Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

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

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

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	0	51	51
TfD	0	0	1	10	11
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	1	11	12
RfD	0	0	0	44	44
AfD	0	0	0	9	9

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 25, 2025

Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article

Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I am usually rather inclusionist when it comes to humorous essays, because I would rather see someone rebut the premise of an essay with another, opposing, essay, than to delete it because it presents an unpopular viewpoint. However, this essay seems to me to be simply nonsensical, and it does not really offer anything potentially useful in terms of editing Wikipedia. It sounds to me like a riff on WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, mixed either with WP:No Nazis, or Godwin's law. But the Trump-related essay actually addresses an issue about content, whereas it's entirely unclear whether the nominated essay is criticizing the Trump essay, criticizing Trump, or criticizing editors who find fault with Nazis. It strikes me as just making a dumb joke. After all, it's not like we have too many users creating pages about things Hitler did. Ultimately, I think it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. I suggest that it should either be deleted, or moved (back) into userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The Invasion of Poland and the annexation of Austria are new events, they are very unlikely to have any lasting effect or significance. They are brief news stories that will be forgotten in a day.

This sentence in the essay should probably tell you that the essay is parodying speculative comments. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The point of this page is clearly that it's riffing on WP:CRYSTAL, pointing out that if Wikipedia had existed in 1939, editors would have debated whether or not these events warranted articles. The (fairly salient) implication is that perhaps in the future the Trump essay will be out of date, and maybe, once we know how history will have shaken out, it'll look very funny that editors were arguing over whether or not events that may seem obviously significant in the future warranted inclusion. Same general stripe of humor as Before they were notable, but taken to an extreme. I found the joke funny. I think it should be kept. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. While I have reservations with the underlying thesis of the essay, it's pretty clear that this is a counterexample to WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, used to demonstrate that sometimes the major headlines really are notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The challenge is to merge short similar essays. There is no justification of deletion. Maybe come back to MfD if the merge attempts are unreasonably blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Thesmarthuman/sandbox

User:Thesmarthuman/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3AThesmarthuman%2Fsandbox&rev1=840606940&page2=Kim+Jong+Un&rev2=840302206 Paradoctor (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessibility feature

User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessibility feature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

this is less a case of "let's try this again", and more "let's raise some other points". in this case, i thought i would have only one or two issues, but it actually spiraled out of control the more i read it, so...

• the premise is fine enough on paper. however, by making one single statement and wording said statement in a conclusive manner, it can then exclude people with disabilities (like me, if the autism diagnosis i got wasn't just a shitty respiratory system) who don't see it exactly that way, like having issues with warnings, or preferring direct communication

• it does, however, fail to actually elaborate on which disorders might affect it, or how. the former might also be fine, don't wanna skip to naming names, but the latter leaves everything past the first glance up to hoping that the reader already knows a thing or two about the matter of dealing with people who have disorders to such an extent that it fundamentally changes how they approach wikipedia. it ironically comes off as having a barrier of entry to fully understanding the essay in the first place

• the second paragraph (or would it be the first section?) doesn't really indicate or even imply any relation with the lead, and comes off more as a non-sequitur or thinly veiled attack against another editor, as seems customary of the creator (as indicated by this other mfd discussion about an essay they wrote)

• it also seems to contradict the lead, as it then conclusively states that dttr is an ableist argument that people with disabilities will take issues with, which... you know, has a pretty obvious hole. i can say that the diagnosis i got as a newborn was right on the money and that i take no issue with being templated, and now that entire paragraph isn't really all that valid, is it?

• it then links to another essay that i really like (why is beyond this discussion, though), but also that contradicts the second point by not presenting them as barriers to communication, and also not making conclusive statements about what any user "will" think about them beyond "it's not going to kill them". it also says the opposite of what this essay says about dttr, which is admittedly really funny

to summarize it, i think the essay is a bit of a mess as is, as it promotes two ideas that are equally conclusive and unclear, and then promotes an essay that outright disagrees with it, seemingly as if it didn't. if not deleted, i'm 99 + 1% sure it should be almost completely rewritten (as in probably everything past the title, and maybe even that), at which point... why not just nuke it and start from scratch? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The title of this essay was changed on 13 June to correct an unstressed vowel. The previous MFD was entitled Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessability feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I voted to keep this last time, but the nominator has made several good points and I think I now agree that the essay is useless and borderline nonsensical and would be better off deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• oh, right. pinging @Anohthterwikipedian, @Floquenbeam, @James500, @Patient Zero, and @Oblivy for their input, seeing as they were in the last mfd (under the misspelled title) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Useless, and it is this essay that could be read as insulting to neurodivergent editors by saying that they are too disabled to understand text. I disagree with Don't Template the Regulars, but this is the wrong disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The author of this essay probably wrote it in response to some one-off situation that they overgeneralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  from what it seems, this is the situation in question consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 00:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, and for the reasons I gave at the previous MfD. Frankly, I think it would save time to do a bundled nomination of all this user's essays and delete all of them in a single group MfD. There seemed to be a pattern of this user writing a retaliatory essay every time someone asked this user to modify their behaviour; the essays are so "stubby", redundant and badly written they generally contain no useful content; and the sheer number of essays arguably rises to the level of spam. I recall that several editors expressed the opinion they should all be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/Civility is optional. This user was blocked, in particular, for wasting community time, and now, eleven days after the block, community time is still be expended on plethora of essays this user created. I personally do not want to have to !vote over and over and over again, to produce a result that appears inevitable and a foregone conclusion, with the maximum possible expenditure of effort over the greatest length of time possible. James500 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

June 23, 2025

User:ThisIsNotABetter/IBM z

User:ThisIsNotABetter/IBM z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3AThisIsNotABetter%2FIBM_z&rev1=1053418894&page2=IBM+Z&rev2=1053168854 Paradoctor (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as a copy of an article in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Sometimes WP:COPIES nominations are needlessly rushed and fail to assume good faith about editor intentions. In this case, this is abandoned for 3 1/2 years, so clearly stale and ready to be zapped. Martinp (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as a copy per Gommeh, Robert McClenon and Martinp 124.104.175.128 _{Talk to me!} 11:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:PubKey

Draft:PubKey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Subject does not meet GNG, and someone keeps on submitting the draft for review after it got rejected without making any actually significant changes. I'd support userfying this too. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable. Inherently promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Clearly has become a waste of time with no hope of salvation. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep for WP:G13. User:Gommeh misleads, the draft has not be resubmitted following its only rejection. Rejection and decline are different.

Support for Userfying is asserting of plausible notability and is a reason for keeping, subject to G13. Don’t Userfy if they don’t ask. They are welcome to Userfy, see WP:DUD.

AfC has good processes. Learn them and follow them. Don’t skip ahead. MfD is misused by drawing attention to bad drafts. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts where they don’t waste others time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain what the difference is then? I'm still new to AFC. But for these purposes I'm probably going to treat them as if they were the same. » Gommeh (he/him) 22:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ask the question at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This draft has not been resubmitted after it was rejected. Rejection was the proper action on the eighth submission after seven declines. There is no need to nominate a draft for deletion immediately after it is rejected. Stopping the resubmission is what rejection is for. If a draft is resubmitted after rejection without discussion, deletion is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Patience, i.e. Keep for now and just let standard AFC and Draft policies deal with it. Creators(s) were slow to learn from declines, and it does seem unlikely this will ever pass muster as an article. Hence the most recent rejection. No need to do anything else now. Absent disruption, either WP:G13 or more focused editorial effort to improve the article significantly and demonstrate suitability (seems unlikely, but it is possible) will take care of the matter. Martinp (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, G13 exists for a reason and taking drafts to MFD is always best avoided. If a user were to continue to keep submitting after a reject, that's a different matter, but that hasn't happened here.

CoconutOctopus talk 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Flashnet

Draft:Flashnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Reads like an advertisement and the company is not notable enough. See WP:ARTSPAM. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep/Ignore. “Reads like and advertisement”? Are you thinking WP:G11? Where is your CSD log? It is rarely productive to bring non-G11s to MfD. “Not notable”? WP:NMFD. Notability is not required in draftspace.

“Advertisements masquerading as articles”? This issue was solved by inventing draftspace. Drafts, with the prefix “Draft”, not not mistakeable by promoters as Wikipedia articles and don’t lead to UPEs being paid.

The draft has been declined. WP:AfC has good processes, follow them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The article creator tried to submit it twice for AFC - it was pretty much the same article both times. WP:NMFD says "Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement". We could also just let it go and wait for it to be deleted after six months or so. But I doubt the draft will change much by then. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Twice is a harsh interpretation of “repeatedly”. The AfC reviewer is supposed to leave comments. The draft proponent can take six months to read and reflect on those comments, before the draft and associated comments are deleted via WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep in draft space. The nominator cites lack of notability, but drafts are not checked for notability. The nominator cites the guideline about advertisements masquerading as articles, but this is not an article. If it were an article, draftification would be an alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• User:Gommeh - There are more useful activities than looking through declined or rejected drafts for useless drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

June 22, 2025

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

User:BZPN/Right to hold dissenting views about social issues without malice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

• 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.

  166.140.230.94, you should not be engaging in projectspace while logged out. WP:Register for the benefit of yourself and others. At the very least, consider signing your posts with a pen name. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  If the community didn't want IPs participating in project space discussions, then it wouldn't even be possible for IPs to edit pages in the project space in the first place. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CFF:1B48:7CC7:88B1 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you don’t even sign a pen name, how do we know if we are talking to the same person? Are you Special:Contributions/166.140.230.94?

  If you have a reason to post here, then you should. But if it is to be a habit, register. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think there are any rules against IPs participating in XfDs. One or two are regular participants at RfD. Cremastra (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  If they have a main account, it is sockpuppety. If they have never registered, they should be encouraged to register, for their own privacy, and for accountability.

  Special:Contributions/166.140.230.94 has posted a very interesting !vote. I would like to read their related comments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete per Valjean, not helpful for collaborating on an encyclopedia, and per WP:POLEMIC. dbeef [talk] 03:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the IP; Wikipedia is not censored and this is a perfectly valid counter-essay to the standard essays on this topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED is about article content, not user page content. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Exactly. Essays are not supposed to be supplements to our articles. They are supposed to be supplements to our editing needs, our PAG, and our MOS. They should be focused on Wikipedia's encyclopedic function and production, not on the topics of articles, such as social issues unrelated to producing this encyclopedia. They should not violate WP:POLEMIC or WP:Advocacy. Take it away from here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - IP is exactly right. How does my essay relate to Wikipedia? It allows me to feel safe in my own space, which allows me to contribute constructively and effectively. Just as thousands of This user supports LGBT rights userboxes on thousands of user pages are not deleted because those editors feel good about it, so too should my essay be. And let me remind you that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a community, and writing essays is one of its rights. Just as others have the right to have userboxes and essays about LGBT (e.g. the well-known WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA, which also does not concern Wikipedia content), so too should I have the right. BZPN (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • In what way does your essay not misuse Wikipedia and violate WP:NOTWEBHOST? That essay belongs on your own website or blog, not here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Political essays (or infoboxes for that matter) should not have a place on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTADVOCACY. The scope of the essay is defined as whether it is acceptable to respectfully express disagreement with certain aspects of LGBT-related policies or ideologies - and since Wikipedia's goal is to create an encyclopedia and not being a think tank for views on LGBT rights (or any social cause for that matter), it simply doesn't belong. It doesn't matter if they promote conservative or progressive causes. This essay, in a way, also encourages editorial bias in articles by asserting moral, legal or popularity arguments, when Wikipedia's goal is exactly not to have it (see also here).

That essay probably might be salvageable if it was meant to say "look, there is a diversity of opinions in the world, what is mainstream in the Western world may not necessarily be so in, say, India. Respect these opinions, including from non-mainstream perspectives, so long as they do not stand in the way of proper editing practices" - fine. This take actually implements certain policies and guidelines and is a perfectly valid topic. However, I have ample reason to believe that this essay is a political manifesto. The user was banned from Wikimedia Discord for UCoC violations (which is ironic because the essay claims to be based on UCoC) after quoting the fragment of the Bible that is commonly seen as prohibiting homosexuality. Since the user is from Poland, there is also the political context of LGBT-free zones (technically termed "Zones free from LGBT ideology"), which were a big thing just a couple of years ago. And yes, the user cites the Polish Constitution to say that because his views are supported by the highest law of the land, his views should have a place on Wikipedia. The user is free to believe whatever they want. But again, Wikipedians are supposed to write an encyclopedia and not engage in culture wars on-wiki just because "my country bans same-sex marriage and the population isn't that keen on this concept anyway" (or alternatively "my country allows same-sex marriage and only fringe politicians oppose it"). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So, please refer to WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA (or WP:GENDERID), an essay that is a manifesto defending LGBT, which right to exist you do not question, in the context of my essay, which right to exist you do question. BZPN (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

That essay is a bit different. It is one thing to say "do not insult LGBT people" and another to say "Wikipedia should allow me to insult LGBT people", even if you don't consider your speech demeaning (WP:POLEMIC covers it). That said, I don't like the Queerphobic beliefs section for what is essentially trying to define an encyclopedic concept that is part of culture wars as a binding guideline (it's an essay but you don't write essays for no reason). I get where they are coming from but I don't approve the current wording (as do, in fact, 18 other editors on the talk page of NOQUEERPHOBIA, for various reasons). WP:HID is so much better. Still, it is more based on policies and guidelines than your essay. WP:GENDERID explains the application of the Manual of Style guideline and, even though it concerns a hot-button topic, presents a proposal to deal with the issue based on cited policies and guidelines, and our current scientific understanding of sexuality. It is a valid essay. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete let's call this essay what it is: OP is arguing that they should be allowed to be a bigot without consequences. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, so you can openly insult me by calling me a "bigot", but I don't have the right to declare opposition to an ideology? BZPN (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Literally, yes. You are espousing bigotry, while using the word "ideology" as a shield to try and protect yourself from backlash. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• delete Wikipedia should be about ones contributions to the project and not a place to air one's opinions on religious, political or other personal matters. fr33kman 13:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UPNOT, part of our user pages policy, which states

  In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology).

  The example given, "racist ideology", is obviously expandable to homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, and queerphobic ideology. It is not permissible to fly an anti-LGBTQ flag in your userspace, and it's not permissible to encourage others to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't agree that this essay falls into the category of bigoted ideology that the disrepute clause refers to. The essay is mild and at its most strong refers only to non-support for "LGBT rights". That's broad, and can encompass things that one can not support without engaging in ideological bigotry. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I've read the essay. It's not a homophobic rant or even all that polemic. It's just saying that if you're socially conservative, you can speak your mind without being rude about it. I don't see much harm being done here. Cremastra (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Because this essay will not serve the goal of a collaborative encyclopedia. BZPN's essay makes it clear they poorly understand LGBTQ+ issues and are seeking to create a lampshade for potential future POV pushing. Their claim on the other MfD that the discussion of deleting an infobox that calls queer identities an "ideology" is unlawful on the basis that they live in Poland (which apparently has some homophobic laws) is likewise poorly informed and counter-productive to a collaborative environment. WP:NOTBLOG applies here. This essay is contrary to collaborative editing. If BZPN wants to express their views about queer people they'd be better served going to Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and consider blocking the creator per WP:NOTHERE. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CFF:1B48:7CC7:88B1 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Utterly pointless, like most essays, but at least gives balance to the other such essays on this topic, whether we agree or not. Jevansen (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Balance seems like a weird thing to pursue when it comes to discrimination. If someone was to write the opposite of WP:NONAZI I'd want it deleted too. dbeef [talk] 03:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So would I. It's not fair however to equate NONAZI with No queerphobia. The latter isn't exactly nuanced and it's highly questionable that everything listed can be classed as anything close to discrimination. Jevansen (talk)

• Keep - If we delete this essay, we will be illustrating an oppressive culture of left-wing political correctness. I don't like having to write this, in a country where the oppressive culture of right-wing political correctness is a greater danger to a 236-year-old tradition of democracy, but oppressive political correctness is oppressive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Nonsense. It will simply be Wikipedia protecting the ability of queer editors to collaborate with others without fear of open discrimination. 11:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  That is a terrible argument, devoid of both logic and WP policy. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Jevansen. I'd like for all of these essays about what views one is and is not allowed to personally hold while contributing to Wikipedia to go, but short of that this one should be allowed to exist. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There are those who view attitudes to LGBTQ through a universal human rights, societal maturation point of view; and those who view those attitudes as culturally relative, and likely to be (right now) and evolve (going forward) differently based on geography, generation, and religion. That can generate tension when people from different cultures meet, and that tension is highly relevant when writing a single, global (English-language) encyclopedia. So we don't get to say that this is not relevant to building en.wp. That leaves the question of whether this page is written in an inherently or hopelessly inflammatory, divisive, or polemic manner. It does not; it merely articulates a point of view that is distasteful to those on the universal-rights side of the spectrum. I respect that some would like the community and culture at en.wp to reflect the ideals they would like society (globally) to aspire to, but we have to allow it -- within eason -- to reflect attitudes, in all their diversity, such as they are. Bottom line, there would clearly be anti-LGBTQ (or anti-whatever) screeds that would be divisive, inflammatory, or polemic enough to delete with fire as unhelpful, but this one isn't it, even if it doesn't describe views one agrees with. Martinp (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, but not for the reason the author wants. If the author wants to tell people they are a bigot in their own userspace, that's fine, although they should also then understand that their edits on relevant topics will be scrutinised more than those of other editors. But I have to ask this question, yet again; if the author was a racist, would we allow this to exist? Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious trolling, needs blocking frankly ( see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BZPN/LGBT). Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I kindly ask you to refrain from calling me a bigot — that's an offensive and unjustified label (because it assumes that I hate someone, and that's not true). Please also stop using false analogies to racism, because it completely distorts the purpose of this essay. My essay explains my intent clearly (as I’ve said multiple times above): disagreement with ideology is not hate and is not directed at individual persons. What exactly is wrong with that goal? BZPN (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Definition of bigot (OED): "a person who is prejudiced against ... people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". However much you may try to excuse this on the basis of religion, the fact that you clearly believe that the rights of LGBTQ+ people should be restricted brings you into that category. Sorry, but that's simple semantics. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  And actually, I have another question: if you are not actively discriminating against LGBTQ+ people on Wikipedia, why do you even need this essay? Without it, people would not know your views, and I dare say most would not care. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Disagreement with certain policies or beliefs ≠ discrimination or prejudice. My essay explains this distinction clearly. I'm not excusing anything — I'm defending the right to express views respectfully and in good faith. I also don't recall a specific part of this essay where I wrote that LGBT rights should be restricted (because there is no such part in my essay). As for why this essay exists — it's because I have faced accusations and exclusion for simply holding views rooted in my culture, values and origin. If those views are misrepresented or labelled as bigotry, I believe it's fair and necessary to clarify them openly. That’s not hate — that’s honesty. The essay also exists because if I am to contribute effectively to Wikipedia, I should feel comfortable with my views here in my user space, and not surrounded and attacked. BZPN (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  P.S. let me also remind you of the words of the last paragraphs of my essay:

  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. Let us build a Wikipedia where respectful disagreement is possible, and where truth and civility guide us all. BZPN (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I think you're missing the point. In your essay you say it should not be inherently wrong to say ... this user is not supportive of same-sex marriage. This is effectively equivalent to "this user is not supportive of equal rights for <insert demographic here>". Would you be OK with (to take an example) a Saudi Arabian editor saying "this user is not supportive of equal rights for women"? Would it be OK for them to write the same essay? Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  But this may result (in response to your example) from Muslim culture, traditions, beliefs and law... If it is just a civilized and calm expression of opinion without hatred, accusations and attacks, why should they be discriminated against for it? Read the Personal context section in my essay and maybe you will understand it. Furthermore, WMF operates under US law, which does not appear to prohibit not supporting mainstream ideologies and supporting others (slightly off-topic for context: racism is prohibited and illegal, but not supporting, for example, same-sex marriages is not prohibited; likewise, none of the WMF's internal rules prohibit the holding of one's own opinion which is in accordance with the UCoC). To be clear: I absolutely do not support discrimination, but I try to distinguish it from unpopular, honest opinions, to which everyone is entitled. And is it OK to write essays/userboxes in support of LGBT movements postulates? Yes. Do I have the same right to express my opinion as other users? Yes. Martinp described this relationship and coexistence in their statement above, I recommend reading it carefully. BZPN (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Again, you're effectively saying "I absolutely do not support discrimination, but I believe it is OK to discriminate on the basis of religion". Do you not understand how this is completely nonsensical? Frankly, you'd be better off being honest about it ... which your essay actually is - hence my initial comment. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Do you realize that by calling my religion discriminatory you are discriminating against me and 1,409,000 billion people in the world? BZPN (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, so you're now speaking for 1.4 billion people? Spectacular. Most people - and indeed most Catholics - in my country couldn't care less whether LGBTQ+ people get married or not, because it doesn't affect their lives in any way. Incidentally, I work in a Catholic school ... a school which, like every single other one in my country, teaches its children that they shouldn't discriminate against others, regardless of what their own views are. Also, your userbox says This user does not support LGBT+ ideology which I'm pretty sure is unrelated to religion, just your political views. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  And then you should know that the Holy Scripture we use is not discriminatory, and everything I say, I say in good faith, respecting everyone and not referring to anyone personally... I was raised exactly like the children you mentioned, and I do not discriminate against anyone. I am only expressing such an opinion as indicated by the foundations of my religion ;) BZPN (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  P.S. we have already gone very off-topic, so I propose to stop this discussion. BZPN (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  It being part of my religion to punch people in the face doesn't excuse my behaviour. Cremastra (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe person x was convinced by their parents or environment to believe (in the name of "god") that discriminating against people is morally correct. We can pity person x, but it's not an excuse. Modern religions is not above everything else, it's just a system of beliefs like any other. Cremastra (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete FFS this is obvious trolling that we shouldn't give the time of day

• User with <150 edits (~100 before the essay), after 6 months of inactivity starts pride month by
  • 1) Creating this essay
  • 2) Creating an infobox saying "This user does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons" [1] which links to essay and is headed to a SNOW deletion[2]
• The same user banned from the wikimedia discord for homophobia
• The very first line of it respectfully express disagreement with certain aspects of LGBT-related policies or ideologies, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage or adoption - is opposing LGBT adoption. "Marriage" is a red herring, opposing the right of gay people to adopt is just the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory being worded nicely
• It's also just filled with nonsensical statements:
  • freedom of belief and expression protects the right: to support same-sex marriage, gender, and LGBT rights, and to not support them - is gender a belief now?

This is a concern-trolling WP:POLEMIC that serves absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia and is a prime example of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a userspace essay on what behaviour should be allowed on Wikipedia, so I don't really see any basis for deleting it. Is it wrong? In just about every respect. IMHO. Essays are meant to express differing views, so they are allowed to be wrong, especially in userspace.--Trystan (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POLEMIC, as clearly divisive and inflammatory; I would also support blocking the creator per WP:NOTHERE. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: There is no respectful way to tell someone they should be denied rights by reason of their sexuality. Transparent polemics are harmful to the collaborative environment necessary for the project's function, and should be removed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:POLEMIC. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and this essay interferes with that goal because it is "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (quoting WP:POLEMIC; specifically, the view that LGBTQ people are not entitled to the same rights as other people falls under this definition of polemical statements). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents the views of mainstream reliable sources; it is not a platform where users can directly debate with each other about real-world politics or religion. There are other websites for that. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The content of the essay is far from polemic or divisive. In short, stating disagreement with some values didn’t mean that it is divisive or inflammatory. The essay argued that people should have the right to reject LGBTQ values, and they are right. If we place certain value as something that cannot be disagreed against that is something wrong. The essay is not advocating to “kill the people” or doing anything violent. The essay is not advocating people to act differently to LGBT people. The essay merely stated that their right to disagree with some societal norms should not be immediately construed as “divisive and inflammatory” opinion. If supporting LGBTQ is “accepted” loudly not supporting them should be acceptable as well. The editors that feels differently about LGBT issues should not be compelled to silence. Finally, while LGBT acceptance is considered a societal norm in the Western world, the reverse is true on some cultures. The main point is this - there is no violence or discrimination intended at this essay. It should stay.

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 06:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not correct. The essay claims that it is okay to use Wikipedia discussion pages or user pages to advocate directly for the view that LGBT people should not have the same rights as other people (e.g. to marry). It is not okay to do that because such statements have a divisive and inflammatory effect on the Wikipedia community. To be "divisive and inflammatory" does not merely require advocating for violence: it also includes whether such content makes people feel unwelcome or attacked because of aspects of their personal identity. Wikipedia discussion pages and user pages should only be used (1) to discuss how to improve Wikipedia, and (2) to a limited extent, to share a little bit about oneself so that others can get to know you—they should not be used to share controversial viewpoints that threaten our ability to collaborate together on building an encyclopedia. To be clear, this discussion is about whether an editor should be allowed to make divisive statements on Wikipedia pages—they are fully free to advocate their views on other websites that allow for and are intended for free and open discussion. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• I wrote up an entire comment defending this user's right to have this as a userspace essay if they so choose, however much I disagree with their views, but FNS makes a good point that this is not an established editor, but rather someone with 116 edits deciding to barge in during pride month and make a fuss about this. I wasn't sure if they were an established editor on plwiki, and it looks like they were a fairly active editor but also recently had TPA yanked over there for personal attacks, so that doesn't inspire very much confidence either. That feels rather different than someone who, in addition to a wide variety of productive work, decides to write an essay about this. So I guess I come out as a very weak keep, on general principle, and also deeply unimpressed with BZPN both for their views and for what I am now beginning to suspect is in fact approximately concern trolling rather than a good-faith attempt to express a personal view on wikipedia editing, which is what userspace essays are actually for. Noting for the record that I am here as a result of a discussion on the discord, though it did not directly link or mention this MfDRusalkii (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

User:PossiblyNotGeorgeW.Bush/sandbox

User:PossiblyNotGeorgeW.Bush/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Vrisphoria/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

• Delete: per nom. Obviously not productive. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete All - Wikipedia is not for alternate history is an essay, but do not create hoaxes and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball are policies. Alternate history in the past has elements of a hoax, and alternate history in the future is crystal balling. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - These pages are also biographies of living persons violations with respect to Al Gore, Taylor Swift, and Barack Obama. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: per reasons above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Retkimunaa/sandbox6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

• Delete: Per nom. Useless userforks. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete All - Wikipedia is not for alternate history. That is an essay, but it refers to do not create hoaxes and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. These are also all biographies of living persons violations. Wishful thinking does not excuse fabricating of history or BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: for reasons above. Wouldn't these also have copying within problems? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

User:BZPN/LGBT

User:BZPN/LGBT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

@BZPN I !voted to keep your essay. The problem with your userbox is that it is labelling an entire group of real people as part of an "ideology" as opposed to actual people. This is cruel. The existence of people being gay is nothing new and is certainly not some kind of political dispute. You surely agree that a userbox declaring "this user opposes the existence of males and "male ideology" due to religious, legal, and moral reasons" is bloody ludicrous. Cremastra (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  WP:NOTFREESPEECH silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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: [3]. 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• Delete And suggest that, if BZPN dislikes queer people, they'd be best advised to keep that to themselves. A project like Wikipedia that depends on collaboration is not served by things like this. Furthermore I'd gently remind BZPN to avoid tiptoeing so close to the edge of WP:NLT as they are above by describing this as an unlawful discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  And I would like to gently remind you that what I like and what I don't like is my private business, and I would kindly advise you to re-read the content of the userbox carefully and with understanding. BZPN (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  You called my life as a bisexual an ideology in a userbox. That you created and displayed on your user page. I always try to AGF but such behaviours makes it very difficult. Which is why the userbox should be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  You can like or dislike whatever you want. But our policies prohibit userpage content that is needlessly inflammatory, which is what this is. Userpages are a place to declare your interests and say one or two things about yourself and even your politics without needlessly pissing people off or dehumanizing other editors. Cremastra (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  If what you like and don't like is your private business, all the more reason for keeping it private and not parading with it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: the essay I was okay with. The problem here is that it is specifically targeting LGBTQ people as part of an "ideology" as if people being gay is some kind of dispute over the finer points of taxation we can all sit down and have a reasonable dispute over. Someone's existence is not an ideology, although bigots frequently frame "people being gay" and "people having a gender that happens to be different from their sex" as some kind of "new", scary "ideology" introduced by those damn progressives. Cremastra (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW delete. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CFF:1B48:7CC7:88B1 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I seldom vote on userboxes, and I don't like having to support right-wing expression in a country where democracy is more threatened by right-wing political correctness than by left-wing political correctness, but deleting this userbox will be illustrating left-wing political correctness. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem like a policy based reason to keep this essay. dbeef [talk] 03:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep; in general I find political userboxes social media-y at best and at odds with the spirit of NPOV at worst, but as long as they exist, this one should not be disallowed. "This is inflammatory and divisive" does not convince me—lots of views much more controversial than this one are allowed expression in Wikipedia userboxes, including Stalinism, religious rightism, Zionism, Francoism, opposition to abortion, radical feminism, and more. Interpretations of the userbox as classing the very existence of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons as "LGBT+ ideology" (and thus as expressing opposition to the existence of LGBT+ persons) do not follow from its text, which only implies that LGBT+ ideology exists and is opposed, and does not imply that "LGBT+ ideology" necessarily includes all LGBT+ existence. Compare to the leap from "this user opposes Christian ideology" to "this user opposes the existence of Christians". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Really reaching to defend this. References to "LGBT Ideology" are intrinsically dehumanizing. As I said before statements like that are deeply corrosive to WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: please note that the word ideology refers to:

  Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes of political and social action ([4]).

  This is a precise, academic term - not a slur, not an insult, and certainly not a denial of anyone’s humanity. I opposed a set of beliefs and public goals, not your existence. Please make that distinction. BZPN (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  My being bisexual is not a system of beliefs. It's part of who I am. If your intent is not to offend then I have WP:CIR concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: I would strongly encourage you to take a deep breath, read through the entire discussion again carefully, and try to separate facts from personal offense. If you're unable to acknowledge that distinction, then perhaps it's best to take a step back from this thread. This is an MfD discussion, not a courtroom for personal feelings BZPN (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I've said my piece about this patently inappropriate userbox. Do not tag me again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Belief in such a thing as "LGBT+ ideology" does not imply that your (or anyone's) bisexuality is an ideology. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  "Ideology" is an academic term. "LGBT ideology" isn’t. It’s just a right-wing dogwhistle. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  So the expressions "Catholic ideology", "right-wing ideology", etc. are okay, but "LGBT ideology" is not? Does the word ideology change its meaning in any way when compared to the word "LGBT"? BZPN (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  The adjectives "Catholic" and "right-wing" primarily have to do with beliefs. Being catholic is synonymous with believing catholic ideology. Being right-wing is synonymous with having right-wing ideologies.

  Being LGBT is not synonymous with "believing in LGBT ideology", whatever that means. The same reason it would be ridiculous to say I oppose male ideology or female ideology.

  But as you illustrate here, part of what makes this offensive is what lies behind the assumption that LGBTQ+ identities are tied with the invented term of "LGBTQ+ ideology". The same way conservatives invented the term "gender ideology". (cc [5] but of course self published sources are not reliable) My being attracted to people of the same sex as me does not entail months-long indoctrination sessions at the local gay community center, nor did I make a choice in which genders I was attracted to.

  It's a dogwhistle term because it conceals whatever the true meaning is. Does LGBT ideology mean LGBT existence? Or LGBT rights? Some people might want to say, "I don't oppose LGBT rights but I'm opposed to the extremists", and I'd ideally want them to clarify what exactly are the extremist positions they're trying to oppose.

  I don't think this userbox is nuanced enough and it's hard for me, at present, to imagine a defensible argument that includes reservations about adoption rights. dbeef [talk] 08:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how references to "LGBT+ ideology" are intrinsically dehumanizing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  They suggest that, since ideologies are belief systems, that every L, G, B, T, or + person has the same beliefs (and, indeed, apparently non-LGBT+ people who support them). Which is plainly utter nonsense, even if you allow that ideologies (i.e. "right-wing ideology") encompass a spectrum. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  That is not a necessary implication at all! The reference just posits the very existence of an “LGBT+ ideology”—it doesn’t define it, and taking it to consider the very existence of LGBT+ persons as a loathed ideology is just a completely maximalist interpretation applied in the absence of any specificity. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  The phrase doesn't exist in a vacuum. LGBT ideology sets out some of the discourse around it. We are under no obligation to contort the words into some improbable meaning divorced from how it is widely used: to delegitimize the existence and rights of LGBT people.--Trystan (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  How is defining/referencing "LGBT ideology" relevant to editing? That is probably the question we should ask regardless of whether anyone believes that "gay agenda" is real or a big deal. Because I can't see use cases when that could be germane to editing. This discussion, however, is evidence that the community is losing manhours that could have otherwise been spent on (ideally) writing articles, or (which is more likely) at least bickering about them. All because apparently some think that making political statements on-wiki is a good thing. Cue millions of people complaining about "woke" editors. And they may be wrong, but at the end of the day we are trying to write for people regardless of their political beliefs, amirite? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  This userbox is as relevant to editing as the five hundred “this user likes toast” “this user longs for the reunification of the Soviet Union” and “this user is a Francoist” etc boxes that exist without challenge. Selectively applying the argument that userboxes irrelevant to editing (or mentioning politics) ought not exist at all to a single userbox is dishonest. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  That is my whole point. Yeet them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:POLEMIC. This editor should go get a blog or social media account instead. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Either we're being trolled here, or the user genuinely can't get it into their head why this is offensive. Either way, we don't need it. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UBCR; clearly divisive and inflammatory.--Trystan (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Textbook example of being divisive, in setting up the strawman of an overaching "LGBTQ ideology" and then stating their opposition to it. This is just pot-stirring. Note I have !voted Keep on the linked essay which is also up at MfD, since it is possible to have a nuanced and non-divisive discussion about how our treatment of views on the range of LQBTQ-related topics needs to also consider the lens of geographical and religious differences in attitudes, and that essay makes a credible attempt to do so. But this userbox then builds a divisive edifice on top of that, which is why it should go. Martinp (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Can we please get an uninvolved editor to close? There is long since an obvious consensus about what to do with this pride month trolling excursion. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UBCR, as being obviously divisive and inflammatory. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I already expressed my opinion about the userbox, but there is a Village Pump discussion about userboxes you may want to join. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. This userbox doesn't support my existence. I don't support this userbox's existence.  — Hex • talk 00:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as a very clear WP:UBCR violation, following the precedent set in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025

Draft:List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

• 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)

  I agree with silviaASH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect to List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Jsonantenor

User talk:Jsonantenor (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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 (dc̄) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: Per WP:DELTALK. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - No benefit has been shown to deletion. We don't get rid of junk in non-article space except for reasons. No harm is shown to keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Irrelevant noise. WP:DELTALK doesn't apply here since this doesn't consist of comments by other users. Probably not worth bringing to MfD but might as well delete it since we're here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Pppery. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie

Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

• Delete per Gareth; this is not a useful start to an article (especially given WP:BACKWARDS issues), it's just mere irrelevant noise that should be brought to its fate since we're here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. It has been declined, which means the reviewer thinks it can be improved. It has not been rejected, which comes before deletion at MfD. Only bring it to MfD if tendentiously resubmitted, or resubmitted after rejection, or for some reason at WP:NOT. MfD is not a forum for curating bad drafts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is starting to become Drafts for Discussion... CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no reason for deletion.

  The criticism offered is a reason for the page to be in draftspace, not a reason to remove it from draftspace, and not a reason to start a community discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Question - What is an Object Show anyway? More importantly, why is that a reason to delete a useless draft? That is a redirect to BFDI, and I see that an article called Object Show has been deleted, but I don't see any precedent for the deletion of drafts that we don't like. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - None of the reasons given are valid reasons for the deletion of drafts, which are not deleted for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

June 20, 2025

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

Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment the above vote was misplaced above the nomination so I moved it. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  The purpose of such essays are on Wikipedia is strictly for Wikipedia: either as guidance for its policies and guidelines, or regarding conduct as editors. It is not for issues having no direct connection to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a platform for political editorials. If you want to publish it outside of Wikipedia, feel free, but the Wikimedia software isn't for you to have a webhost in the meantime. Ravenswing 22:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Clear misunderstanding of what Wikipedia essays are for, and NOTWEBHOST. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Misuses essay space and the creator has been blocked meaning userfying wouldn't be a good choice. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Publicising or promoting opinions, points of view, "valuable ethical questions", or "encourag[ing] thought and discussion around ideas relevant to humanity and knowledge" are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Obvious violations of WEBHOST and NOR are obvious. Ravenswing 22:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Thine Antique Pen/DYKcheck

User:Thine Antique Pen/DYKcheck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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

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

June 19, 2025

User:Jonnyboi0927/sandbox

User:Jonnyboi0927/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

• 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)
• Keep - Not a G11. No evidence of notability, but drafts are not checked for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

June 18, 2025

Wikipedia:What's a forint?

Wikipedia:What's a forint? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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

• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia.—Alalch E. 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete as having encyclopedic value and very little humorous value. Userfy is a second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia due to the lack of encyclopedic value. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 02:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

  @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)

• Delete per nom and Schützenpanzer. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above, soft redirect to Uncyclopedia. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• BJAODN without the promotional bio. The page is not an essay but a distorted version of the article on the forint, including changed years, reversion jokes etc. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thor Kropikson/sandbox

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. ✗plicit 14:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC) User:Thor Kropikson/sandbox User:Thor Kropikson/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) 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) Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daniel Larson (Internet personality)

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. ✗plicit 14:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Draft:Daniel Larson (Internet personality) Draft:Daniel Larson (Internet personality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) 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) I wasn't aware of that last point, thanks! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 08:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC) 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) Delete: Per others. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Delete: Per above. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Delete: Looks like lolcow stuff, definitely not appropriate as a BLP. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Delete: Violates BLP guidelines and has not been meaningfully improved since January. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC) 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.

June 17, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EA Sports FC IOS Edition2

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. ✗plicit 14:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Draft:EA Sports FC IOS Edition2 Draft:EA Sports FC IOS Edition2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) 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) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

June 17, 2025

Wikipedia:Unsolicited advice

Wikipedia:Unsolicited advice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• Delete It is generally inappropriate to userfy to indeffed users' userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Participation optional

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service; no consensus on whether to delete the history first (which means it isn't deleted) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Participation optional Wikipedia:Participation optional (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) Redirect (without deletion) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. It is redundant to that much older and better essay. There is no need to delete this essay, it is not unacceptable as a user opinion, and it is bad to err on the side of censoring disagreeable opinion. It could be merged to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, but I wouldn’t, it’s good enough to be available behind the redirect history for anyone to pick up and work with, should they ever wish to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 23 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) 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) It’s slack to allege FORK without saying of what. Forking rarely calls for deletion above merging back. Unless it was a literal copy, which it wasn’t. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC) 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.

June 16, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag updating

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia:Tag updating Wikipedia:Tag updating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) Delete It is generally inappropriate to userfy to indeffed users' userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC) 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:DAB (disambiguation)

Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

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

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

"WP:DAB" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:DAB (disambiguation).

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)
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates