451482515 Paradoctor (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A copy of the lede paragraph of an article violates attribution just as a copy of the whole article would. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tóraí/Mercury (element)

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3ATóraí%2FMercury+(element)&rev1=451567954&page2=Mercury+(element)&rev2=451563884 Paradoctor (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A copy of the lede paragraph of an article violates attribution just as a copy of the whole article would. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 30, 2025

User:CaseOhheartattack/sandbox

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

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

April 28, 2025

User:Immanuelle/Vandalize this subpage

Blocked user (Special:Contributions/Immanuelle), obviously not useful. Yann (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this user's contributions seem questionable, they are clearly a good faith editor and their block is actively being discussed on their talk page. I see no urgent need to delete this page. It's not particularly funny, but it's also not disruptive and we don't delete humorous user subpages just because they're not funny. WP:RAGS applies. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per silviaASH. The page may not be "useful" but it's not harming Wikipedia either. As long as the activity on it is just joke comments rather than actually disruptive/unacceptable material, don't see a reason to delete.

(Also, the page was created months before the user got blocked, and the block is not related to this page.)

ApexParagon (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: As long as everything stays here and doesn't drift extremely out of hand, no need to delete. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to police user pages this much. 11USA11 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 25, 2025

User:Mauriziok/Miss Earth (and 300 other pageant articles copied to userspace)

...

User Mauriziok has copied ~~over 300 pageant articles~~ over 650 pageant articles or templates, and related biographies to their userspace in apparent contravention of the WP:User page policy. They did not respond to my inquiry placed January last year nor another placed in August, although actively editing frequently since then. This is at least a problem for attribution, and makes one wonder if this is a hedge against deletion or something, looking at their talkpage a lot of stuff they created is now redlinks.

The copied articles are so extensive, it is difficult to pare them down, but here's a sampling of userspace subpages:

"Mauriziok/Miss" → over 200 pages
"Mauriziok/List of Miss" → over 36 pages
"Mauriziok/Mister" → over 100 pages
"Mauriziok/List of Mister" → over 36 pages
"Mauriziok/Manhunt" → over 20 pages
"Mauriziok/Template" → over 60 beauty pageant templates

Unfortunately there are extensive biographies copied as well, so it's harder to just give a good search link for them. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I isolated about 215 biographies in an enumerated list here. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Mauriziok#Userspace content forks, where user was told those would be deleted and promised not to do it again.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I am not voting at this time because I am still spot-checking the nominations, but will almost certainly vote Delete All within a few days.~~ The biographies appear to be (not surprisingly) of pageant winners. This is both a content issue and a conduct issue, although MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently, I am working on several editions of Venezuelan pageants: Miss Venezuela, Miss & Mister Turismo Venezuela, Señorita & Mister Deporte Venezuela, Mister Universo Venezuela, Caballero Venezuela, Mister Handsome Venezuela, which requires a lot of time to organize... However, I can start eliminating the drafts of the Mister Venezuela, Miss World Venezuela and Miss Earth Venezuela editions, that I have already finished editing and the international contest, but don't erase the rest cuz i'm editing those. --Mauriziok (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For example, I have blaked these two drafts (User:Mauriziok/Men's minor international pageants, User:Mauriziok/Men's international pageant social networks), but I don't how it is the procedure to delete them definitely... --Mauriziok (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mauriziok On 1 June 2021 you created a copy of Miss World 1985 as it existed then (Special:PermanentLink/1023043232) — User:Mauriziok/Miss World 1985 (ComparePages). Why did you do this? —Alalch E. 22:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I could reference them better. I'm going to go through all those drafts, to gradually blanking them. I'll just keep the ones I'm working on. In a week, I might be able to whiten the drafts I'm no longer using. Give me a little time please. Mauriziok (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mauriziok - Why should the community give you a little time, when you were asked about the pages nine months ago? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I could handle all the draft issues. However, I had a lot of time away from the projects and couldn't complete them. Anyway, so far, I've already blanked out around 40 drafts and I'm still doing so. Maybe in less time, I'll be able to delete all the ones I'm no longer working on. Mauriziok (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply below regarding "deleting". You will need the help of an administrator to delete. That is what it means to delete, and see Wikipedia's policy on deletion; it additionally explains that deleting and blanking are different. —Alalch E. 17:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - I have seen enough of these copies of articles in user space to agree with the nominator that they should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the drafts should be removed. I'm voluntarily removing all inactive drafts, as well as templates and bios. Mauriziok (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mauriziok: Please perform a "second pass" and now tag all those pages you have blanked with {{db-u1}}. You need to do it this way, now and in the future. Blanking isn't the right way. On creating copies: Copies are permitted for a short time as temporary pages, but if it isn't necessary for you to create copies and if you can implement your desired changes directly in live articles, doing so is better. I can respect that you want to test the changes outside of article space, but you then need to ask for the copies to be properly deleted after a reasonable amount of time. See WP:COPIES ("deleted" means properly deleted, not blanked). —Alalch E. 17:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be trying to comply. Got about a hundred tagged for CSD right now. — Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are still many copies, however.
Mauriziok, there are currently 868 subpages of your user page. You have tagged more than a hundred for deletion, but hundreds of those pages which remain are also copies that should be deleted. Please tag all such copies with {{db-u1}}. You will be able to keep track of which pages you were interested in and wanted to work on by visiting https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Mauriziok/2 You don't really lose anything by these pages being deleted. If you don't do it yourself, you're just making others do it for you, which means that you're creating work for others, and for this reason you will probably be topic-banned per the ongoing discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mauriziok Creating Copies of Articles. The ideal scenario is for you to comply and explain that you have learned how to properly dispose of copies in your userspace, that you will only create copies if you feel it is really necessary, that you won't create that many copies in the future, that you will not allow them to become stale, etc. —Alalch E. 22:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 09:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC) ended today on 3 May 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.

April 19, 2025

User:Kayak paddler/David Joseph Marcou

This is a Page that looks like an article (i.e. a WP:FAKEARTICLE), abandoned in 2018. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcou, david j. (which links to this page) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Joseph Marcou. The subject of this biography and/or people associated with him have long tried to insert his work into Wikipedia articles (see my relevant contribs for evidence). There may well be more promotion where that came from. Graham87 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see the page subject's reply to my notice about this MFD at User talk:David764 § MfD nomination of User:Kayak paddler/David Joseph Marcou. Graham87 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nominator says, this is a Fake Article in user space. That wasn't in doubt before the author replied, but the reply removes any doubt. This is also promotional, but that isn't a reason for the deletion of drafts, but this isn't exactly a draft. This author is not here to contribute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On taking a very brief look at this, I thought it might either be AI-generated or be thought to have been AI-generated. Then I saw the history. This proves that humans can write stuff that reads like it was AI-generated. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I never thought of that, but now that you've mentioned it, I see what you mean ... Graham87 (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in case anyone's reading this debate post-close, is curious about the original content, but can't access it, this user talk page diff is a pretty good sample. Graham87 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - Objection to the grounds of the nomination, but it's possible it should qualify for some speedy as unambiguous promotion given the provided context. It's just not a "fake article" -- it's a draft article, which are ... allowed in userspace. My sense of a "fake article" is if I wrote a Wikipedia article about myself, never intended for mainspace, and put it on my userpage. I mean, that's something we allow plenty of long-timers to do anyway, but that's my understanding of what that means. It's even followed by a guideline that deals with userspace drafts, which would presumably be unnecessary if all userspace drafts were fake articles. Of course, if it's the same article that was deleted that's another story. It's in userspace; it's not indexed, and nobody will ever see it who isn't doing internal maintenance stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah fair enough. Apparently per this AFD, an earlier version of that user page was moved by cut-and-paste to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcou, david j. Graham87 (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 17, 2025

Wikipedia:Vandalism won by 2009

Unclear why this essay was written or what exactly it is about. It seems terribly out of date, given that it was written about 16 years ago and Wikipedia's response to vandalism has evolved a lot in that time- I don't know if vandalism "won" in 2009, but it certainly isn't winning in 2025. Also arguably not written with respect to WP:DENY. I think that, if not deleted, it should be tagged as historical. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After the context supplied by Graham87 and his point about the incoming links to the essay, I think my vote is userfy and tag historical. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete a very strange essay which offers one idea in a roundabout way that has some support, and that is the prevention of IP editing of article space, and otherwise seems to be using statistics to confuse the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak userfy, if only because of the links to it, especially how it was mentioned by the essay's author at Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey/Implement Semi-protection (SP) for all BLPs, otherwise I'd !vote to delete. – another highly eccentric rant by Wikid77, who was later indefblocked. The list of links above leads to Wikipedia:Beware hidehack edits, which I may well nominate for deletion. Graham87 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I'm not opposed to deletion ("highly eccentric" is somewhat more polite than the word I was thinking of), but it's been around for a while and I don't have a problem with preserving the history for historical purposes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to humorous essay: Idk if it started out as a joke, but it certainly is now. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone writes a bad essay, it's best to delete it or ignore it, not mock it by adding a humor tag. SnowFire (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personal rambling that never should have been in the Wikipedia space at all. Userfy as a second choice but delete the Wikipedia space redirect then - breaking the links Graham87 mentioned is good not bad, the whole point is we don't want to highlight this at all. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only contributor is a banned user. It is reasonable to act based on a consensus here of whether the community wants this essay or not. Let that user make Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if they still want it. --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, an "active" essay, shouldn't link to it. I agree with SnowFire about the links and definitely agree with not leaving a redirect. I'm fine with pages marked as historical and archived discussions continuing to link to it, but it's too unimportant. The simplest position to argue here is deletion even if there is some speculative (in any case minor) historical value. Moving it to userspace is, under the circumstances, so similar to deletion that thinking about an alternative almost seems like unwarranted mental strain.—Alalch E. 01:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point about the other links is well taken. If this is userfied, any links to it from unrelated Wikipedia-space essays should be removed, and only the links in historical discussions should be left. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 12, 2025

April 11, 2025

April 7, 2025

Dictator Userboxes

Since I have seen some appetite for deletion of similar userboxes recently, I am doing a group nomination of userboxes clearly and unambiguously supporting historical figures that were or are clearly and unambiguously considered dictators. It is in my opinion obvious that these boxes egregiously violate WP:UBCR, because there is no way any of these could not be considered "inflammatory or substantially divisive".

Since I have not done a group nomination before and am unsure if I am doing it right, here are the links to the six individual boxes:

Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 20:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you heard? Dictators are back in style. Orange is the new black. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as inflammatory and divisive in a way that harms collegiality. Them being dictators does not in itself make the userboxes inappropriate—it's the fact that these userboxes are harmful to the project, which would be the case for any userpage content praising or criticizing a controversial figure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Same points I made about the Qaddafi and Ian Smith userboxes, I think its important to know people's biases, especially on an encylopedia anyone anywhere with any perspective, can edit. Its arguably even more useful to know a person's biases when those biases are radical and extreme, because those people are probably more likely to use wikipedia as a soapbox. These are useful to the project to have. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I am increasingly able to appreciate political or other opinionated user boxes as handy red flags, I still think their potential to drive newcomers away is greater than their usefulness when dealing with POV editors. Even with this kind of editors, I still want to be able to AGF, otherwise it quickly becomes difficult to not assume WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at every corner. I guess the question is, do we really want to keep stuff only because it is useful "bait" to the benefit of other editors? I am not sure it is worth it honestly. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 12:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just think its useful as bait for those not here to build an encyclopedia (though it can definitely serve that purpose). I think there are probably good faith editors who have these perspectives who we should also be aware of. If someone supports an individual, no matter how good faith their editing is, their editing is still affected by how they feel. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Salazar at least. It doesn't violate UBCR any more than userboxes promoting modern US presidents, which are just as divisive. There was actually more political violence in the US in the past decade than in Portugal under Salazar. I don't care if it exposes any "bias" of mine because I don't edit those kinds of articles really.

— THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely like to see US presidents user boxes gone as well, this nomination is about testing the waters by attempting to get rid of the worse offenders in terms of political leaders userboxes. Your bias disclosure (if I may call it that) somewhat proves my point, which is that if an MfD discussion can engender discussion about if it's worse to live in the US currently or in Portugal under Salazar, then the existence of the miscellany in question is clearly counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 12:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DELETEING USERBOXES! NO MATTER WHO'S LEADER! Mrclubgreentokyo (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, for obvious reasons. I should stress that I created a couple of these userboxes, some years ago. At this point, I have no idea why (probably as some kind of test edits/creations). As their creator, I have no problem to see them gone. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am suprised that User:UBX/Rojas Pinilla and Template:User Fidel Castro are not here since they are also dictators. Catfurball (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Even these politician userboxes are weird User:BondCJM/Userboxes/Gillard Voice, Template:User Lasso oppose, User:UBX/Anti-Duque, User:UBX/Anti-Santos and User:UBX/Anti-Uribe. Catfurball (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no need for them Cambalachero (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely out of principle. Why should you be barred from stating what you believe on your own userpage as long as its not truly egregious? I will NEVER agree with the ideologies/people above for obvious reasons, but if for some reason you really want to say those things, why not? I predict these infoboxes will rarely, if ever, be used, but for those who do want to use them I feel like their presence will serve as a red flag for other editors approaching their page to know what kind of ideologies they're getting into. Its not really Wikipedia's place to police editors on their beliefs, just their contributions, and if someone wants to have a controversial infobox like this on their page— it will still serve its intended purpose of letting you know more about the editor, even if what you learn is that they're extreme, which can prove useful in discussions. The decision of this nomination will also serve as a precedent for future deletion discussions, and I personally see more reasons to keep rather than too delete. Cheers! Johnson524 03:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's truly egregious. —Alalch E. 22:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on others but bordering on Soft Delete for any use box that identifies you as a Francoist. This includes the above one and this one, which is actively worse for identifying as a Falangist, which was the most openly fascist element of Franco’s regime. No one seriously identifies as a Falangist or Francoist without also identifying as a fascist, because the two ideas are undeniably closely associated, if not borderline identical. If we are going to keep these because they are not actively spewing racism, then why don’t we have a box that says "This user is an Italian fascist" or "This user thinks Mussolini was good for Italy". Those are not actively spewing racism, but they are openly fascist, and if we were to hypothetically delete them, it is strange to not delete the Franco ones. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, yeah, just delete all of them.—Alalch E. 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Editors should stop wasting time looking through userboxes and deciding which opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Anyway, someone could include these on their userpage even if a template/userpage didn't exist. I absolutely agree with Johnson524. 11USA11 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, adding an "I'm a Francoist" userbox is not acceptable. This will be dealt with one way or another. —Alalch E. 22:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. We do not decide which opinions are good (Isn't that one of the things many dislike in those dictators...?). Knowing what opinions and skills editors have is usefull for the project. I say I am a mathematician, that means I'll know more than average on the subject AND that I MAY be biased in considering math more important than, say... chemistry. Or having strong opinions about some math subject. The same here. Do not confuse opinion (to each its own) with actions (which need to be regulated, so that we can live more or less harmoniously as a group) - Nabla (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We do not decide which opinions are good (Isn't that one of the things many dislike in those dictators...?)"

That's odious. —Alalch E. 22:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 5, 2025

Wikipedia:Infinity pool

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]

Keep The page was created as an April Fools' joke, and is clearly designated as such. Xeroctic (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We only delete humor if it might be offensive or is inappropriate in some way. This is a parody of some of the other very-large-number pools, which probably should also be marked as humor. Unlike some sports betting, no one gets ruined by betting on this. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We delete April Fools jokes after April Fools Day, unless they make some creative comment on Wikipedia. If we are to start archiving them, they should be packaged away to somewhere like a subpage of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2025, not left as clutter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 00:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2025/Infinity pool. No harm in keeping it, but we usually move April Fools' pages to subpages to avoid clutter. -insert valid name here- (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert. I was initially going to vote move per SmokeyJoe and IVNH, but after looking at some other pool pages, I do not think this one actually stands out, as many are quite unserious anyway (in a lighthearted, inoffensive kind of way). Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 08:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move per above. 2600:1700:4410:47A0:39E5:B333:5E4D:C246 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move, It's an April Fools Joke, it's marked as such, no real reason to not keep it. Moving the page to reduce clutter also sounds useful. It also might be worthwhile to mention Wikipedia:Last edit pool, another humor pool with a similar theme. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SmokeyJoe. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marsbar8 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the joke but I don't agree it should stay around after April fools per SmokeyJoe. Cheers! Johnson524 16:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also be supportive of a move to a subpage, as SmokeyJoe and other users have mentioned? -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Infinity pools are very much a thing. This is good. 2600:1006:B314:1448:0:E:EA3C:8101 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid !vote and edit. The allusion is to a Betting pool and has no connection to an infinity pool. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the page is presumably a pun on the term infinity pool. -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One might guess that given the title, but there’s nothing more. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering why these pages are called pools. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No harm in retention. Move to a subpage if it's really that big a deal. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have good points for all decisions, I'd order the options as move, or delete, or keep- Nabla (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates