Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	29	29
TfD	1	7	8
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	3	3
RfD	0	31	31
AfD	0	1	1

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 3, 2025

User:Grundle2600/userboxes/Sweatshops

This userbox claims that sweatshops in poor countries are good, actually. If you want a guideline which supports deletion, try WP:UBCR, but I don't need a PAG to explain why this is a terrible thing to host anywhere on Wikipedia. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 19:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the idea that sweat shops are better for workers than the alternative has some support within economics and business ethics, Wikipedia is not a place to be expressing controversial beliefs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2, 2025

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

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

Delete This page is basically a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about, no reliable sources, and original research. It also misunderstands because pages are technically articles, and we are not a news website so, with that note, delete. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:C9DA:D3D3:82B5:86DF (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The benefit of deleting this sort of stuff is marginal. It takes volunteer time to delete useless drafts. Being unlikely to be accepted is not a reason to delete drafts. The originator appears to be not here to contribute, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not urgently problematic. Most likely, a child wrote this, and they are not going to appreciate having their essay deleted entirely, and it is best to not give them reason to resent the Wikipedia community. WP:NDRAFT notes this as one of the reasons to leave drafts alone. In the interest of not WP:BITING, this should be gently declined and then left alone to disappear. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – While this is a draft so no major concern, this is a misplaced an attempt at an essay that has no chance of making it through, and therefore can be treated as such. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mr carrot man

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

Delete: Per WP:DENY. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: As a hoax. That is the reason I rejected and not declined. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 02:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The editor who declined the speedy deletion is an inexperienced user who meant well. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – G3 indeed probably applied, but we can correct that now. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vandalism Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 16:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:10,000 most common passwords

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

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

Keep: I don't think this is posing any issues. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 1, 2025

Draft:Hollywoodedge, Bird Hawk Single Scre PE020801/Image Gallery

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

Delete - I don't know what the purpose of these pages is. They don't look like ordinary useless drafts. They may be the beginning of the development of a walled garden. The apparent benefit is zero, in which case the net value is negative. The author appears to be not here to be constructive, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misuse of Wikipedia for hosting pages about personal interests by a non-contributor.—Alalch E. 20:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I think we can apply WP:NOTGALLERY here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously useless and not constructive. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – per nominator. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lil star(artist)

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

Delete: Clearly promotional. WP:GARAGE material. No use keeping it. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot to mention that I checked the draft on GPTZero and it has been confirmed as 100% AI generated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for at least three reasons: promotional tone; apparent use of artificial intelligence; unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People make some music, usually hip hop, pay for distribution to appear on streaming platforms, and use a chatbot to write some promo text. Then they put that text on Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 20:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like how G11 for this chatbot-written ad about a living person was declined. —Alalch E. 20:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some admins are very conservative with regard to G11 in draft space, and would prefer to see doubtful cases decided at MFD. It appears that User:asilvering is one of those admins who is conservative about G11 in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that I'm conservative about G11 in draftspace, but I'd prefer them to be settled via G13, especially in the case of drafts that were never even submitted to AfC. I'm even less enthusiastic about them coming to MfD, where they waste even more time and effort. -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should have deleted this or left it for another admin to delete, because this content is quite inappropriate regardless of namespace and length of stay, and summary deletion is fully supported by policy. —Alalch E. 17:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deletion by G11 would have been appropriate and uncontroversial, and would have precluded this MfD from taking place. Declining speedy on a draft is pretty much asking it to go to MfD. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This MfD has made me wonder if we need a wider discussion on stuff like this. I understand why admins might be reluctant to G11 these, as they feel it may discourage a new editor but, at the same time, ChatGPT is producing articles that are clearly G11 worthy and, in a lot of cases, with false or exaggerated claims. Sentences such as Musical Career Breakthrough Lil Star's career took off with the release of his debut single, "Happy House," in 2024. The track quickly went viral, garnering attention from music blogs and hip-hop fans alike. are blatantly false once you do a bit of research. In my view, WP:TNT absolutely should apply to these promotional ChatGPT drafts but I wonder if there is a way of deterring new users from creating promo AI drafts without deterring them from Wikipedia altogether. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's a question worth asking. If someone's first idea for how to contribute to Wikipedia is to paste LLM outputs advertising made up garbage, I have serious doubts that they could ever be capable of contributing anything useful at all. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – G11 would have been appropriate ; (not surprisingly) 100% LLM-generated according to GPTZero. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31, 2025

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

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

Delete: Per nom. Is a WP:POLEMIC draft, and not appropriate for the project. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Simply not what Wikipedia is for. Stands no chance whatsoever of ever becoming an article, and would be entirely inappropriate anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:Nationalist editing creation. Promotion (agree with the nom). Shouldn't be hosting material like this.—Alalch E. 03:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On the one hand, WP:POLEMIC does not appear to apply because it is a userspace guideline. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a soapbox does apply, because it is in the What Wikipedia is not policy, which prohibits: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.. This might or might not be G11, but it is not a proper use of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, as a clear violation of WP:NATIONALIST and WP:NOT. It could also be interpreted as Indophobic. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Sundostund. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Djanildo Vicente

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

Delete: Per nom. This is obviously G11-eligible. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had the opportunity to delete this but did not. It does mot meet my criteria for WP:G11. However, it is a webhosty screed that has no place on the encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is not a webhost and is not some sort of uncurated collection of information, it needs deletion. MFD is the way to go. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Again, this is a marginal G11, but it isn't marginal as to whether it should be deleted at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC
Delete per the others.—Alalch E. 20:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – easily G11 worthy, WP:NOTADVOCACY. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diemoures B

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

Delete: Borderline G11 case, understandable why the speedy was rejected, but still should clearly be deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO, if this were on a user page or in pagespace, I believe G11 would be quite appropriate. Draftspaces (or sandboxes) are for development and should usually be given time. That said, I agree 100% with the nominator: no sources worth a hoot, AI use confirmed (100% at GPTZero), and promotional language. Delete. BusterD (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure whether I agree on the decline of the G11, but that doesn't matter. It is close enough that it should be deleted as promotional, and artificial intelligence is also a separate reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement.—Alalch E. 20:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Fits G11 in my view, and starting to think we need a speedy deletion criterion for pure LLM garbage like this. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 28, 2025

Wikipedia:Three best sources

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

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

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

Keep, obviously. There is no valid reason for deletion stated here, just egregious ownership. I was accused of "stealing" the content (which is clearly openly licenced), for which RoySmith has yet to apologise, or retract.

I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused.

Since forking the essay - with due attribution in my edit summary - and making it available for the community at large to improve (it is, of course, not "my own"), I have already begun to modify it (as others are welcome to do), so it is no longer the same thing as RoySmith's personal copy, which remains where it was and is still available for him to refer to as he sees fit.

The accusations of "a deliberate attempt to confuse readers" is, of course utterly without foundation and an equally utter failure to assume good faith, and I invite RoySmith to retract that also. For shame! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused. Okay, but I don't really see why that's a problem. It's allowed to be where it is. It's not disruptive or anything for an essay to just stay in the user namespace and there's no reason to demand moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. It's fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I demand it be moved there? I've explicitly said that he is entitled to keep his preferred version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that "steal" was a poor choice of words. I've struck that. RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect that was initially created at this title. RoySmith is allowed to keep the essay where it is, and this title as a project space redirect was sensible as a means to allow editors to quickly find it. Hijacking the redirect to the essay for whatever it is that Pigsonthewing is trying to do here is not appropriate. The appropriate place to do something like this is on a subpage in your own userspace, or in your own user sandbox. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place to host an essay for the community as a whole to edit and use is not my (nor anyone else's) user space. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jonesey95's proposal of moving this to another name and then restoring the redirect. That seems reasonable. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a different name and restore the redirect. Some people may intend to link to the userspace essay from this page, and that long-standing link should be preserved. It's fine that this repurposed text exists, but it should not usurp the original links created by the first author. Improve the new version of the essay, create a new name for it, and create a new, snappy shortcut for it. (I have removed wikitext from the page that claimed it was linked to from a shortcut that actually points to the userspace essay.)
Repurposing the essay in Wikipedia space removes a disincentive for other editors to improve the essay; we are discouraged from editing pages in other people's userspaces, even pages that are commonly linked to from discussions. Removing that disincentive is a good thing; Pigsonthewing and I have already polished the text, and more will probably happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original text written from the first person is much more convincing. You are concerned about the snappiness of the new shortcut but what about the authenticity, persuasiveness, and, ultimately, snappiness, of the actual content? The essay works better for the whole community as-is, it has a greater impact as a viewpoint expressed by one editor, emerging from his lived experience, which was then accepted by many and was widely disseminated. The project space clone is a net negative. —Alalch E. 18:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and restore redirect per Jonesey95.--Laun chba ller 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note that Roy previously wrote that forking the article was an appropriate thing to do, as long as the forked text doesn't imply to be his opinion. As it stands, he acts as sole guardian of his essay, which might serve his purposes but does not necessarily serve the higher purposes of the Wikipedia community. I would hope that he would be proud to have given birth to the essay, and with the bold input of a range of editors I would hope that this new, community version might be subject of an RfC to become a guideline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Treat as a naming dispute—start an RM to determine where the (original) essay shall be~~ (switched to "delete"18:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)). This is about a single page, a literary work whose proper title is "Three best sources". To get the tecnically complete Wikipedia page title, this can be preceded by "User:RoySmith/" or by "Wikipedia:". There is disagreement on whether it should be one or the other. Whenever a name is disputed, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requested moves. The community is able to change a userspace essay to a projectspace essay even if the author of the essay disagrees. Delete the redundant copy. Treat what has been done as an improper and incomplete cut-and-paste move.
Pigsonthewing said: I note that other editors have previously asked RoySmith to move the essay to Wikipedia: space and he has refused—so start an RM.—Alalch E. 14:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone else to agree with my analysis, in order to procedurally close this and migrate the process to Wikipedia:Requested moves: @RoySmith, SilviaASH, Jonesey95, and Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for considering.—Alalch E. 14:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USERESSAY seems to say that Roy is entitled to keep his version, in the form and location in his userspace that he prefers, and others may work on a separate version with a view that it becomes 'proposed', with a hat tip to Roy. Not ideal per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays but Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roy doesn't seem keen to let others improve his personal essay No. It is unfair to Roy to say this. By looking at the page history, there's zero evidence of Roy's (as-would-be-legitimate since it's his userspace) ownership of content of the page; the essay was edited by multiple people. He's not been exhibiting a desire for control. Interpreting this dispute in such a way is a misunderstanding. —Alalch E. 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have other people write essays based on mine. If you disagree with what I wrote, that's perfectly fine. Write an essay espousing a different point of view. Stand up and proclaim to the world, "Roy Smith is wrong, and this is why". If you want to reuse my text, technically I can't stop you. CC-BY-SA gives you that right, and leaving a link in an edit comment certainly fulfills the legal obligation imposed by the "BY" part of that.

What I'm not happy about is taking something I deliberately wrote in the first person in my user-space to express my personal opinion and republishing it with instances of "I" changed to "reviewers". And doing so under the same title, which has been well known for years. What possible reason was there to do that, if not to confuse people? AGF has its limits. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Curb Safe Charmer. Roy should be allowed to keep his version in his userspace, if he so wishes, while the community may work on another version of the essay. However, if Roy would rather this be dealt with at RM as you propose, then I say deal with it at RM. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the community can still move the essay in a consensus process. And it doesn't appear that this is an essay that RoySmith doesn't want others to edit, it's just an essay that he believes works better as a user space essay for the whole community. He just needs to be told by multiple editors that it is a good essay for project space, and additionally, that there's nothing that distinctive and colorful about the writing style of the essay. It is written in a balanced and serious style, making it indistinguishable from any good project space essay in style, and many project space essays have more "personalized" writing style. In addition, the viewpoint presented is widely accepted and not anything like a minority opinion.—Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I support moving this to RM. The Manual of Style does not apply to project space; essays can be written whatever way the author(s) may please. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? He's entitled to keep his version in his user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't want his version, he disputes moving the essay to project space. It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content. He believes that for the entire community, the essay in question should be a page titled "User:RoySmith/Three best sources". It appears that this is because it is written in his "distinctive writing style", but that may not be because he is interested in maintaining that style as such, but because he doesn't believe that essays in project space should be written in such a style. —Alalch E. 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: I don't know why you wrote "It doesn't at all appear like he's interested in maintaining control over content" when he clearly does... a few quotes from Roy on the essay's talk page: ""I'm trying hard to keep it terse" ... "working fine as is" ... (by another editor) "I tried to broaden the essay to be AfC inclusive but RoySmith reverted" ... "I have on occasion (not too often) accepted changes people have suggested" ... "people keep messing with it in ways I don't agree with" - these all indicate a desire to tightly control the version in his userspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't, that's not remotely the level of control over content that is only appropriate in user space and not appropriate in project space. All pages are edited on a consensus basis. —Alalch E. 15:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Did you actually read WP:USERESSAY? To quote policy: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." ... "The author of a personal essay located in their user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read it. I understand what you're saying very well, but I don't see evidence, in the page history, of RoySmith using such prerogative on multiple occasions to the extent that goes beyond what an author of a project space essay might do. So, in project space, an editor might also say "I prefer it staying the way it was on grounds of style", and the two editors could then discuss it on the talk page. In all important aspects of the essay, on substance, there haven't been significant attempts to change its message. That's because what it says is pretty mainstream. —Alalch E. 16:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't want his version (he clearly does), he can nominate it for deletion.

Your suggestion was that I should try to force his version to be moved, contrary to his wishes; I have no interest in doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. —Alalch E. 18:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a thought on alternative approaches - could the content be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources which already has the redirect WP:3SOURCES pointing to it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the substantial change folks want to make to Roy's essay that he will not permit in userspace? Is it just "we must have control of your essay" for the sake of principle? A dislike of the use of first person point of view? I'm struck by how unnecessarily aggressive this seems to have gone down compared to the pretty minor changes in the essay. Certainly agree that all existing shortcuts should continue to go to the original essay, and that some sort of retitling makes sense to avoid confusion. Also tend to agree that WP:Multiple_sources seems like a pretty natural place to just drop the "three" idea rather than have multiple sources and the personal essay and the basically-the-same-as-the-personal-essay-but-in-projectspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK#1 no reason for deletion. As interesting as this discussion is, it is not a deletion discussion. It belongs on the talk page. Use WP:RfC for more attention. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't exactly understand when I first saw this MFD 48 hours ago, and I still or again don't understand, even if it is morphing. It appeared to be a request to delete an extremely useful essay, not because of anything wrong with the essay, but because of what appeared to be an issue about ownership, although it is also said that this isn't about ownership. An essay on Three Best Sources is needed, and it has been cited often enough that the shortcut WP:THREE should refer to it. I don't fully understand or know why User:RoySmith wants the essay kept in user space, unless it is ownership, which I am told is not the case. I see that one reason for the essay to be in userspace is that it is written in the first person, stating the experience of Roy Smith, an experienced AFD and DRV participant, and that the version in project space is written in the indefinite third person. I now see that the issue is whether to delete the project-space version. Why should either version be deleted? Can both be kept, with different shortcuts, and WP:THREE continuing to point to the Roy Smith original? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think both should be kept and the shortcut should be retained, as I stated above. It seems like most other people agree with me, or are at least ambivalent on the issue beyond general agreement that no deletion action should take place. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There were two confusing requests on 28 May 2025 to delete two useful essays on notability. I wondered what the difference between them was. The answer to that question was obvious: 97. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and restore redirect – per Jonesey95. This discussion should have happened on the talk pages of the essays. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did attempt to discuss it on the talk pages. PotW made it pretty clear that he didn't want to discuss it. RoySmith (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant non-helpful content. Inferior to the orignal essay. No one should ever read it when the original essay exists. Net detriment on the website. Extra useless without the established shortcut. Usurps the redirect which should stay as it used to be. Don't move it out of the way, just delete it. It can't be merged into Wikipedia:Multiple sources (WP:THREESOURCES ... note the superficial similarity) because that essay advances a particular interpretation of GNG ascribing a particular meaning to the word "multiple", and has nothing to do with the topic of WP:THREE. Similarity due to the appearance of the number 3 in both essays is superficial. RoySmith's essay works great for the whole community in RoySmith's userspace and there has been no problem in that regard. Work with RoySmith on any stylistic ideas, and the substance of the essay is not in dispute anyway.—Alalch E. 18:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:One hundred words

This is a procedural nomination. I deleted this essay per WP:G7 yesterday, but said I would restore it and file this MfD if it proved controversial, which it has. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The new page is not the original essay, but is intended to be some kind of placeholder to explain what the essay was. As far as I am aware, we do not create placeholder pages like this for important deleted project pages, let alone for obscure pages of no importance or interest. The number of incoming links is tiny, and most of them are duplicates or non-citations. The essay was very rarely cited in community discussions. It will never be cited again, and should never be cited again because it no longer exists. No-one cares what it said. It could not have affected consensus (WP:DETCON). It cannot affect future consensus. It makes no difference to the project. No one (apart from new page patrollers and MfD participants) is going to read the new page due to the small number and obscure location of the citations. If no-one wants an essay on this subject, there should no page. It is not clear what purpose the new page could be used for other than WP:DEADHORSE, though I think it will probably be used for no purpose at all. The new redirects are positively harmful, as they could make editors believe that the essay still exists. The essay should simply be forgotten. James500 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not familiar with whatever drama led to the current state of this page, but the essay that previously existed here advocates a worthwhile and agreeable viewpoint. I think it should be retained in some form. Ideally, I would advocate restoring the old revision of the essay, and, if necessary, improving it to address whatever concerns or criticisms that editors may have expressed about it in the past. However, at the very least, the explanatory note should be left on the page as it is, and the original essay should be accessible via the page history to any interested editors. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant, influential, project essay on a still unsolved controversial and troublesome question. It was cited in important discussions, including by me. If it is not the original essay, restore the original essay. James500 is a smart Wikipedian, and there is a lot of wisdom in the history of his posts, even if he is not perfect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deny User:James500‘s wish to deassociate from the essay. James is prominent in the history of WP:N, #40th editor to the guideline, and #23’rd (231 posts) to its talk page. James was an articulate inclusionist, and measures of “significant” as written into the WP:GNG, are crucial in the inclusionist-deletionist balance. WP:100WORDS (nite that most links are by shortcuts) is a strong claim, noting the context, secondary source content directly addressing the topic.

Even if James were to exercise his right to vanish, it is an important record that the same account that was so influential at WP:N is a major author of the notability essay, and when. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and mark historical and without a snarky summary please. Don't think we should outright delete as there are too many incoming links which would break archived discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or outright keeping also works. Either or. Curbon7 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a snarky summary, you've misread the page's history —Alalch E. 09:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ritchie333 is the procedural nominator and the material initiative to delete comes from James500 (who made the most contributions to the essay and tagged it for WP:G7). Other editors also made substantive contributions. James500 has stated that the essay is causing him problems and wants it deleted and "forgotten" (essentially, erased from history). The essay needs to be kept as deleting it is not consistent with the deletion policy, and the community should help James500 with the problem he's been having in some other way, if possible.—Alalch E. 09:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore original - Looks like this has been cited/referenced by several people other than the primary author and had some nontrivial edits by other users at time of tagging. If there's harassment going on, that's something that should be addressed, but CSD probably isn't the way. Perhaps if James500 feels strongly that he does not want to be associated with this essay anymore, he could relinquish his authorship, we delete it, and someone else could just recreate it with the same content. Unorthodox, but perhaps that would satisfy everyone? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re "he could relinquish his authorship, we delete it, and someone else could just recreate it with the same content": That would be acceptable. James500 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any volunteers here to be the first edit of a new page with the same content? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If James500 does not want to be associated with the essay, he can simply voluntarily stop associating with it (acknowledging it as 'his' essay, editing it, etc), and the community can retain it to use and improve as is desirable. If he is being harassed for creating the essay, then the people who are harassing him should be blocked and/or banned. However, that is a discussion more appropriate for WP:ANI or some other such venue. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Doing that would be a forgery. Analogous to a forged document. It isn't consistent with WF ToS and WP:C. You can't retroactively remove attribution from the work once you've "stamped" it with an irrevocable license demanding attribution. I.e., you can't release with a license requiring attribution that is irrevocable and revoke that license to cause the work to become an abandoned work (someone else could claim it as their own) or transmogrify the attribution retroactively so that someone else is somehow supposedly the author. A freely licensed work is not an abandoned work. Pinging Whpq for an opinion. But I am again noting that others' contribution are not so negligible and are in fact substantive, which may make this theoretical.—Alalch E. 14:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you can't release with a license requiring attribution that is irrevocable and revoke that license to cause the work to become an abandoned work - Yes, of course you can. You can't regain rights you've released, but you can release more rights up to and including donating it to the public domain. That only means you cannot act as though the more restrictive license is still in force. I hope that we do not arrive at a situation where people want it to be kept, but only if it can also be primarily attributed to someone who has disowned it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should James500 agree to release his contributions to the essay into the public domain, making attribution to him unnecessary, I support this compromise. It is important to note, however, that other authors must remain attributed (per WP:DUAL). If there is some mechanism by which James' attribution can be removed (deleting his revisions, perhaps?), this would resolve the issue.

@James500: Would you be willing to dedicate your contribution to the essay to the public domain so that any attribution to you could be removed? silviaASH (inquire within) 15:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the attribution to me, including my username, and the links to my userpage, and my editcount, and the list of my userrights, is removed from the page history of the essay, I am perfectly happy to release my contributions to the essay into the public domain. I do not know if that is technically possible with the software. James500 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Changing visibility settings, it does appear that it is technically possible to remove the attribution. This would be a very atypical use of WP:REVDEL, so an administrator's opinion would be required here, but I personally think it would be appropriate in this case if consensus for it is attained. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites is correct. James500 still holds the copyright to their contribution, and as the copyright holder they can choose to release it under a more permissive license which does not require attribution. As for removal of attribution in any page history, the removal of the username is possible via WP:REVDEL and I believe it would meet condition R6 for revision deletion but other admins with more experience with revdel policy weighing in would be helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd contest that a little bit by saying that you can't relisence a thing that was once released with a particular irrevocable license, you can only create a new copy/version with a more permissive license. I don't really disagree with Rhododendrites, but my point is that you can't change the license of edits made; you can republish the same content with a different license. Can't do anything retroactive to already existing copies. I'd say that an entire new page would be needed. Am I wrong? —Alalch E. 16:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can relicense the same work with a new license. The CC license is irrevocable but effectively nullified via a dual license with public domain declaration. So yes it would need to be copied (what I was getting at with Any volunteers here to be the first edit of a new page with the same content. The tricky bit isn't James' license but the other users who contributed and how best to credit them if it started fresh. If there were support for this, probably have to do something like (1) blank the page, (2) revdel, (3) restore the page, referencing its own history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think James should create a brand new page at possibly a temporary name with all the content which is originally is, while being careful to exclude any content that is not his and can be construed as substantive contributions (for example, if someone else added the nutshell, that is a substantive contribution), and add that it it is released under a suitable license in the edit summary, and in the second edit, he or someone else can copy over all the other contributions with an edit summary listing those other contributors (WP:RIA), and only then could James' initial edit be revdelled, and the original page should be deleted, and the temporary page should take its place. —Alalch E. 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be much simpler for an admin to use RevDel to remove James' name from the revisions in the already extant essay page. If I understand the details at WP:REVDEL correctly, it looks like it is possible to remove only his name and leave behind the text of the revisions. Since he has already agreed to this, it seems to me that this would be the best option. I think it goes without saying that if this is done, I would say the essay should be restored afterwards. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the community has decided what, if anything, I need to do, please let me know. James500 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support revision deletion of James500's username within any diffs on the page in question. James, I've been a victim of OWH myself - I can confirm it is such an unpleasant experience, and I am sorry you had to go through it. I hope you understand my belief that the essay is useful and informative, and should stay in some capacity. But I also agree that, for your safety and comfort, we should be taking steps as a community to safeguard you from further harassment and stalking. Patient Zero^talk 03:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I don't understand this MFD either.~~ It appears that on 28 May there were two requests to delete useful essays for reasons that I didn't understand. On reading the history, I see that, as of about 0500 GMT, 31 May, what is listed is the original text of a useful essay on significant coverage with which reasonable editors may agree or disagree, and is better written down than stated as unwritten knowledge. I also see that the original essay was deleted at the request of its author, and a placeholder was added in its place. I disagree with that action for two reasons. First, the original essay should not have been deleted. If the original author was being harassed, then decisive action by ArbCom or the WMF is needed, but the action should not be deletion of the essay, which would send the message that harassment is the way to sway policy interpretation. Second, the placeholder was merely confusing. The original essay should be restored or kept. At this point, I don't know what it is that this MFD is asking, but I know that I want the original essay kept. I have no objection to having a name redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose revision deletion of the creator's username. The proposal above is not a standard usage, and I do not understand how it will be effective.
1. The username is already known to the bad actor(s).
2. It will continue to be available elsewhere. Will this MfD be redacted and revision deleted also? I confirmed other places in a few minutes.

I echo other comments that the community should aid the author if possible. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to allow the author to take their name off an essay makes it impossible to effectively disown the essay. If the name is redacted, it would it impossible for anyone to claim the author now continues to be responsible for the essay, or that he supports the essay, or to take diffs out of context, or to try to involve the author in any fight over the essay. Right now, it would be possible for someone to say "This diff proves that the author is [insert false accusations here]". Most editors would simply accept that at face value. They would not check the page history, or the talk page, or this MfD, or anything that I have said elsewhere. I am not capable of dealing with that. James500 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that we should not do something at the author's request because it will not be effective is unpersuasive when the author is aware of the limitations and feels like it will be effective. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rough Tree 3 Estimate

The entire "article" is just a 400,000+ digit long number (estimate of the extraordinary large number TREE(3), with Kruskal's tree theorem). While it is kinda cool, I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for this sort of stuff; this estimate seems to be original research which you couldn't feasibly write an article about. There's no NOTWEBHOST equivalent for drafts so I'm nominating it here. ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This would have been deleted in 14 days via WP:G13, but now you've now reset the 6 month timer. Leave abandoned drafts alone, the process takes care of them automatically. I do not think there is a valid rationale for early deletion of draft, but seeing as the timer was about to expire, wouldn't have issue if it was deleted. Curbon7 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote to keep what is obviously unsatisfactory but I echo the advice above: leave drafts alone unless they are blatant attacks or other bad stuff that requires immediate attention. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This should have been left alone, but now that it's here it may as well be deleted. It clearly has no potential as an article and I can't see how the author could have imagined it would ever be an article. However, in the future, recommend that nominator ignore submissions like this unless they are urgently problematic in the ways laid out at WP:NDRAFT. This could also have been a WP:G2 candidate. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as pas SilviaASH. When someone asks to delete something from draft space because it is useless, we can ask whether it was about to be deleted by the self-clearing G13 process. There is no set definition for "about to be deleted", but this was about to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We're already here and there's no chance of this becoming an actual page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NDRAFT. We're here and we might as well not be here; the page will still be deleted. So...—Alalch E. 19:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC) ended today on 3 June 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

May 26, 2025

User:Pookiebear69/sandbox/Igloo effect

This is just the WP:Article wizard placeholder with the addition of "started page". It has no chance of becoming an article, and has been abandon since October 2023. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator An alternative to deletion is clearly appropriate here. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC) I stand by my original nomination, since apparently I can't close this early.Legend of 14 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a WP:RAG. Leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I found this through Category:Stale userspace drafts. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. If it's very important to clear that stale category, you can just remove the template at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STALEDRAFT is valid. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, guidelines are valid. And this doesn't qualify. How is this page "problematic even if blanked" for example? Digging around other people's userspace looking for stuff like this to delete is not a good use of anyone's time. What exactly are we accomplishing by creating a whole discussion page (this one) dedicated to what's effectively a test page in a sandbox that nobody will ever see other than the creator and people looking for unnecessary work in other people's user space. (Sorry, I know I'm coming on strong here and you're relatively new to this -- I tend to comment on these [IMO] frivolous userspace nominations because userspace is supposed to be a safe place for people to experiment, draft, make mistakes, and play around. It includes serious drafts as well as notes, wikimarkup experiments, and all manner of stuff. And that's ok, because it's not indexed and doesn't affect anything else. There's just no gain to balance against (a) having an extra discussion, and (b) potentially initiating unnecessary conflict with the user whose space it is, or (c) demotivating users who now feel like they've done something wrong. For things like the category you mentioned, there are typically other ways to clean it up, like removing a template. FWIW.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I can withdraw the nomination, I'll blank this page and move on. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You can withdraw it if you so choose: WP:WDAFD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have taken a quick look at that maintenance category, and I think it is clear what is needed, which cannot be done by MFD and cannot be done by Ragpicking. There are 39,560 stale userspace drafts in that category. Any human-based process is the wrong way to deal with the category, regardless of whether the category needs dealing with. What is needed is a bot to walk through the category and determine which of the authors are in good standing, and notify those authors that they have stale drafts, and to produce a report listing the indeffed users who have drafts in that category, and how many drafts each indeffed user has. Some of the users have simply forgotten that they started work on those drafts, and notifying them will reduce the number of drafts in the category. That is the first step. The second step may be deciding whether a third step is necessary. We certainly don't need to discuss thousands of useless drafts. I was thinking of draft space drafts when I wrote Leave Useless Drafts Alone, but it also applies to userspace drafts. We don't need to review them one by one, or one dozen by one dozen. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The existence of these 39,560 stale user drafts is an interesting situation. Reviewing them for deletion at MFD is the wrong answer, regardless of whether there is a right answer or even whether the situation is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About withdrawing: Legend of 14 You can only unconditionally withdraw triggering a speedy keep. You can not state that you withdraw as the nominator while continuing to advocate for an outcome other than keeping for that withdrawal to have the same effect as a procedurally full and proper nominator withdrawal. The discussion can't be closed early based on your "withdrawal" here. For a close based on withdrawal there can't be anyone left in the discussion who supports any outcome other than "keep", and "blank" is its own oucome, different from "keep", and as you clearly support blanking, you are invalidating your own purported withdrawal.—Alalch E. 10:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been speedy deleted as G13, which expressly includes empty drafts even without an AfC tag. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mhgsalim/sandbox/MHGsalim

This is just a placeholder that looks like it came from the WP:Article wizard. It doesn't look like it will ever be viable as an article. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a WP:RAG. Leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this through Category:Stale userspace drafts. There's a huge backlog for that maintenance category. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's good to clarify I guess, but my opinion on the matter of deletion is the same. This isn't a copy of a mainspace article, it isn't any sort of harassment or BLP violation, it's just an unstarted userspace draft which may have been meant to become something but which the user hasn't yet gotten around to working on. I don't see a reason to bother deleting it. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. If it's very important to clear that stale category, you can just remove the template at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STALEDRAFT is valid. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly the most useless of the batch that has been nominated, but still no valid rationale for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:G13, which says that WP:Article wizard placeholders like this should be deleted after 6 months. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 is about AfC submissions and drafts in the drafts namespace. This is neither. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 also applies pages in userspace that are just the article wizard placeholder, which haven't been edited in 6 months, see WP:G13, paragraph 3. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have taken a quick look at that maintenance category, and I think it is clear what is needed, which cannot be done by MFD and cannot be done by Ragpicking. There are 39,560 stale userspace drafts in that category. Any human-based process is the wrong way to deal with the category, regardless of whether the category needs dealing with. What is needed is a bot to walk through the category and determine which of the authors are in good standing, and notify those authors that they have stale drafts, and to produce a report listing the indeffed users who have drafts in that category, and how many drafts each indeffed user has. Some of the users have simply forgotten that they started work on those drafts, and notifying them will reduce the number of drafts in the category. That is the first step. The second step may be deciding whether a third step is necessary. We certainly don't need to discuss thousands of useless drafts. I was thinking of draft space drafts when I wrote Leave Useless Drafts Alone, but it also applies to userspace drafts. We don't need to review them one by one, or one dozen by one dozen. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been speedy deleted as G13, which expressly includes empty drafts even without an AfC tag. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 for this draft was declined by User:Hey man im josh. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:OComainDraft

This is a WP:POVFORK. The Ó_Comáin article already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering may I ask why Bastun is attempting to delete the draft article when there is an ongoing Talk discussion here Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was already explained to you in the section you linked. It is a WP:POVFORK. We do not improve articles by having a draft and live version of an article; we work on the live version. It's the way Wikipedia has worked for 24 years. There is no reason to change that now. Work on the live article, where everyone can see your work, rather than a tiny number of editors who are aware of your draft being expected to follow updates. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note I could have just replaced the draft with a redirect to the live article, as generally, drafts of articles aren't kept when there's already an article. It's possible an admin may still do that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be a CFORK of the original article. It is hard to read through much of the llm-discussion, but in doing so I'm not seeing how this Draft will help. Part of the past issues were huge-scale changes that were hard to parse, and the creation of a separate draft reinforces that challenge. This could be userfied, but it doesn't really work that edits to the draft are done which are then moved to the actual page. Better to keep all the edit history together. CMD (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this deletion nomination. The draft was created in good faith due to NEW secondary sources. This was not an attempt at a POV fork, but a required refresh in light of new matertial. I created a pre-emptive talk page discussion before any edits and, in fact, this draft page was recommended by an admin (@Asilvering) for section-by-section review.

More concerning, however, is that this nomination comes after repeated dismissive commentary from Bastun and Fram—accusing me of bad faith, suggesting I “move away from all related articles,” stating I “expect minions,” and that Irish clan content like this "belongs on Wordpress, not Wikpiedia". Bias against Irish clan material as a subject category—is not neutrality—it’s selective gatekeeping. Scottish clans are broadly covered under a dedicated WikiProject.

I’ve improved the article using reliable sources, community input, and transparent drafting. If there are flaws, I’m happy to fix them collaboratively. But deletion here would punish good-faith editing and send the wrong message about openness to cultural history on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irish clan content absolutely has a place on Wikipedia. What you are doing, though, is adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is poorly sourced and has included multiple copyright violations, reads as promotional, contains appeal to authority language, and is not WP:NPOV. Perfectly fine for a privately hosted clan website (except for the copyright violations, obviously!), not so much for an encyclopedia. When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! Requiring editors to stumble across a reference on the talk page to a separate draft article where "improvements" are being carried out, where we are expected to changes to the draft article, and the main article? That is not how Wikipedia works. This has been pointed out to you many times, but WP:IDHT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest salvo in a content dispute where both sides have, for a long time now, continuously assumed the worst of each other, making it completely impossible to reach any sort of consensus. You can see some of this even in the back-and-forth above: Kellycrak maintaining that there is some kind of bias against Irish clan material as a subject category (they have been repeatedly explained that this is not the case, and that their contributions have issues with sourcing and WP:DUE), Bastun acting as though there is something deeply nefarious or incompetent in Kellycrak's attempts to take feedback, eg When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! (the copyright violations referred to here were to post images of sources to Commons, so other editors could see the text - an obvious copyvio, and a situation where editors very commonly email copies of sources to each other when necessary, eg for WP:GAN purposes). -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That my repeated attempts to get the editors involved to calmly and politely discuss specific issues of disagreement has been characterized below as continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering is a pretty good illustration of the problem. I'd be at ANI suggesting mutual IBANs if I thought it would do any good, but since that would basically cede first-mover advantage to Kellycrak, that's obviously not ideal. Good luck, MfD regulars. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreliable WP:OR with POV issues added. Today, I said about another draft by the same editor:

"The Inisfallen sources seem to pose problems quite regularly, in Draft:Célechair mac Commáin as well the claim is made that "The Annals of Inisfallen (AI705.1) state: "Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin." (“The battle of Corco Mruad, in which Célechair son of Commán fell.”)" The actual Annals say "AI705.1 Kl. Flann Fína son of Oswy, king of the Saxons, rested." Basically, every single thing you post needs to be doublechecked as much of it is just wrong. "

So what do they do just now, under the guise of "source review"[1]: add a reference "1. The Annals of Inisfallen 704/5 Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin. " (layout original).

Despite the continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering, it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months, with continued copyright violations (not just the ones discussed above by Asilvering, but uploading someone else photo's as their own, or copyvio text which had to be removed today), misrepresentation of sources, copying sources from other articles without checking them, and so on. Fram (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram writes: it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months. Those are conduct issues that are out of scope of MFD. I think that the editors at MFD should avoid trying to decide the content issue of deleting this draft when the conduct is complicating things. This is a dumpster fire, and we should not worry about whether to rescue papers from the dumpster or throw papers into the burning dumpster. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct isn't complicating things, it is making it more clear that this is an unhelpful attempt to get their POV into the article by writing it separately and then giving an ultimatum at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you very well know @Fram from our ongoing Talk, I said I'm currently working through the sourcing with a fine tooth comb. It's a DRAFT page!

According to Cotter; Annals of Inisfallen in 751 (Mac Airt 1951, 110) notes the death in Aran of Colmán mac Commain.

@Fram once again, instead of constructive feedback, you’ve chosen to escalate things into a personal attack. "booted off Wikipedia completely"—this isn’t critique, it’s hostility. It's nearly every interaction I’ve had with you, and it’s not in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What has a 751 entry for Colman to do with a 704/705 entry for Celechair? You do nothing substantial with feedback, making the samy type of mistakes or even the exact same mistakes over and over again, and then answer completely besides the point, like here. Fram (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in the lead is for the name appearing "in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" so yes it's relevant, Colmán mac Commain appears there, I've also added Celechair correct referencing (Gibson and Cotter suggest they're brothers). Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn´t explain why you added a completely wrong reference here, while claiming that you were actually doing a source review and when it had been already pointed out to you today that you made the exact same error on another draft before. The kind of issue we have had way too often already. Fram (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you. The 3 subpages I'm not working on yet. What 's the point if this page gets deleted. The correct citation is in the lead now for "which appears in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" if you still see a problem with it let me know and I'll fix. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least at this time - This is an ongoing content dispute that is complicated by conduct issues, and this nomination appears to be an attempt to use MFD in order to "win" the content dispute, because the regular editors at MFD are not familiar with the details of the dispute (and may not want to be familiar with the details). This dispute clearly needs to be resolved somewhere, but MFD is not the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ó Comáin: as is the usual practice. A way to resolve a content dispute about the direction an article should take is not to start a FORK, but by discussing it in the articles talk, utilising dispute resolution/RFCs if necessary. TarnishedPath^talk 06:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also being hashed out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dumpster_Fire_at_Talk:Ó_Comáin. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I discussion has now been archived, with no conclusion or decision. Can we resume the MfD? My objection to this draft is that it's a POVFORK, and the editor who created it expects other editors (who happen to discover it) to work away on his draft and on the main article, and that's not how Wikipedia works. I would recommend that the draft page be userfied (is that a word) so Kellycrak88 can work away on it. When he is happy with a change he has made there, he can copy the change to the main article, where others can edit it, improve it, remove it, or leave it as is. Which is essentially how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun, a redirect would maintain the article history, so that the editor could access the code and work on it in their sandbox if they wished. TarnishedPath^talk 12:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curtesy ping to @Asilvering, @Chipmunkdavis, @Fram, @Kellycrak88 and @Robert McClenon given the end of the WP:AN/I discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said what I have to say, though given your !vote above, @TarnishedPath, I'll reiterate that creating a draft is a common and even encouraged way to deal with large-scale content changes that may be controversial, and does not preclude WP:DR or RfCs. -- asilvering (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Creating a draft for editing or discussion purposes as a proposed replacement for an article is a valid interim approach to a content dispute, especially when the content dispute is controversial. Asking to delete the draft as a content fork looks like it is preserving process, but is a subtle way of stonewalling. Resume discussion on the article talk page and the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better draft than user space, in this situation.—Alalch E. 19:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates