Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

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



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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

[edit]

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit]

How to list pages for deletion

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

[edit]
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 43 0 43
TfD 0 1 17 0 18
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 3 0 3
RfD 0 0 21 0 21
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

Archived discussions

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]
Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

June 7, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Borbaad (upcoming film)

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

namespace already exists by Borbaad (2025 film), should this be moved or deleted? BengalMC (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the funny thing is that the person who created the page was confirmed to be a sockpuppet user BengalMC (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Siam Al Mahmud

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

Was already CSD'd, then recreated, no evidance of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Endorse and repeat the prior G11.
08:36, 30 May 2025 BusterD talk contribs deleted page Draft:Siam Al Mahmud (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
The page has sources, but they are all connected, non-independent, not reliable for Wikipedia, and thus everything on the page is completely worthless to build from even if the subject is one day in the future to be found to be Wikipedia-notable.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the creator has admitted a COI. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Silver nitrate

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

I just don’t see the point of this essay. Unlike WP:Veganism parable, it does not highlight an issue with the topic it is on by comparing it to real life, and unlike WP:Wikipedia is a MMORPG, it is not meant to be satirical, though it isn’t funny. HouseLiving roomDIY Fixings 09:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yatin Rabari

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

G11 nom contested. This draft is unambiguous unsourced promo of the artist (e.g. "best Indian singer") made by a UPE/UCOI account (username is literally the record label (was already reported at WP:UAA by Tarlby)). Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 3, 2025

[edit]

June 2, 2025

[edit]

Draft:Why Minecraft is good for the school and the brain.

[edit]
Draft:Why Minecraft is good for the school and the brain. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unsourced essay on a topic unlikely to be accepted through the AfC process (and already declined). I don't see how this draft could be improved to result in an acceptance, so I propose it be deleted. OnlyNanotalk 22:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is basically a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about, no reliable sources, and original research. It also misunderstands because pages are technically articles, and we are not a news website so, with that note, delete. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:C9DA:D3D3:82B5:86DF (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if only for it being completely useless to Wikipedia. This would be perfectly fitting on a userpage as a random tangent though. GarethBaloney 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regarding the nom's assertion that I don't see how this draft could be improved to result in an acceptance, the way to improve it would be to find WP:RS. I have found one. Perhaps there are more to be found. Perhaps my finding one will serve as an example to the original author who will now be encouraged to find more and eventually develop into a valued contributor to the encyclopedia. RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mr carrot man

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

I've got no issue here with a decline of the WP:G3 as what is considered as vandalism is somewhat subjective. For context, this article was created as part of a vandalism spree by the now indefinitely blocked creator. I see no reason for any of the products of that spree to be retained as retaining vandalism only encourages more vandals to give it a try. This could also be deleted as a blatant hoax as there is no such thing as "Mr carrot man" and the idea that we ought to leave this here for someone to improve is silly as no amount of editing could make this article acceptable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords

[edit]
Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This seems like useful information, sure, but doesn't seem germane enough. It's also presumably out of date. We wouldn't have a general Wikipedia:Internet safety or more general advice pages in project space, so usefulness isn't enough IMO. The closest counterexample I can think of is WP:REALNAME, but that's specifically pointing to project policy.

There is a mainspace List of the most common passwords. That's appropriate, and there was once even a discussion about merging it and the mainspace article. Given that, this might be a rare case where a cross-namespace redirect is warranted. I still advocate deletion due to this simply being out of scope. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I advocate for deletion as well. I changed the template at the top to say "this is not an encyclopedic article" because I see the list every so often on social media, and I think that it should be deleted and redirected across mainspace to avoid confusion and keep uninformed in mainspace. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless especially since the software itself now enforces a list of most common passwords. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Not sure what the argument for deletion is, or, rather, not persuaded by that argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Not convinced by the deletion arguments ; I think it should be noted that this page gets significant traffic, actually more than twice of the mainspace page. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reference material of non-encyclopedic nature. More similar to an article than to a project page, but it is indiscriminate. We could move any indiscriminate collection of information to project space in the same way. Clearly not what project space is for. Out of scope for project space and not useful as a practical reference to editors.—Alalch E. 16:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything the fact that this gets a lot of traffic is a good reason to delete it; we have standards for accuracy that apply in mainspace but not here. If this list is out of date (as it almost certainly is) and people are using it in lieu of more accurate sources, we're doing them a dis-service. RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 1, 2025

[edit]
[edit]
Draft:Hollywoodedge, Bird Hawk Single Scre PE020801/Image Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
Draft:TV Shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Two "drafts" consisting entirely of "galleries" of redlinked image files that don't exist to be galleried. These are both cross-topic directory pages that link nonexistent images across multiple different, unrelated film, television and web media projects, which is a thing we wouldn't do as a standalone article in its own right even if any of the files galleried in them did exist, so I can't see what purpose they would serve in draft form either. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lil star(artist)

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

Contested WP:G11, which is fair enough, although I have had a few similar ones to this deleted successfully through G11. I'm taking this to AfD because it's a clear piece of self-promotion/vanity and also an unsourced BLP. Unsourced BLPs tend not to survive the MfD process, as a general rule. G11 is always somewhat subjective but I would argue that this could have been deleted as such. There are many, many promotional sentences including but not limited to "Gaining recognition in the mid 2020s,, he is often praised for his emotive storytelling and ability to convey deep emotions through his music.", "His introspective lyrics, often exploring themes of struggle, self-reflection, and personal growth, resonated with a wide audience." and "Known for his emotive delivery, Lil Star uses his music to connect with listeners who appreciate authenticity and vulnerability in rap." If we were to remove every promo sentence, then the only thing remaining would be the discography at the bottom. This article makes several ridiculous claims about this rapper being a big name in the industry, which is completely false by the way and bordering on being a hoax. Given the username of the creator, this is clearly just the individual using Wikipedia as a free advertising space. We shouldn't be playing web host to this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for at least three reasons: promotional tone; apparent use of artificial intelligence; unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People make some music, usually hip hop, pay for distribution to appear on streaming platforms, and use a chatbot to write some promo text. Then they put that text on Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 20:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like how G11 for this chatbot-written ad about a living person was declined. —Alalch E. 20:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some admins are very conservative with regard to G11 in draft space, and would prefer to see doubtful cases decided at MFD. It appears that User:asilvering is one of those admins who is conservative about G11 in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct that I'm conservative about G11 in draftspace, but I'd prefer them to be settled via G13, especially in the case of drafts that were never even submitted to AfC. I'm even less enthusiastic about them coming to MfD, where they waste even more time and effort. -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have deleted this or left it for another admin to delete, because this content is quite inappropriate regardless of namespace and length of stay, and summary deletion is fully supported by policy. —Alalch E. 17:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Deletion by G11 would have been appropriate and uncontroversial, and would have precluded this MfD from taking place. Declining speedy on a draft is pretty much asking it to go to MfD. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This MfD has made me wonder if we need a wider discussion on stuff like this. I understand why admins might be reluctant to G11 these, as they feel it may discourage a new editor but, at the same time, ChatGPT is producing articles that are clearly G11 worthy and, in a lot of cases, with false or exaggerated claims. Sentences such as Musical Career Breakthrough Lil Star's career took off with the release of his debut single, "Happy House," in 2024. The track quickly went viral, garnering attention from music blogs and hip-hop fans alike. are blatantly false once you do a bit of research. In my view, WP:TNT absolutely should apply to these promotional ChatGPT drafts but I wonder if there is a way of deterring new users from creating promo AI drafts without deterring them from Wikipedia altogether. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that's a question worth asking. If someone's first idea for how to contribute to Wikipedia is to paste LLM outputs advertising made up garbage, I have serious doubts that they could ever be capable of contributing anything useful at all. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – G11 would have been appropriate ; (not surprisingly) 100% LLM-generated according to GPTZero. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also noting that regardless of the result the biography will never pass the notability guidelines dor musicians (WP:NMUSIC) let alone the unreferenced BLP and LLM output concerns. That said, there is no point in keeping it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promo + AI Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31, 2025

[edit]

Draft:We Are One: Our Nepali Roots Can Never Be Erased

[edit]
Draft:We Are One: Our Nepali Roots Can Never Be Erased (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I'm taking this to MfD because I think it's inappropriate and would like to be given the opportunity to explain why I think that it should be deleted, but I respect the fact that a WP:G11 tag would likely be removed. I actually believe that this article meets the spirit of G11, which itself states that "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. This is one user pushing their personal view on Wikipedia. If we removed all of the offending sentences, there would be nothing left. Even the title of the article is pushing their opinion on us. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Djanildo Vicente

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

Contested WP:G11 and I do understand why. That said, I'm still looking to pursue WP:MfD because, in my view, this is still a type of promotion, albeit not a 'commercial' one. In fact, G11 itself does state However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. I think that this is an example of unambiguous promotion of a point of view and articles consisting entirely of preaching, even in draft space, are contrary to our project and should be deleted, imho. For what it's worth, I'm a Christian myself, but I don't believe in using this platform to push my faith. Such behaviour is more appropriate for social media. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diemoures B

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

WP:G11 was declined but I do think that this AI generated mess still warrants deletion. I would argue that all of the actual prose in this is unambiguously promotional. That aside, this is also a BLP with no acceptable sources and the whole thing stinks of someone using Wikipedia as their own personal web host, which is not appropriate, even in draft space. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

[edit]


May 28, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Three best sources

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

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

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

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

Keep, obviously. There is no valid reason for deletion stated here, just egregious ownership. I was accused of "stealing" the content (which is clearly openly licenced), for which RoySmith has yet to apologise, or retract.
I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused.
Since forking the essay - with due attribution in my edit summary - and making it available for the community at large to improve (it is, of course, not "my own"), I have already begun to modify it (as others are welcome to do), so it is no longer the same thing as RoySmith's personal copy, which remains where it was and is still available for him to refer to as he sees fit.
The accusations of "a deliberate attempt to confuse readers" is, of course utterly without foundation and an equally utter failure to assume good faith, and I invite RoySmith to retract that also. For shame! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused. Okay, but I don't really see why that's a problem. It's allowed to be where it is. It's not disruptive or anything for an essay to just stay in the user namespace and there's no reason to demand moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. It's fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I demand it be moved there? I've explicitly said that he is entitled to keep his preferred version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that "steal" was a poor choice of words. I've struck that. RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the redirect that was initially created at this title. RoySmith is allowed to keep the essay where it is, and this title as a project space redirect was sensible as a means to allow editors to quickly find it. Hijacking the redirect to the essay for whatever it is that Pigsonthewing is trying to do here is not appropriate. The appropriate place to do something like this is on a subpage in your own userspace, or in your own user sandbox. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate place to host an essay for the community as a whole to edit and use is not my (nor anyone else's) user space. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Jonesey95's proposal of moving this to another name and then restoring the redirect. That seems reasonable. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Restore the redirect” is confusing. Does it mean “revert back to the old redirect”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I linked the diff containing the redirect in my !vote, and I was intending to imply that I believe that diff should be reverted back to. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a pain to work out. “THE redirect” is WP:THREE, and as long as that redirect points to Roy’s essay, everything important to the history and intended past uses is ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a different name and restore the redirect. Some people may intend to link to the userspace essay from this page, and that long-standing link should be preserved. It's fine that this repurposed text exists, but it should not usurp the original links created by the first author. Improve the new version of the essay, create a new name for it, and create a new, snappy shortcut for it. (I have removed wikitext from the page that claimed it was linked to from a shortcut that actually points to the userspace essay.)
    Repurposing the essay in Wikipedia space removes a disincentive for other editors to improve the essay; we are discouraged from editing pages in other people's userspaces, even pages that are commonly linked to from discussions. Removing that disincentive is a good thing; Pigsonthewing and I have already polished the text, and more will probably happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The original text written from the first person is much more convincing. You are concerned about the snappiness of the new shortcut but what about the authenticity, persuasiveness, and, ultimately, snappiness, of the actual content? The essay works better for the whole community as-is, it has a greater impact as a viewpoint expressed by one editor, emerging from his lived experience, which was then accepted by many and was widely disseminated. The project space clone is a net negative. —Alalch E. 18:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is out of scope for MfD, I oppose allowing discussion on redirects at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so out of the ordinary. "Redirect" is a common WP:ATD which is regularly voted for at AfD discussions. I do not see why MfD should be any different. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ok to !vote ATDs, it is not ok to nominate ATDs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and restore redirect per Jonesey95.--Launchballer 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I note that Roy previously wrote that forking the article was an appropriate thing to do, as long as the forked text doesn't imply to be his opinion. As it stands, he acts as sole guardian of his essay, which might serve his purposes but does not necessarily serve the higher purposes of the Wikipedia community. I would hope that he would be proud to have given birth to the essay, and with the bold input of a range of editors I would hope that this new, community version might be subject of an RfC to become a guideline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat as a naming dispute—start an RM to determine where the (original) essay shall be (switched to "delete"18:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)). This is about a single page, a literary work whose proper title is "Three best sources". To get the tecnically complete Wikipedia page title, this can be preceded by "User:RoySmith/" or by "Wikipedia:". There is disagreement on whether it should be one or the other. Whenever a name is disputed, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requested moves. The community is able to change a userspace essay to a projectspace essay even if the author of the essay disagrees. Delete the redundant copy. Treat what has been done as an improper and incomplete cut-and-paste move.
    Pigsonthewing said: I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused—so start an RM.—Alalch E. 14:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging everyone else to agree with my analysis, in order to procedurally close this and migrate the process to Wikipedia:Requested moves: @RoySmith, SilviaASH, Jonesey95, and Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for considering.—Alalch E. 14:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USERESSAY seems to say that Roy is entitled to keep his version, in the form and location in his userspace that he prefers, and others may work on a separate version with a view that it becomes 'proposed', with a hat tip to Roy. Not ideal per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays but Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay No. It is unfair to Roy to say this. By looking at the page history, there's zero evidence of Roy's (as-would-be-legitimate since it's his userspace) ownership of content of the page; the essay was edited by multiple people. He's not been exhibiting a desire for control. Interpreting this dispute in such a way is a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to have other people write essays based on mine. If you disagree with what I wrote, that's perfectly fine. Write an essay espousing a different point of view. Stand up and proclaim to the world, "Roy Smith is wrong, and this is why". If you want to reuse my text, technically I can't stop you. CC-BY-SA gives you that right, and leaving a link in an edit comment certainly fulfills the legal obligation imposed by the "BY" part of that.
    What I'm not happy about is taking something I deliberately wrote in the first person in my user-space to express my personal opinion and republishing it with instances of "I" changed to "reviewers". And doing so under the same title, which has been well known for years. What possible reason was there to do that, if not to confuse people? AGF has its limits. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Curb Safe Charmer. Roy should be allowed to keep his version in his userspace, if he so wishes, while the community may work on another version of the essay. However, if Roy would rather this be dealt with at RM as you propose, then I say deal with it at RM. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, the community can still move the essay in a consensus process. And it doesn't appear that this is an essay that RoySmith doesn't want others to edit, it's just an essay that he believes works better as a user space essay for the whole community. He just needs to be told by multiple editors that it is a good essay for project space, and additionally, that there's nothing that distinctive and colorful about the writing style of the essay. It is written in a balanced and serious style, making it indistinguishable from any good project space essay in style, and many project space essays have more "personalized" writing style. In addition, the viewpoint presented is widely accepted and not anything like a minority opinion.—Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I support moving this to RM. The Manual of Style does not apply to project space; essays can be written whatever way the author(s) may please. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I do that? He's entitled to keep his version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't want his version, he disputes moving the essay to project space. It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content. He believes that for the entire community, the essay in question should be a page titled "User:RoySmith/Three best sources". It appears that this is because it is written in his "distinctive writing style", but that may not be because he is interested in maintaining that style as such, but because he doesn't believe that essays in project space should be written in such a style. —Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch E.: I don't know why you wrote "It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content" when he clearly does... a few quotes from Roy on the essay's talk page: ""I'm trying hard to keep it terse" ... "working fine as is" ... (by another editor) "I tried to broaden the essay to be AfC inclusive but RoySmith reverted" ... "I have on occasion (not too often) accepted changes people have suggested" ... "people keep messing with it in ways I don't agree with" - these all indicate a desire to tightly control the version in his userspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't, that's not remotely the level of control over content that is only appropriate in user space and not appropriate in project space. All pages are edited on a consensus basis. —Alalch E. 15:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Did you actually read WP:USERESSAY? To quote policy: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." ... "The author of a personal essay located in their user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have read it. I understand what you're saying very well, but I don't see evidence, in the page history, of RoySmith using such prerogative on multiple occasions to the extent that goes beyond what an author of a project space essay might do. So, in project space, an editor might also say "I prefer it staying the way it was on grounds of style", and the two editors could then discuss it on the talk page. In all important aspects of the essay, on substance, there haven't been significant attempts to change its message. That's because what it says is pretty mainstream. —Alalch E. 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If he doesn't want his version (he clearly does), he can nominate it for deletion.
    Your suggestion was that I should try to force his version to be moved, contrary to his wishes; I have no interest in doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then. —Alalch E. 18:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a thought on alternative approaches - could the content be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources which already has the redirect WP:3SOURCES pointing to it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “could the content be merged” is a speedy keep argument. Merge proposals don’t belong in XfDeletion venues. Deletion proposals that don’t articulated why merging is not ok should be speedily closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge proposals don’t belong in XfDeletion venues. Not so. WP:NOTBURO, WP:ATD-M. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the substantial change folks want to make to Roy's essay that he will not permit in userspace? Is it just "we must have control of your essay" for the sake of principle? A dislike of the use of first person point of view? I'm struck by how unnecessarily aggressive this seems to have gone down compared to the pretty minor changes in the essay. Certainly agree that all existing shortcuts should continue to go to the original essay, and that some sort of retitling makes sense to avoid confusion. Also tend to agree that WP:Multiple_sources seems like a pretty natural place to just drop the "three" idea rather than have multiple sources and the personal essay and the basically-the-same-as-the-personal-essay-but-in-projectspace. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1 no reason for deletion. As interesting as this discussion is, it is not a deletion discussion. It belongs on the talk page. Use WP:RfC for more attention. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't exactly understand when I first saw this MFD 48 hours ago, and I still or again don't understand, even if it is morphing. It appeared to be a request to delete an extremely useful essay, not because of anything wrong with the essay, but because of what appeared to be an issue about ownership, although it is also said that this isn't about ownership. An essay on Three Best Sources is needed, and it has been cited often enough that the shortcut WP:THREE should refer to it. I don't fully understand or know why User:RoySmith wants the essay kept in user space, unless it is ownership, which I am told is not the case. I see that one reason for the essay to be in userspace is that it is written in the first person, stating the experience of Roy Smith, an experienced AFD and DRV participant, and that the version in project space is written in the indefinite third person. I now see that the issue is whether to delete the project-space version. Why should either version be deleted? Can both be kept, with different shortcuts, and WP:THREE continuing to point to the Roy Smith original? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I think both should be kept and the shortcut should be retained, as I stated above. It seems like most other people agree with me, or are at least ambivalent on the issue beyond general agreement that no deletion action should take place. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There were two confusing requests on 28 May 2025 to delete two useful essays on notability. I wondered what the difference between them was. The answer to that question was obvious: 97. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and restore redirect – per Jonesey95. This discussion should have happened on the talk pages of the essays. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did attempt to discuss it on the talk pages. PotW made it pretty clear that he didn't want to discuss it. RoySmith (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave an answer you did not like. I did not refuse to discuss the matter. Indeed, the very act of giving that answer was part of the discussion; as are my several prior comments on this page. This is not your first false accusation in this matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant non-helpful content. Inferior to the orignal essay. No one should ever read it when the original essay exists. Net detriment on the website. Extra useless without the established shortcut. Usurps the redirect which should stay as it used to be. Don't move it out of the way, just delete it. It can't be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources (WP:THREESOURCES ... note the superficial similarity) because that essay advances a particular interpretation of GNG ascribing a particular meaning to the word "multiple", and has nothing to do with the topic of WP:THREE. Similarity due to the appearance of the number 3 in both essays is superficial. RoySmith's essay works great for the whole community in RoySmith's userspace and there has been no problem in that regard. Work with RoySmith on any stylistic ideas, and the substance of the essay is not in dispute anyway.—Alalch E. 18:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Several editors have proposed changes to Roy's essay, which he has declined to accept. I believe the intention of the new version is to allow such editors, and others, to collaborate on such improvements. Wikipedia is never finished, and collaboration is to the betterment of the project. To delete the new version now would be to judge it prematurely. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, since the original patently does not "work great for the whole community". Furthermore, Alalch E. is as welcome as anyone else to a make or propose good-faith changes to the new, communal, version. But instead prefers to bandy about claims like "Inferior to the orignal [SIC] essay" without making any attempt to substantiate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I substantiated them in a separate reply that I posted a bit later, please see Special:Diff/1293795453.—Alalch E. 20:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Restore redirect. If someone wants a user-space essay, let them have a user-space essay. Forking it with an alternate version in Wikipedia space will cause people to assume that this is the more famous WP:THREE and is deeply misleading. If people want to create an alternate version, let them, but under a more distinct name and not hijacking any redirects. SnowFire (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire: how can it be better that one editor i.e. Roy has the exclusive right to edit on this topic, which is clearly of value based on the number of links to WP:THREE? Wikipedia is a project based on collaboration. While he is entitled to keep his userspace version as he wants it, there's a clear need to have a version that the community can hone based on the principles of WP:BEBOLD and consensus? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that's what user space essays are. If a user space essay is linked to a lot, that's cool. That's not a problem. If Roy wants to accept some edits and not others, that's up to him. IMO, we should be doing the reverse of this MFD and taking various opinionated Wikipedia-space essays and making them user-space essays instead. SnowFire (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forking is not evil, troublesome only. Forking is good if the forks then proceed in different directions. Does the new page take us ina different direction? If not, if it’s now a parallel track, then “Delete” is a sound argument. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore redirect why was it moved to WP space? simply bc others dislike the essay being in userspace (which per WP:USERESSAY the essay is allowed to exist in userspace, moving it to WP space is essentially an WP:ILIKEIT argument where others want to exert control over someoneelses essay, and as for I don't see evidence, in the page history, of RoySmith using such prerogative on multiple occasions to the extent that goes beyond what an author of a project space essay might do. Looking at the edit history it doesn't look like there has been that many changes by other people to determine that, wanting this essay in WP space smacks of what I would call "Reverse Ownership" where others believe that the author should relinquish all control of his own personal essay simply bc they like it and want to expand it wherein the author doesn't think it need expanding. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lavalizard101: the problem that other editors had with the essay living in userspace is that it gives Roy sole veto on what it says. The community should be able to contribute by honing the essay in ways that are not possible with the status quo. It is one thing to look at the page history, there are other points of view expressed on its talk page, and likely pent up desire to make amendments which have been held back in the knowledge that Roy may revert. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Roy shouldn't be able to maintain his own version. See WT:Three best sources for some examples of ways that the essay can and should be improved, in the new location. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those who have argued that we should 'restore the redirect' from WP:Three best sources to Roy's userspace essay, it is worth looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Three best sources which shows that only 11 pages link to WP:Three best sources, most of which are in the context of this MfD and it is only perhaps the Teahouse link that suggests anyone is currently using WP:Three best sources rather than referring to User:RoySmith/Three best sources or its shortcut, WP:THREE. So I don't think it can be argued that Pigsonthewing has usurped anything of special value. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I agree there's no special value to the WP:Three best sources redirect, given that nobody has ever linked to it, which is why I suggested (looking in @SmokeyJoe's direction) it be deleted. What I object to is deliberately using the same name as the existing essay, which is sure to confuse readers as to which they are reading. This is the reason we have, for example, WP:SIMILARNAME and WP:DOPP for usernames and templates like {{Distinguish}} for articles. There's a long and rich history of software projects being forked, but these forks generally pick new names to eliminate the confusion factor (ex. MariaDB) . Often the names themselves are forks of the original names (LibreOffice) or even puns (IceWeasel).
    So, by all means you're entitled by the terms of CC SA-BY to reuse the text. Now just address the confusion issue by picking a non-confusing name. Perhaps WP:How to demonstrate notability or WP:A community guide to three best sources, or WP:Another take on three best sources. And get rid of the silly You are probably here because one or more other Wikipedia editors are considering whether an article or draft that you created should be part of Wikipedia or not, which is clearly not true because as @Curb Safe Charmer points out, there aren't any XfD discussions which link here. Maybe there will be at some point in the future; if so, then it'll make sense to add a statement like that. Until then, it only serves the purpose of confusing readers. As does the inclusion of the link to the /notes page in my user space. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects can be useful without being linked to; they can also aid searches. Per WP:CHEAP, I think this redirect should be kept. It might not be essential, but it's also not problematic to keep it. I'd especially advocate keeping it now, now that the page title has history which may be of interest or use to editors in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you looking at me? The idea of deleting the redirect is a follow up of the main proposal to rename the new fork essay. This is the wrong venue to propose a rename.
    Nothing *needs* doing. This discussion belongs on a talk page, not at a week-limited deletion forum. However, some have argued for outright deletion of the new fork essay, so “speedy keep” is no longer on the table. So my !vote now is “Close, an out of scope nomination like this is a time-consuming train wreck”. Reserve MfD for articulated proposal to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion_no_user_pages&oldid=1263312903"