Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Shortcut

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where

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
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

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-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 `{{db-userreq }}.` 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 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 {{ 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
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
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	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	24	87	111
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	2	8	10
RfD	24	58	82
AfD	0	0	0

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.

March 21, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Donny Breek

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: Speedy Keep: Wrong venue, redirects should be handled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Breek

)

This is a redirect to a minor league baseball team from an obscure minor league baseball player who played three games with that team three years ago. He is not mentioned in the article itself. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As this page is a redirect, more properly this should be discussed at WP:Redirects for discussion. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 20, 2025

User:44Nifty/sandbox

Violation of

WP:COPIES from United States. Srf123 (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - This is the content of the article from 2022 and does not reflect three years of editing to the article, and so is a
copies of mainspace articles should be deleted is that they do not reflect editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

March 19, 2025

Template:User love kisses

The invitation in this userbox isn't appropriate, and it's generally rather juvenile. A userpage is essentially a Wikipedia editor's office wall: it isn't a private space, it's communication to colleagues, and this isn't appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bashar

Expresses support for a war criminal who had committed genocide on his own people. We might as well have a "This user supports Adolf Hitler" userbox 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per result at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PlanespotterA320/Userboxes/Supports Assad. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 17, 2025

User:Викидим/Entity list

Procedural nomination on behalf of Pinchme123, who previously tried to nominate this page for deletion but ran into technical difficulties. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was incredibly strange. The system ate my rationale as well, and I cannot find it in the diffs in my edit history. I am currently rewriting it and will post shortly. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal, as I deleted the page you had created erroneously. I can pull it back up for you in a second. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page runs afoul of

WP:TPNO: Misrepresenting other people. Specifically, this user created the page specfically to track only me with factually incorrect information. When my attempts to have this information corrected failed, the user ultimately reverted to the first inaccurate version with an edit summary asserting their "attempts to accommodate editor's requests failed". Their last edit before this deletion request was left the page without evidence of their supposed "bare facts", because they removed the diff they had previously included - which at least showed context. This page does not qualify as "Wikipedia-related matters" as it is a single-entry "list" about only me, created only in response to my interactions with this user, who does not appear to maintain any other similar pages about others. Pinchme123 (talk

) 18:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, the bare URL you had inserted in this text caused some problems for the {{

tq}} template, and perhaps may have been the source of your initial bug as well. I replaced it with a wiki-markup diff. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec) Thank you for helping find it. Apologies if this additional info makes my request too long (I "suffer" from verbosity, but will cut this down or out if it shouldn't be here).

They made the reversion to the page's initial state once i pointed out once I made a plain request for them to delete it and pointed to

WP:POLEMIC guidelines. Finally, this page should not benefit from the wide latitude given to namespaces because the final edit to the page makes clear, hey are asserting their opinion about my own user talk page status. [1]

. This is probably the primary reason they've created a page solely about me.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am old, and my memory is not as good as it used to be. I was always particularly bad with the names, so to accommodate this issue I always try to write things down. Some editors on Wikipedia are quite sensitive to the way they are addressed, I am perfectly OK with that and honor such requests. Usually editors state the way they want to be addressed on their user pages, if they do care. However, sometimes, like in the case of Pinchme123, there is no user page, yet there is a desire to be called in some particular way. Going against such suggestions will surely create problems, so I need to keep the list of these suggestions as a crutch for my memory.

I see no issues with this page: it lists a (single so far) fact that is public, non-offensive at all, extremely useful, near-impossible to find elsewhere, and 100% neutral. Pinchme123 had chosen not to record this preference in any permanent place AFAIK, yet violation of this unwritten rule triggers long discussions that I would prefer to avoid in the future (cf.

WP:POLEMIC

, is useful to me, and is buried deep inside my personal pages so a regular editor would not even notice it (incidentally, I was really surprise by the attention Pinchme123 is paying to my contributions, as we, to the best of my knowledge, only interacted once, on a discussion page, and the discussion was reasonably civil, and I had accepted Pinchme123's points).

Contrary to Pinchme123's statement, the entry does not violate

WP:TPNO

and is factually correct: I was told not to use the word "colleague" in my communications with Pinchme123 very explicitly: Both of us editing Wikipedia does not make us colleagues either. Please adjust your language accordingly. I have immediately acknowledged his request, only to get a reply starting with Jesus, you are insufferable

Due to my past as an ex-researcher, I think of people that I work with as "colleagues", so I sometimes address other editors using this word. My job includes a lot of travel and many switches between devices per day, so keeping information that might prevent another outburst directly in Wikipedia is common-sense for me. Викидим (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history of edits of the page in question is simple:

Page was created with initial text and a link
Pinchme123 objected and suggested his language that implied that Wikipedia editors are not colleagues. This is in the eye of the beholder, I happen to think otherwise, and so do many other editors using the word.
I had tried to accommodate the request, and failed (the discussion escalated)
I had therefore restored the original text, but indeed removed the link later to make page even simpler and matter-of-factly. If the link is an issue, I would gladly restore it.
I would happily accept any wording that would allow me to keep three words on the page: "Pinchme123", "avoid", and "colleague" (provided, of course, that the statement will be factually correct).

Викидим (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To rely on Викидим's own words, the subject matter here "is in the eye of the beholder, I happen to think otherwise [from you]". Their position is that they're sharing their opinion about me (and, apparently by happenstance only about me), in opposition to my own opinion. It may seem mild to other editors, but I do not appreciate an editor being allowed to maintain a page only and specifically about me. There are plenty of other avenues for Викидим to remember information they think they are going to forget. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no opinion whatsoever on the page being discussed, it is just a reminder to myself that I was told not to use a particular word when addressing a particular editor. On this page my statement about the "eye of the beholder" is also simple: I do believe that here we are all collaborating and therefore are "colleagues". You apparently do not think so. Hence we think differently - no big deal, I have written down your guideline precisely with the intent of following it. Викидим (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is easily within the scope of what a user is allowed to have on their user subpages. The user who is requesting deletion seems to be easily offended by various things that are not offensive, and does not need to look at this page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 16, 2025

User:WebHamster/religion

This is even worse than the other one I nominated. WP:Hate is disruptive. It literally could not get clearer than this. If I created a userbox saying "I HATE GAY PEOPLE" I would get blocked and the userbox would get deleted. Which is fair. But someone can do the same thing to religion and its been around for over a decade and lots of people use it? The double standard here is insane and it frustates me.DotesConks (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general note are we meant to be notifying all transcluders on Userbox MfDs? Although looking at incoming links at least 121 users have this on their page. SK2242 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think not, because that would bias the outcome of this debate heavily toward keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not determined by vote counting.

The users being accused here of unacceptable communication on their Userpage have a right to be notified that they are being judged, and, if in good standing, a right to reply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The case for deletion would be stronger if the userbox singled out an individual religion, and one could argue that this userbox only attacks a belief system rather than individuals, but its potential to offend outweighs its value for self-expression. Its hard to make an userbox about religion not polemical. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "I don't like X" seems to match

WP:POLEMIC to me. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

I think "I don’t like X" is perfectly acceptable; for example, "I don’t like cats" or even "I hate apples" is not offensive or derogatory to large groups of people. "I don’t like religion" would be a valid expression of a user's opinion. The issue here is the implication that religious people make the world less sane, safe, and happy. That is polemic and offensive to a lot of people. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: probably counts under
WP:POLEMIC. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The userbox would fall under
Some1 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
So in your mind saying that a world without religion would be a saner place does not also imply that religious people are inherently less sane than atheists? Well, I think it absolutely does and for this reason it is an attack against a group of people.
Nickps (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Replace the word "religion" with "astrology"/"capitalism"/"communism"/"caste system", etc. I wouldn't find those statements to be attacks against a group of people per se.
Some1 (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I would. Believing that the world would be better without communism means believing that communists make the world worse. Believing that the world would be saner without astrology means believing that astrologers make the world less sane. The implied attack is still there.
Nickps (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
That's like saying people who criticize Islam are Islamophobic. Saying religion is stupid ≠ saying religious people are stupid.
Some1 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
So what?
Nickps (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

To be clear, making factual claims about a belief system that happen to paint it in a bad light is not something I consider an attack. It would be impossible to uphold
Nickps (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There is a big difference between "I hate X people" (which I agree with requester should be deleted) and "I believe it would be better if people didn't believe X". While I'm not a huge fan of userboxes in general, and ones on contentious social opinions in particular, we have a longstanding tradition of accepting those which legitimately can be viewed as explaining the viewpoints/biases a user may bring to their editing. This is an example of that.
Martinp (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I disagree with the idea that criticism of a concept is automatically an attack on people who espouse and/or believe in it, and thus do not think that this userbox violates
WP:POLEMIC. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, because this implies that religious people are less sane than non-religious people and make the world less safe and happy.
attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Expressing a negative personal opinion in a userbox is fine (such as "This user doesn’t like dogs" or even "This user thinks religion is harmful to society"), but expressing a negative personal opinion about other people is not. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The userbox doesn't express a negative personal opinion about other people though. It says This user believes any universe would be a happier, safer and saner place if there were no religion. which is another variation of "This user believes that a world without religion would lead to greater happiness, safety, and sanity." Regarding
Some1 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I also think the other statement is inappropriate, because it still implies that there is something wrong with religious people. You can’t separate the concept of religion and the people who practice it when you’re talking about sanity. As far as soapboxing, I don’t really think it’s best for users to express their opinions about anything besides their interests and their identity on their user pages. But there is a lot of flexibility offered there. My example statement "This user thinks religion is harmful to society" is soapboxing, and it is divisive, but it is at least not offensive to anyone. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not
WP:POLEMIC, and a defensible option to hold, and an opion that might be relevant to their editing biases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

User talk:Andomedium/List of vegans/draft38765

Per

WP:STALEDRAFT #4: Copied from List of vegans on 2012-07-06, no significant edits after 2012. Paradoctor (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as stale draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GI0109

Don't quite know what to do with this. By appearances, this was first drafted in the user's /sandbox, G13ed in 2022, undeleted, declined, G13ed again in 2023, then copied to the user's talk and abandoned again. Delete / blank draft content / split to /Ju Young Seok ? Paradoctor (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously and blank any content inappropriate for and irrelevant to a users talk page. There is no precedent for and it is wrong in almost all cases to delete user talk pages. SK2242 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion of a user talk page containing an unsourced
redaction from the user talk page is needed. MFD is a content forum. The restoration may be a conduct issue, but we don't deal with that by deleting a user talk page containing user talk content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and blank draft content per SK2242. Xoontor (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:E2a2j/sandbox airwing

Per

WP:COPIES #4: Copied from mainspace 2009-09-23, last significant edit same day. Paradoctor (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Why is there not a speedy deletion criterea for

WP:COPIES? Maybe under G13? -1ctinus📝🗨 16:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought about proposing it, but decided not to because there were a large number of faulty nominations, mislabelling an old Userpage draft of a current article, where the draft contained required attribution data. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These
redundant forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Question - Would a
MFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft:Spiros Rantos

References are all made up by AI. If this person is notable, this page needs to be TNT'd.

b} 06:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Weird. He was real. https://music.uq.edu.au/article/2024/11/vale-spiros-rantos-1945-2024

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AI-slop for a recently deceased person, while not a BLP violation, is problematic. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having AI-slop article about a recently deceased person, which likely contains incorrect information, is disrespectful. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few of the references are real. Most of them are phony, and that is reason enough to delete the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A review of the history shows that the references in the version of 1 March 2025 appear to be valid, but that sources were added on 15 March 2025 that are fabricated. This musician may be notable, but this draft should be deleted, and another editor may develop a new draft or article from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peristome/UserBox/GodMMAtheist

This seems incredibly disrespectful to religious people and almost taunting them. I'd suggest delete because there is no reason (Wikipedia can survive if all userboxes were deleted) for userboxes to exist and its taunting religious people by claiming that god made X user atheist, and they cant do anything about it. DotesConks (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedians are allowed to say all kinds of stupid things about themselves. We are not generally in the user-thought censoring business. BusterD (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - probably not quite antagonistic enough to be disruptive, but makes me think we need a high-level Category:Edgelord Wikipedians to put this stuff in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Userbox Migration (aka the German Userbox Solution)—that is, allowing things like this to exist but in userspace rather than Wikipedia: or Template: space (to make it clear they don't have official endorsement)—was
Iridescent 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, because this is sarcastic humor and does not imply anything negative about religious people. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 15, 2025

User:Popsracer/sandbox

22-year-old sandbox for an editor not seen in 20 years, containing only the word, "empty". BD2412 T 01:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as a
ragpicking, or is there a reason for their finding these things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
- @Robert McClenon: I reject the notion inherent in your essay that ancient untouched user spaces subpages by long absent users impose no structural cost on the encyclopedia. As it happens, I do an insane number of very small routine maintenance tasks. I might wake up one morning and decide to find all the instances of a period-space followed by a comma, which is usually grammatically incorrect, and fix all the ones that are in fact errors. However, since I use the AWB internal search mechanism, this turns up all of the errors in user pages along with those in main space pages. In short, long-abandoned user subpages crowd my list, and this annoys me. Now, I will grant that the page that I have nominated here does not pose such a problem, but it remains useless to any search that might conceivably turn it up, other than my own search specifically for long-untouched userspace subpages by long gone users. Their existence does not serve the reader. Wikipedia is not a permanent host for single words floating in userspace. BD2412 T 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not that familiar with the tool but isn't it possible to exclude userspace in your AWB search? Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ca: Apologies for not noticing your query earlier, I conflated it with the next comment at the same indentation. Regarding exclusion of userspace, it is not always that easy. When searching for insource Wikitext errors, it is still useful to look across multiple namespaces (errors can occur in templates, portals, drafts, even category and file space), and AWB maxes out numerically for some searches, meaning that cross-namespace error searches that turns up a lot of userspace stuff will leave these errors in other spaces outside of the search return. BD2412 T 01:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for explaining - I see AWB has some technical limitations. However, individually nominating thousands of empty userpages seem like feels like shooting mayflies. Perhaps this issue could be solved at the software side, or policy side, with the addition of a new CSD. In any case, I stand by the reasoning I gave in my !vote. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  This page is not a problem, but
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  This page is paradigmatic of stuff that does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Your proposed solution is way too broad.
  
  You should not be responding to text error hits in userspace, and certainly not for userspace pages titled “sandbox”.
  
  You surely can find a way to filter results.
  
  Editors’ userspace subpages are like a workers desk space in a back room of the business. Interfering with others’ backroom workspace, such as doing typo corrections in their personal notes, is not the sort of thing that you should be doing.
  
  I am also not confident that a mass pages approach will accurately identify worthless pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this needs deleting unless there's anything bad in the history. SK2242 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason why this would need to be deleted. 88.97.197.61 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The nominator might have easily tagged this page as G7 and any admin would have deleted it appropriately as user blanked. If User:BD2412 decided to ask here, I trust their instincts 100%. Delete as qualifying for speedy G7. BusterD (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not qualify. Check
WP:G7
more carefully.

I would be very angry if I found you had deleted my blank userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do not delete the userspace of inactive users. Doing so creates the self-fulfilling prophesy that they’ll never return. Even at 20 years. We also do not delete userspace page blanking as G7. The cost of this MfD far exceeds the negative cost of keeping the paged archived. Bringing worthless harmless things to MfD is
busywork
.
If you thing an old page is worthless, quietly blank it, with {{Userpage blanked}}. If you’re mistaken, you can be reverted at no cost.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor-time this RfD has consumed far outweighs extra half a second to skip this page in AWB. ~~BD2412 has not answered by question.~~ Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not convinced that this page turning up in potential search results is problematic enough for it to be deleted. There is little reason for anyone to edit userspace of other users in semi automated fashion and all namespace search results in AWB can be easily filtered out by individual namespaces anyway. Srf123 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 14, 2025

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kharavela Deva

Abandoned RfA with no realistic chance of revival; see previous rationale established at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/veek2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Админ.МК. it's lio! | talk | work 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 13, 2025

User:Jdvillalobos/beautifulwomen

I do not think I am a prude, but if I had a poster with this image and caption on my wall at my workplace I would receive censure on the grounds that at least a few colleagues would find that a hostile workplace. The same standard ought to apply on Wikipedia. If this person wants to display this image in a private space I'd have no issues with it, but a Wikipedia userpage isn't really a private space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposal, like proposals to set limits on political advocacy, should be put to an RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t like the “prude” aspect of the nomination. There is a place for nudity and sexuality, and even in controversial forms, with appropriate context. The problem here is the context, and I agree that a userbox is like a poster in the workplace, and this userbox has intent, not to appreciate beauty or nudity or sexuality, but to practice an old fashioned practice that is now considered unacceptably derogatory of women.

If the text were instead “This user appreciates the beauty of the nude female form”, I would be more hesitant to agree to delete.

As “deletion” is on the cards, you need to notify all 28 transcluders. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is tagged for deletion. (If you go to any of those userpages, you can see the deletion notice rather largely.) Notification - though courteous - is optional. - jc37 08:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People don’t check their Userpage regularly to see if a transclusion is nominated for deletion. Transcluded notices aren’t like a talk page post which pings, and can be set up to trigger an email.

Not inviting stakeholders to a discussion means the discussion is invalid. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That argument could be used for any page on an editor's watchlist. Yet, tagging is the notification system we use. Userboxes are merely templates. - jc37 20:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Userboxes are users’ statements on userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And an infobox lists basic info about the subject of an article, yet both are still templates. - jc37 23:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox summarises information that should already be in the article, and post-deletion of the infobox, the parameters data in the infobox can be recovered from the article history. Information is not deleted.

Deletion of a Userpage transcluded userbox deletes a user’s Userpage statement, and this is egregious, to censor user’s Userpage statements without even inviting them to the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think notifying all users with this userbox would constitute

WP:CANVASSING. There is no requirement to notify the users who have transcluded templates on their user pages, and doing so would skew the outcome of the debate heavily toward keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 23:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

No. This is not canvassing, because they are direct stakeholders. They are the accused, being judged by this discussion. As the image is currently non offensive, the continuing rationale can only be of offensive communication. Natural justice demands that they have an opportunity to defend, and consensus is not vote counting.

If it were a mere technical issue, the nomination would be to subst and delete, but it is not.

I’ve decided to

WP:ping

. them. Many of the transcluders are inactive. If their are not active, it doesn’t matter. Pinging is transparent from here. Pinging doesn’t alert their talk page watchers, which might be advertising too far.

I’m skipping blocked accounts.

User:HypertimeTraveller

User:Charlotte Tame/Userboxes

User:Jacopo Werther/My Userboxes

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any policy that requires or even suggests that users with transcluded templates be notified when the template is nominated for deletion. According to the instructions on this very page:

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.

So it appears that only the user who created this userbox should have been notified. Therefore, I do not agree that users with this template on their user page are "direct stakeholders" in this discussion, and they are certainly not being "accused" of anything. Another thing to consider is that the content of user templates can be changed without notifying anyone, as was the case here when someone unilaterally decided to change the photo.

And yes, this is not a vote, but my concern is that specially notifying dozens (hundreds in some cases) of users who have a known opinion could skew the community consensus in MfD discussions. It’s one thing to notify the creator and a few significant contributors as with AfDs, but potentially flooding the discussion with users who have a vested interest in keeping the userbox is inappropriate in my opinion. I₂Overcome ^talk 07:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back when

WP:VOTESTACKING. - jc37 10:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - We have a policy provision that is more often misinterpreted than interpreted correctly, but it is applicable in this case, and that is
Wikipedia is not censored. It is true that this image does not have encyclopedic value, but a lot of userboxes do not have encyclopedic value. An RFC, as mentioned by SmokeyJoe, would be not only to create a new guideline but to amend a long-standing policy. It is a policy that may need rehashing, because it is often misinterpreted, but it is a policy provision. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Robert, with due respect, that's a dreadful misapplication of policy. NOTCENSORED articulates the longstanding principle that we do not subordinate encyclopedic content to the desire of some readers not to see some types of content. This is a userbox, in userspace. It is subject to all our guidelines for interactions between editors, which are considerably more stringent. If NOTCENSORED applied to editor-facing content, our civility policy could not exist.
While we're on the subject, I also strongly disagree with SmokeyJoe's notion that an RfC is necessary. We have applicably policy and practice on how editors are expected to treat each other. We don't need to set a precise demarcation of what appropriate userbox content is to know that this userbox is inappropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vanamonde93, I didn’t say necessary.

I’m for consistency, and I have seen arguments go both ways on things like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think everyone (including the nom) has been fairly eloquent and in general I agree with them all, for various reasons. However, I do think this specific case can be addressed in this venue. On one hand, I think userboxes can be useful to help indicate things about an editor. However, I seem to recall that we've seen people try to put nudity on subpages before, and usually gets removed due to
user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.". I think this is an uncontroversial Delete. - jc37 17:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete allowing content like this does not improve the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image seems very last-century and I think we should do anyone thinking of displaying this a favor by removing it. Prurience is not compatible with a user page. I am astonished to see NOTCENSORED still being misused—that policy relates, for example, to showing anatomical images in an article on anatomy. It has nothing to do with shock or porn pictures on a user page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm curious, what do people think of these following userboxes, which are similar to the one being discussed?

This user loves South Korean girls.

This user loves Swedish girls.

This user is madly in love with Canadian girls.

This user is madly in love with Canadian guys.

This user appreciates nice lingerie on their partner when they see it.

butt

This user likes big and or nice butts

This user enjoys pornography.

jacking

This user likes to masturbate

PORN

This user "may" look at lots of pornography

This project page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to deletion.

Yum

This user loves Kisses, especially when they're received. *That's a hint*

Some1 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Some1, I find them creepy and inappropriate. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

* Keep I have removed the offensive photograph, I will look for a better image. ~~Catfurball (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now that the image has been removed and replaced with something more PG, I don't think User:Jdvillalobos's userbox is any more 'offensive' than the other userboxes listed in my comment above.
Some1 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I have differing opinions on each of those, and as they are not up for deletion here, I wouldn't get into those opinions. My general principle is that we are splitting the difference between acceptable display of personal opinion and conduct that would generally be prohibited in a workplace: it isn't solely about images, but about objectification, and of expected conduct toward colleagues. The "That's a hint" text in one of the boxes above is in my view the worst offender in this regard. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Full Objection to
WP:Otherstuffexists and is not part of the topic at hand here. Keep this discussion on topic to this userbox please. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
As above, this is an egregious misapplication of NOTCENSORED, which refers to article content. The policy this violates is
WP:CIVIL; this is essentially a pin-up, and it is not an appropriate to a workplace environment, which we unequivocally are. I couldn't care less about what anatomical features are displayed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

No it does not. WP:CIVIL does not govern anything with imagery or visual content. It governs the verbal/text interactions between people with what is said and how issues are communicated and resolved and nowhere does it state anything about visual media, therefore it only governs what was written in the userbox and the context of what that is communicating. The communicated idea is the same whether the image of a clothed woman or a nude woman. Had the image been that of Venus of Urbino or some other equally reclined nude portraiture (of which there are thousands and thousands in museums), or of a clothed model with the same caption, I don't think this discussion would be happening. And yet, that portrait of Urbino contains more nudity than this infobox's imagery. You are again arguing your view on taste, not facts of policy. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy?
WP:NOTAGALLERY - as I noted above. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened (and in all likelihood, won't be the last...) - jc37 10:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:UBXNS) so since these are not articles, that also does not apply. and lastly in 4, if you are arguing "[image must] provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to commons", ie, "this is a random thing unrelated to Wikipedia, go somewhere else with it", then you are arguing against nearly all userboxes and opening an unimaginable Pandora's Box since most userboxes are not encyclopedic in nature and are typically items/topics of personal interest with no real encyclopedic merit. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete we do not need to offend women editors with this userbox. Catfurball (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different from the multiple, equally non-sexual, nude women you display on your user page? You are also arguing matter of personal taste, not a Wikipedia policy this userbox violates. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 19:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC) ended today on 21 March 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.

March 11, 2025

User:Meco/Ascensionism

User:Meco/Ascensionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

I was going to G13 this page but then swiftly realized that there was history from 2006 so I decided to go through MfD just in case there's any attribution concerns. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason for deletion offered. It is not G13 eligible because it is not an AfC Userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:NDRAFT. And because people policing others userspace and then bringing bad things to a high profile forum is quite a negative. If you think it is worthless or less, blank it, and be more free to do it for 12 year blocked accounts. Use {{Userpage blanked}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep per SmokeyJoe. SK2242 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not technically
SPI because they have been hibernating. Delete as work of banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Robert McClenon. Catfurball (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2025

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheere

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

@
Fram: raised the outing concerns both at this AfD and at the related Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#Incorrect_draftifications_by_User:NenChemist. There was no point in prolonging the AfD when no one was arguing for deletion, but I'm not sure whether the Outing concerns are sufficient to delete it even IAR, so bringing here for discussion. I'll also notify Liz on her Talk. Star Mississippi 14:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

I thought outing (claiming editor X is real life person Y, without disclosure by X and irrespective of whether it is correct or not) was a bright line policy, requiring blocking and oversight or suppression. At least, that's what is done when "outing" even the most obvious case is done on e.g. ANI. But perhaps this only applies when someone with enough wikifriends is being outed? Anyway, that's a general ramble, thanks for starting the MfD, I just don't understand why it takes so much effort in this case.
Fram (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Irrespective of whether or not the initiator of the AfD should be blocked or not (at the very least, even if OUTING doesn't apply - and it likely does here -
threads critiques 16:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
If NenChemist returns and follows a similar pattern, whether inappropriate drafts or UPE accusations, I will not hesitate to reblock Star Mississippi 01:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the
WP:OUTING concern is justified we shouldn't be having this MfD. Oversight the original AfD and this MfD nomination because neither one should exist. Discussion should occur among oversighters. If the AfD isn't outing anyone, there isn't a point to deleting it in my view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If the (supposedly) outed editor is concerned,
WP:Courtesy blank
the AfD. I don’t see this as being required, but defer to the editor.

In the very unlikely case that blanking is not good enough, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously, the MfD tag also appeared in the
Nickps (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

March 2, 2025

Historic places drafts

Historic places drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

There are several large lists of drafts on the following subpages:
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York/drafts
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Connecticut/drafts
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Schenectady County, New York/drafts
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts
These are all 14 years old, and mostly contain entries that have already been created, although some are redirects. The drafts that don't already exist as articles have little content, most of it automatically gathered as far as I can tell. These lists were created by a now-deceased editor and have not been maintained in many years. Wizmut (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion doesn't save hard drive space. I don't see what is gained by deletion. I don't perceive a meaningful attribution hazard coming from this content, or any other problem.—Alalch E. 13:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be offtopic but I'm curious if it should be treated as something to be maintained, or simply as archival content. Wizmut (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not as something to be maintained. Maybe as archival content. Most likely it should be treated as nothing. We don't need to delete it to be able not to treat it as anything, we can just ignore it. —Alalch E. 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist to permit another examination of these pages. It appears on first examination that these are draft versions of articles that are now in article space. If that is correct, they should probably be deleted as
copies of mainspace articles. It is not something to be maintained. It probably has no archival value, but another slightly more detailed, but not exhaustive, review, would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
These stubs were generated in a semi-automated process by extracting information from public-domain official sources, and bear no significant human authorship. These pages if copied from, and no one is ever going to do that, would create a copy of something so generic, that attribution isn't really a topic. —Alalch E. 17:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1281615495"

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Articles is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.Privacy Policy