Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 7 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	30	30
TfD	2	5	7
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	12	13
RfD	0	48	48
AfD	0	66	66

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.

June 22, 2025

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

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

Keep Many userboxes and user essays are divisive, and inflammatory is a question of personal perspective. If you were to fairly everything in userspace that someone finds inflammatory, that would probably include everything written in support of communism, socialism, capitalism, or anarchism, everything written for or against law enforcement or military, everything expressing anyone's viewpoints on a particular religion or religion in general, the rights of indigenous peoples, any certain country's right to a territory, among others. I will quote from WP:NQP (an essay, which itself does not provide justification for deletion): "If you try to change the first sentence of LGBTQ to All LGBTQ people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy...—or insist on talk pages that this is the case and Wikipedia needs to take your POV seriously". BZPN has not been editing articles to express something like this, but rather using userspace for this topic. This should not be deleted per the essay's summary: "This essay is not a call for confrontation or ideological warfare. It is a call for mutual respect, and for the basic human dignity of being allowed to hold traditional, religious, or culturally informed views - even in spaces dominated by different norms." 166.140.230.94 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC) — 166.140.230.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I don't see how this aids editing or content here. It's about an editor's personal POV about non-Wikipedia matters. It also reads close to using Wikipedia to right great wrongs. These are the types of personal POV that are best not dwelled on here. Seek to avoid anything that can cause offense, and it is totally unnecessary for the editing experience and the improvement of the encyclopedia to mention these things. Take it to your church, your group of friends, your missionary work, your activism, just don't bring it here. Essays should be directly related to editing, policies and guidelines, and article content here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:PossiblyNotGeorgeW.Bush/sandbox

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

Delete: per nom. Obviously not productive. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a WP:COPYWITHIN problem as well, so it might technically qualify for {{db-copyvio}}. The smaller edits (example) look like someone trying to figure out how to edit a complex infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox

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

Delete: Per nom. Useless userforks. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BZPN/LGBT

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

Hello. Before voting in this unlawful discussion, I ask all interested parties to familiarize themselves with my essay, which is inseparable from this userbox. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "unlawful"? It is not against any policies and guidelines to nominate userboxes for deletion. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, before voting, please ask yourselves the following questions:
- Would this userbox be controversial if it said This user supports LGBT rights?
- Does stating respectful disagreement, linked to a full explanatory essay, really qualify as inflammatory?
- Are userboxes only acceptable when they reflect one ideological position?

If the answer to any of these is no, then this deletion request is not about civility — it’s about silencing dissent. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple examples I can give of userboxes that on one "side" merit deletion and on the other "side" does not.

Should a userbox be deleted if it said This user believes women should be allowed to vote? Should it be deleted if it said shouldn't?

What about a userbox that said This user believes X people should be allowed to exist? Should we keep a userbox that said shouldn't?

Framing one idea as in opposition of another idea, does not inherently make it okay. When this is about groups of people and the rights they should have, discriminatory statements would make other people feel unsafe and unwelcomed. (not that we should, on the other hand, try our best to make bigots or people who support the discrimination of LGBTQ+ people feel welcomed)

Framing my existence as an ideology is already dehumanizing as a start. dbeef [talk] 13:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not continue debating here. At this point, I feel unwanted, discriminated against, surrounded and attacked — not for any violation of civility, but for peacefully expressing a lawful viewpoint rooted in my conscience. If anyone is genuinely interested in understanding where I am coming from, I strongly encourage reading this and this. Calling others bigots and accusing of supporting discrimination while demanding inclusion only creates division. If inclusion only applies to those who agree with you, then it's not inclusion — it's ideology. I have never attacked your identity. I have never said you shouldn’t exist. I have never denied your dignity as a person. That's all from me. BZPN (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you interpret my comment as me calling you a bigot? I don't think that has happened. And why do you think you are being discriminated against? Are you a part of a minority social group that are being systemically denied rights or access otherwise given to "normal" people? Or have been the target of stereotyping. I don't think those have happened here either..

Anyways, you haven't responded to my point: freedom of speech does not mean you are free to express disagreement when said disagreement actively disparages or incites negative attention towards a group of people. That is because the "two sides" to the argument are unbalanced. People who advocate for LGBTQ+ rights are not actively trying to take away the rights of non-LGBTQ+ people, people who oppose LGBTQ+ rights on the other hand are actively trying to deny access of non-LGBTQ+ people to things. LGBTQ+ rights has never advocated for taking away the rights of a man and a woman marrying each other.

But that is still offtopic to this page. You haven't expressed why you think your userbox should be kept or deleted. dbeef [talk] 15:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NQP and WP:UPNOT#POLEMIC. We absolutely should not allow users to freely post openly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric on-wiki with no respect to how it impacts the community. They can do that on X, The Everything App. See also Paradox of tolerance. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If I am expected to contribute efficiently and constructively to Wikipedia, I must also be allowed to feel safe and respected in my own user space. This userbox does not insult anyone – it simply expresses a lawful and personal belief about some movements and ideas, not people. Free speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution (WMF servers are located in the US - WMF is subject to US law), and Wikipedia should reflect that by allowing respectful dissent. Please read the full discussion before rushing to judgment. BZPN (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFREESPEECH silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, so let me also not mention the userbox you have on your user page, @SilviaASH. BZPN (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to nominate that userbox for deletion if you feel it violates the guidelines. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is not an insult does not mean it is not insulting; if I was to say "I support segregation", it would offend anyone of a different race, despite not directly demeaning them. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the precedent from 1M1W deletion discussion is clear that userboxes like this are a violation of the userbox guidelines and needlessly divisive. Wikipedia is not a social network. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically per WP:NOTADVOCACY and to a lesser extent WP:POLEMIC. Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia and I believe advertising your own political, social or religious views is violating WP:SOAPBOX. Also BZPN, a public service announcement for you: the First Amendment only protects free speech from government abridgment. The Wikimedia Foundation is not the government and so there is no inherent right for your essay or infobox to stay based on the First Amendment. Loosely connected: [1]. Also, answering your questions you asked: (1) it may be controversial, but it would definitely fall within WP:NOTADVOCACY, so yeet it; (2) I guess a lot of LGBT folks will be offended for reasons that are not really related to editing on Wikipedia, so yes, it's inflammatory (3) no, users should not advertise their political views unless this means a declaration of COI (e.g. party membership). This is not to question your views. You may believe that a council of gods on Śnieżka created three-legged unicorns to bring prosperity around the world - I don't care. However, if the views define your editing patterns, your relationship with Wikipedia or if they are very likely to offend at least some editors who are otherwise productive on Wikipedia, you won't stay here for long. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UBCR; stating that one "opposes LGBT+ ideology" is divisive and inflammatory, as affirmed by numerous prior deletion discussions. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we shouldn’t have content - political, religious, or otherwise - that can be perceived as needlessly offensive by any reasonable person on our user pages. While disclosing affiliation (faith, party membership) or one’s gender and sexuality is fine, political statements that can sour the relationships with your fellow editors are a very different conversation. This (as seen above) clearly can and should be deleted to prevent such disruptions, whether as a userbox or in text.FortunateSons (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025

There is already List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025, which is fully sourced and contains the information in this page and much more, hence making this page redudant DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025: As is standard with drafts that are made redundant by mainspace articles. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with silviaASH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jsonantenor

Nothing but unencyclopedic ramblings from the user (mostly in Filipino) and one random unintelligible comment from an IP who may be the same person or an offline acquaintance. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:DELTALK. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie

WP:OBJECTSHOW, all pages, documenting object shows are not allowed because they're lacking independent, reliable sources for them CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Object shows are not categorically disallowed. If reliable sources surfaced for them, they would be permitted just like anything else. The purpose of WP:BFDI is not to tell editors that the thing they like is categorically excluded from Wikipedia (which would drive away productive editors), but to inform them of what it would take for BFDI (or anything else that has been similarly ignored by the media and academia while being quite popular) to have an article.
Although consensus against allowing article development on BFDI specifically has been developed, this does not mean that the same applies to any similar works, until and unless editors pushing for their inclusion become similarly disruptive. Unless this is the case, deleting such drafts is simply WP:BITING potentially productive editors. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? There's not a reliable source for this. It might have been obviously invented by the creator of the draft? Or is it fake? Should the draft be occasionally edited to prevent speedy deletion of G13 criterion? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NDRAFT and WP:LUDA. In general, if a draft on a non-notable topic has not been tendentiously resubmitted by its creator and poses no other problems (see here), we should leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per MOS:PLOTLENGTH the summary is far too long for any reasonable article. Obviously this doesn't disqualify it from existing, but the sheer amount of plot compared to the real-world parts of the article makes it verge on the edge of WP:JUSTPLOT. The fact it only has unreliable sources (random guy on Twitter, IMDB and two literal comics) does not help at all. GarethBaloney 20:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you could fix the problem by clicking the [Edit] button and removing unnecessary details, then the page shouldn't be deleted.

The real problem is the lack of ordinary reliable sources. But in the Draft: namespace, we leave those alone. After all, we don't want to delete a page on Monday, only to have the original creator come back on Tuesday to say "Hey, where'd the article go? This film just got featured in a huge article in today's Film News, and I want to add the source!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 20, 2025

Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III

WP:ESSAYS, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Essays are for clarifying Wikipedia issues, but this essay is not doing that. Sjö (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The author also created User:Alirana24/sandbox/WW3. – Supertian8 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it doesn't belong in project space, nor should it be a subpage of WP:Essays. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5AF:9096:9EC1:275E (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this reason. » Gommeh (he/him) 23:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This essay offers a moral and philosophical reflection on one of the most pressing global concerns of our time: the prevention of a third world war. It is clearly marked as an essay and does not attempt to create or enforce any Wikipedia policy. The content has been revised for neutrality and tone, with appropriate internal links and a disclaimer. It fits the purpose of the essay namespace by encouraging thought and discussion without violating WP:NOT, WP:ESSAYS, or WP:ADVOCACY. Alirana24 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per what Sjo said.

ALSO...

Alirana24 why have you made the majority of your comments unable to be replied to? Due to the nature of this page itls not possible to shove in a reply with editing either. You are actively hurting your points by making them unable to be argued against. Also, the fact you are a newcomer has nothing to do with your essay being disallowed. It simply does not fit Wikipedia. GarethBaloney 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This essay is completely unrelated to Wikipedia editing. I agree with the principles expressed; sure, preventing World War III ought to be preferable, and I think most normal people would agree. Even so, Wikipedia is not a platform to promote one's political viewpoints, and the creator of this page should go to another platform or start a blog or something of the sort, if they should wish to do so. The matter of the impact of a hypothetical world war or other geopolitical crisis on Wikipedia is already adequately covered by WP:WIKITHREATS and other similar pages. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. WP:ESSAY states, "The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes." GoldRomean (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While not every essay will align with internal Wikipedia policy commentary, this particular essay explores the moral and philosophical imperatives behind global peace efforts. It raises valuable ethical questions on war prevention and draws from international precedents, which can be relevant to discussions on Wikipedia articles such as World War III, Conflict prevention, and Peacebuilding. It is well-written, sourced, and can contribute to broader reflection within the Wikipedia:Essays namespace. Wikipedia benefits from diverse viewpoints — not only technical rule discussions — and this essay offers a reasoned, non-disruptive perspective. — Zahid131 20:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alirana24 – Follow-up to my previous keep rationale:

Thanks to all who shared their views. I want to clarify a few points and respond constructively.

1. The essay is no longer in my sandbox (User:Alirana24/sandbox/WW3). That draft has been removed to avoid duplication or confusion.

2. The current page is clearly marked as an essay, not policy or guideline. It presents a moral and philosophical reflection, not a political manifesto, and does not violate WP:ADVOCACY.

3. The piece respects Wikipedia’s standards. It has been revised for neutrality, includes relevant internal links, and aligns with the Essay namespace’s purpose: to encourage thought and discussion around ideas relevant to humanity and knowledge.

4. If necessary, I am open to relocating it to a user subpage, but I believe it still qualifies to remain in the essay space as many essays explore broader ethical or societal implications in relation to Wikipedia’s mission.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

–– Alirana24 Alirana24 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above vote was misplaced above the nomination so I moved it. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to both of the above votes being incorrectly formatted and almost certainly being churned out by an AI - there seems to be some socking/tag teaming going on here judging by this thread. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A49:950E:80BB:4E83 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alirana24 – Follow-up clarification:

Just to clarify, the essay and my support comment were written entirely by me (Alirana24), not generated by any AI. I have not used any alternate accounts or engaged in any coordinated or tag-team editing. Any support offered by others (such as Zahid131) is independent and voluntary.

For transparency: if you check the edit history, my vote was posted at 14:26 (UTC), and Zahid131’s was added later at 17:01 (UTC) — which clearly shows no simultaneous or scripted posting.

I remain open to improving the essay constructively, and I appreciate the community’s engagement on this matter.

–– Alirana24 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - This isn't inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidance, and the guideline on user essays provides considerable flexibility in user essays. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, the pages Wikipedia:Essays and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, to which you link, are about pages which express personal opinions of one or more editors about matters relating to contributing to Wikipedia but which have not undergone the kind of consensus building which justifies classing them as policies or guidelines; they are not about use of Wikipedia to host personal pages expressing opinions about issues in the outside world, unrelated to editing the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alirana24:

I would like to share a few thoughts, not as a defense, but as a reflection on how we approach contributions on Wikipedia.

I wrote this essay sincerely, based on my understanding and concern for global peace. It is not promotional, personal, or political in nature — it’s a moral reflection, clearly labeled as an essay, and aims to spark thought and discussion. I understand it may not align perfectly with every editorial standard, but I’m surprised that instead of collaborative improvement, the immediate response has been deletion.

I also want to acknowledge that my account was briefly blocked, partially due to concerns raised during this discussion. However, after I explained the situation in full, the block was reviewed and lifted by the same administrator, who accepted that I acted in good faith. This shows I’m not here to misuse the platform — I’m here to contribute meaningfully.

Is it because I’m a new contributor that my work isn’t given a chance? Are newcomers not allowed to bring fresh ideas to Wikipedia? We all edit and improve each other’s essays and articles — why not this one? If the consensus is that it doesn’t belong in the essay space, I’m happy to move it to my user sandbox and polish it further. I may even share it outside Wikipedia under my name. But if there’s space for thoughtful, ethical reflections on issues like peace and war — which shape human knowledge and concern all of us — then let’s consider improving it, not dismissing it.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Let’s treat each other like partners in that mission.

Thank you. –– Alirana24 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear misunderstanding of what Wikipedia essays are for, and NOTWEBHOST. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thine Antique Pen/DYKcheck

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?rev1=489515090&page2=&rev2=489515907 Paradoctor (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of the main page in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2025

User:Jonnyboi0927/sandbox

Obviously a developing promotional article. In the first edit, "Link to your Spotify or YouTube" is included (then replaced later), furthermore demonstrating the promotional intent. No articles online show significance of the artist either, so it will likely be denied through AfC either way. OnlyNano^talk 20:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's promotional enough for deletion, tag G11. Otherwise, it's just a sandbox where things are allowed to be subpar and we encourage people to experiment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a G11. No evidence of notability, but drafts are not checked for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2025

Wikipedia:What's a forint?

No connection with the goals and processes of Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia.—Alalch E. 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought by the title this would be some essay about wikilinking obscure currencies or whatever, but nope. Violates Wikipedia namespace guidelines of "They should... not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." Also contains a random promotional bio of some YouTuber in the middle of it. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having encyclopedic value and very little humorous value. Userfy is a second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia due to the lack of encyclopedic value. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 02:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A transwiki to Uncyclopedia may not be viable, given its CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. CC BY-SA 4.0: "You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on [...] Adapted Material". Maybe the author could dual-license the page under both licenses. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ObserveOwl I cannot do any dual-licensing because I cannot access the account that I used to create this article. Long story short, my old tablet’s battery decided it had enough after however many times I’ve used the tablet with it charging, and now I can’t get it to charge, so now I’m using my other tablet that my parents bought me for Christmas to do editing and all. Melissza1692 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Schützenpanzer. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above, soft redirect to Uncyclopedia. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/opinion Hello. This is Melissza1692. I created this article under my other, now abandoned, account, Kangaroologic17721. I don’t know why I decided to create this useless article. I was being just a really bored 12 year old being bored, and one average early April day, I thought “let’s create a silly article that I bet nobody will ever pay attention to because of course they won’t!” I seriously regret that. I feel like I should have really kept my impulses under more control than I did when I thought of making the article. And yes, my humour is bad. Badly bad. Sorry. I wouldn’t mind it being Uncyclopediarised, deleted, userified. Just do anything you all feel is necessary. Melissza1692 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, either on-wiki or the dedicated website. This seems like what said pages were made for. The BJAODN website says content is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 unless otherwise noted, which means we could place it on a subpage and place a CC BY-SA 4.0 license on that. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thor Kropikson/sandbox

Per WP:STALEDRAFT #6: No potential, entirely unsourced, German language, created two years ago with two edits and untouched since, user never edited anything else. Paradoctor (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete since we are here. Could have been ignored, because no harm done by lingering in user space until January 2038. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel Larson (Internet personality)

Not much significant coverage of the subject, who falls under BLP. Any bit of reliable information I could find almost exclusively covers the bomb threats he made, which isn't nearly enough to warrant a full article... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 03:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an unsourced BLP making extremely contentious claims without citations or non-primary citations; this likely reaches the point of WP:G10. However, the nominator should note for future reference that drafts are not checked for notability at MfD. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that last point, thanks! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 08:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an entirely negative biography of a living person with no secondary sources. Also has a portion that should probably be redacted due to questionable mention of another living person, except that deletion is a form of redaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per others. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like lolcow stuff, definitely not appropriate as a BLP. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Violates BLP guidelines and has not been meaningfully improved since January. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2025

Draft:EA Sports FC IOS Edition2

This draft is just a duplicate of Template:IOS and is not a plausible redirect to the template. GTrang (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is not an article draft because this is a template draft. There is no guideline about template drafts because draft space was not designed for template drafts. There is no guideline that says that we should delete this thing, but there is no reason to keep it. The benefit of keeping it is zero, and the confusion from keeping it is minimal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at User talk:2A02:C7C:C3C2:A400:3CB6:C250:22D6:B4F5 and their contribs, I think that {{db-g2}} applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unsolicited advice

Not a useful addition to project space. Manifesto of an insufficiently collaborative and now indefinitely blocked editor, explaining their divergent attitudes about editing and conduct, that are contrary to the the norms and conventions of the Wikipedia community. If you find feedback, advice, and criticism controlling and demeaning, you can't participate in this encyclopedia-building collaborative project. While this is not an appropriate page for project space, I am not opposed to userfication.—Alalch E. 13:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Userfy which will move the essay into limbo, because the userspace of a banned or indeffed user is a limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator under criteria 13 of the deletion policy. The essay seeks to facilitate disruptive behaviour by silencing criticism of that behaviour. For example, the line "Editors shouldn't directing comments at specific editors about what they should and shouldn't edit, unless it concerns a policy or guideline" (emphasis added) seeks to prevent editors from citing an essay like Wikipedia:Ragpicking to criticise the form of disruptive behaviour described in that essay, on grounds that it is only an essay. It seeks to limit the scope of the guideline WP:DISRUPT to only the specific examples given in that guideline. James500 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than move. When would it be appropriate to tell an editor, "While you may think your being helpful, other people especially the user you're giving advice to can find it controlling or demeaning. Remember, Wikipedia is a volunteer service, you're not the boss of anyone."? Also, as written, isn't this essay saying to never cite WP:BRD? That seems pretty opposite of the community norms. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it sounds more like a sibling spat – more "You're not the boss of me" than a principled (if simplistic and erroneous) view about Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. The essay also cites several essays.

I lean a little towards what @SmokeyJoe says: it's a disputed essay, so dump it in userspace. If the editor comes back in the future (because indefinite doesn't mean infinite), future editors may wish to know how this user thinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Participation optional

Not a useful addition to project space. Redundant to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. And while it appears as if the essay would be explaining the same thing about Wikipedia as that established explanatory essay, the text quickly loses focus and becomes incoherent, as the creator is actually describing some unsatisfying experience they had as a new editor of Wikipedia with no discernible relation to Wikipedia being a voluntary service and participation being optional. —Alalch E. 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a single-author disputed essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Userfy which will move the essay into limbo, because the userspace of a banned or indeffed user is a limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. But worse than that, the statement in the essay "Going through multiple discussions just to complain about how trivial they are, is generally of no value" is completely disruptive, as it is an attempt to facilitate the disruptive time wasting frivolous MfDs that this user was blocked for (among the other things they were blocked for). Accordingly this should also be deleted under criteria 13 of the deletion policy. James500 (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2025

Wikipedia:Not a law library

I feel like the contents of this essay can just be merged with WP:NOT. Not to mention it was made by the same blocked editor that made the other essays currently on MfD. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. Basically, this adds nothing to existing policies and guidelines, namely the lead of WP:NOTREPOSITORY (which already says we are not a digital library) and criteria 3 of that policy and WP:NPS (which already tell us we don't include the full text of every statute because we are not Wikisource) and criteria 5 of WP:PRIMARY etc. The essay is badly written, and the restatement of existing policies and guidelines is not entirely accurate. But the most important problem with this essay is its excessively narrow scope, which would set a precedent for massive numbers of similar essays: We cannot have an essay for every type of library eg "not a physics library", "not a botany library", "not a cricket library", "not a morris dancing library", "not a garden gnome library" etc. A single essay on WP:Wikipedia is not a library might be acceptable if it was well written and told us something we don't already know, but this essay has reached the point of spam. James500 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This essay is actually wrong. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot contain a stub or Start-Class for every statute passed by a national legislature that has been discussed by reliable sources, and national statutes usually have been described by reliable sources. I mostly agree with the nominator and with James500, but they understate the issue. This essay is contrary to the purpose of a general encyclopedia. There is no reason not to have stubs referring to national laws. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author of this essay nominated a large number of Acts of the Parliament of England and Parliament of Great Britain for deletion, and criticism of those nominations resulted in the author losing their temper, and then their privilege of editing, so that this essay is sort of a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An encyclopedia is not a library, but an encyclopedia can and should have entries for the books in a library, including physics textbooks and botany textbooks, as well as an entry for each species of plant described in the botany textbooks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. I read the nom’s “can be merged with” as “is redundant to”. People writing essays do not get the right to influence the policy WP:NOT. As a userspace essay, there are no problems with it, and it is irrelevant that the user is blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sometimes patience is better

I'm am disputing the usefulness of this single-author essay in projectspace. There's no coherent argument. It says that blanking-and-redirecting may "make the page your editing hard to find", but the guideline about blanking-and-redirecting already says It is good practice to notify the article creator or significant contributors using {{uw-blar}} Similarly Wikipedia:Merging says: Any editor can perform a merge. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed (emphasis mine). Also, Wikipedia:Be bold § Be careful is an entire section about how sometimes "patience" is better. It might be that the creator of this essay, who is a relatively new user, had some of their articles turned into redirects and wrote about their dissatisfaction with this. —Alalch E. 11:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. James500 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete at this time. I agree with the title, but don't think that this essay provides any useful information. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The creator of this essay should have taken the advice of the title of this essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. A reasonable useressay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tag updating

Not a useful addition to projectspace. Redundant to Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and Help:Maintenance template removal. Includes sentences such as "You cannot solely rely on the tags themselves, the article content itself is relevant." —Alalch E. 10:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. James500 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Per nom. No reason to delete over Userfying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation)

Hatnote is sufficient per WP:TWOOTHER. There was no consensus to use this page at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55 § Redirects in WP:DABCOMBINE? —Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hatnotes are low quality information in the prime real estate of the page. DAB pages are better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page can be used in the hatnote to make it more concise: {{Redirect|WP:DAB}}, which yields...

P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The hatnote in WP:DAB that immediately links to MOS:DAB is more useful than what Paine Ellsworth suggests (why the extra click?), and we are not getting rid of the hatnote entirely under any scenario. This means that the page can be safely deleted, per nom.—Alalch E. 11:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because MOS:DAB "may be linked from the disambiguation hatnote if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question" (WP:1HAT), leaving only one other entry in the dab page. (Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation) was originally created with several items, later found to be partial matches.). fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some readers find DAB pages more useful than hatnotes. When the guidelines say that a DAB page is optional, do not delete it only because a hatnote is permitted instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no incoming links; I don't nominate dabs if say there is at least a reasonable "see also" link from another dab. —Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a meta-DAB, a disambiguation page about disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ended today on 23 June 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates