Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
![]() | Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
![]() | 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. |
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
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages
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 |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
[edit]- 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
[edit]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.
|
Administrator instructions
[edit]V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 37 | 31 | 68 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 9 | 21 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
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.
- 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 17, 2025
[edit]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)
- 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)
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)
- Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Userfy as a single-author disputed essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
June 16, 2025
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. James500 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Userfy. A reasonable useressay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
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)
- Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. James500 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Userfy. Per nom. No reason to delete over Userfying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment - This is a meta-DAB, a disambiguation page about disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
June 14, 2025
[edit]- Draft:Lies about chemtrails, the big coverup on wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This doesn't meet any CSD but, in my view, warrants an MfD delete. WP:SOAPBOX applies in draft space and I believe that this violates WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:NOTOPINION or both. The user did submit the article through AfC as well, which I know means we should scrutinise it a bit more than if it were unsubmitted per points raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lil star(artist). I would also say that this is similar to Draft:Djanildo Vicente or Draft:We Are One: Our Nepali Roots Can Never Be Erased. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- delete Nonsense soapbox, without even any attempt at sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Not exactly a hoax, but too much like one. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom, for obvious reasons. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Draft:Elon Musk e Israel Robles Sánchez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Spanish language WP:NOTESSAY, appears to be some LLM drivel about nothing in particular. Strongly suspect creator is WP:NOTHERE and that this is created as promotion for the creator or their pet project. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator - There are at least three problems with this page:
- This doesn't appear to be a draft encyclopedic article.
- This is in Spanish (and this is the English Wikipedia), and it isn't worth translating (having machine-translated it).
- This reads like it was generated by a large language model.
- I agree with the nominator about the originator, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
June 13, 2025
[edit]There is no evidence in the references that this event exists or will held. Sciencefish (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Who cares. See Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity and Leave useless drafts alone. It's a waste of community time to review drafts if there are no urgent problems with them, and going out of one's way to nominate these at MfD risks biting new users. Leave it alone, let it expire.silviaASH (inquire within) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)- Delete per Bri. Although I would have preferred that Sciencefish clarify the issues in their nomination statement, it is clear from the context provided below that the draft should be deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SilviaASH or, rather, not be deleted :) —Alalch E. 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per Bri. Although I would have preferred that Sciencefish clarify the issues in their nomination statement, it is clear from the context provided below that the draft should be deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The rationale given is not valid as there might be such event but it is not yet announced when. Drafts are not deleted due to notability concerns, except maybe it has been resubmitted after a rejection. In the end, I think that this draft is rather harmless. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Generally I would agree to leave drafts alone. However this one has eaten up a lot of resources that would have gone to other more productive things, due to its apparent irresistibility to the Ky01535 sockfarm and the DevilBlack69 sockfarm. As an oh-by-the-way one of those sockfarms moved the draft to mainspace at one point, as noted here, so it isn't exactly a draft-only issue. Also, I don't think drafts automatically "expire" as suggested above, unless they are tagged as articles for creation drafts. This one is not so tagged, so this venue is the correct one to ensure expiry, and I think Sciencefish was correct in bringing the issue here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think drafts automatically "expire" as suggested above, unless they are tagged as articles for creation drafts
- WP:G13 explicitly states that any page found in draft namespace that has not been edited in six months is eligible under the criterion. It says nothing about requiring draftspace pages to be tagged as such. There is such a requirement for userspace pages, but a discussion for removing that is currently ongoing at WT:CSD.
- Nevertheless, now that you have given context for the issue, I have struck my original vote and support deletion. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is automatically generated, as is User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible and User:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts which list non-AfC drafts. My recollection was that only the AfC list was getting bot-tagged with {{db-g13}} but it looks like that changed around this February(?). Thanks for pointing that out. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. MfD is not a forum for examining bad drafts. All bad pages in draftspace will be managed by the G13 process. MfD is not a forum for responding to sockpuppetry, not unless requested by an SPI clerk or checkuser. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep in draft space because drafts are not checked for notability. This draft has an "interesting" history . It has been in article space three times, and has been moved from article space to draft space three times, and much of the work on the article was by sockpuppets. The second and third draftifications were actually good-faith errors, and it should have been nominated for deletion. Lack of notability is a reason to delete articles, and is the main reason that they are deleted. This draft is now extended-confirmed protected,and the article title is also extended-confirmed protected, so this draft should stay in draft space unless an established editor can bring it up to general notability. Until then, ignore it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid draft, viable topic, reasonable TOOSOON content (holding such content is one of the purposes of draft space per WP:DRAFTREASON). The event, third edition of the pageant Miss Charm, is scheduled to place in November-December 2025, per the official YouTube channel (linked from the official website: https://misscharm.tv), and some national entrants have been confirmed: https://www.metro.pr/entretenimiento/2025/06/10/nicole-airem-presentan-a-la-nueva-miss-charm-puerto-rico-2025/. About G13: G13 isn't good for bringing up directly as the rationale of a deletion nomination in a full deletion process, because it's an abstracted and mechanical criterion that is totally opaque as to the supposed underlying deletion-worthy problem with the page. It's good in the speedy deletion track but isn't functional in the full discussion track. Editors should simply let admins apply G13 mechanically as they do and not concern themselves with G13.—Alalch E. 15:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
June 12, 2025
[edit]Orphaned talk page with no discussion. Proposed for speedy deletion under CSD G8 which was contested —danhash (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep = There was an article at Progressive scan DVD player. It was then merged into DVD player. The talk page didn't have any discussion, but was available for discussion. Leave this as a historical stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. This is the talk page of a redirect. We generally do not delete those. They may be used for discussing the redirect (though the talk page of the redirect target is almost always a more visible place to do so), and they may also be used for maintenance and tracking. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, G8 shouldn't have been applied since the main page is a redirect though it can make sense to redirect the talk page to the corresponding talk page of the target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to match the subject. G8 does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per all above, who said what I was already going to say. We just leave talk pages around in situations like this. Graham87 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Reasonable editors may disagree reasonably as to how to enforce civility, and we may fall short in maintaining civility, but civility is not optional. This essay is contrary to Wikipedia policy and should not be in user space or project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - The author took criticism badly and left this as they slammed the door on their way out. An admin then locked the door. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you saw this, but this editor created a Project-space essay after virtually every bad interaction they've had, and these essays are practically solely targeted at the editor they had the dispute with. WP:Not a law library, WP:Stay uninvolved, WP:Unsolicited advice, and WP:Participation optional are the one's I know for sure are targeted. I would rather not say which editors are targeted for the purposes of denying attention, but some are quite obvious. WP:Sometimes patience is better, WP:Tag updating, and WP:Why does this redirect here?, may or may not be related, I do not know. Curbon7 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Sarcastic or cynical userspace essays are allowed. Blocked or not, Legend of 14 is far from the first person to observe the unequal application of our civility rules. I'm not convinced that that's applicable in the case they chose to quit over, but that's beside the point. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur with Robert McClenon. After reading the ANI thread that led to the creator's blocking, I see this as a clear-cut violation of WP:UPNOT, specifically WP:POLEMIC. This is not a substantive or useful essay; it is a personal screed from an editor who refused to listen to good-faith feedback about their editing and WP:RAGEQUIT when they didn't get their way, and insisted on blaming everyone but themselves for the consequences. Tamzin is correct regarding the observation about how the civility policy is sometimes applied unequally; however, there are other, better essays from editors in good standing on the matter, and I don't see any value to the project in retaining this one by an editor who evidently had little interest in being civil themselves. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Seems a variation on Wikipedia:Unblockables. I don't find the essay contrary to Wikipedia policy exactly; whatever the motivations of the original author, the idea that civility is often treated as optional is well known, so commentary on that is appropriate. However, delete in this case as the essay is targeting a specific individual, probably not something we want on user essays whatever the merits of the claims. CMD (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, I missed the fact that they linked to the diff of EEng's reply to them at ANI. 110% delete. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not an essay, but a WP:POLEMIC rage-quit statement with a link targeting another editor. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Since I posted this, the link has been removed. Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that the page should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:POLEMIC. SnowRise let's rap 09:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. I highly suggest the same for the other user essays this user created. – The Grid (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- – The Grid (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Opposing deletion of these other essays on procedural grounds. They are not the subject of this MfD. They may have issues, and some of them may need to be deleted, but other MfDs for those essays must be started separately so that editors can evaluate their worth individually. Just because we've identified one problematic page doesn't mean we need to indiscriminately nuke everything the creator has ever done. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- The user was blocked on WP:CIR and made these "essays" as a backhand response to the complaints they received. The user warnings essay starts off with Social disorders are a disability that affect Wikipedia contributors. They can impair Wikipedia contributors to effectively communicate in their own ways.
- This is not gravedancing, it's removing WP:POINTY material that would have been removed instantly if they were posted outside of the userspace. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is a discussion that should be held at the appropriate location, namely: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessability feature. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Opposing deletion of these other essays on procedural grounds. They are not the subject of this MfD. They may have issues, and some of them may need to be deleted, but other MfDs for those essays must be started separately so that editors can evaluate their worth individually. Just because we've identified one problematic page doesn't mean we need to indiscriminately nuke everything the creator has ever done. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. This essay is exactly the opposite to the bullet of WP:5P, and I do agree that it falls within the WP:POLEMIC. Not quite sure why the user created stub-essays, some which I feel are unnecessary. But that is to be dealt in a case-by-case basis. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Pointy complaint post. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW I am not in favor of deleting the other essays. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Generally we should leave people who are hurt alone. I've removed the link that calls out a specific editor, so I think it's fine now. We don't need to twist the knife by deleting everything in their userspace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- No one is saying we need to delete everything. Or at least I think most people are not. I'm only in favor of deleting this one thing, and not solely because of the thinly veiled personal attack- that didn't help matters, but is not the reason for its nomination. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Probably just remove the essay template and move on. Creator is indeffed. This bit of frustration is fine to have in userspace, but it doesn't really seem intended as an essay -- as an essay, I'd say it's just WP:POINT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete this is WP:POINT, and as such it should be deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:POINTy. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The same goes for the other essays, per The Grid. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 08:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per WP:POINT. I agree with the comments made by Curbon7 above. James500 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 19:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC) ended today on 17 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. |