Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFDWP: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 for you. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G7 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:,^[a] Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
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.

Notes

^ The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

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:MFDHOWTOWP: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
t
e
V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	1	53	12	66
TfD	1	22	7	30
MfD	0	2	0	2
FfD	1	22	1	24
RfD	0	50	16	66
AfD	0	0	5	5

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.

October 8, 2025

User:Kaanaeli Kaale/Bashiru Aremu

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashiru Aremu, no need to keep this 2021 version of the same article around. Fram (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but this vote is tentative based on whether I understand correctly what this is. This appears to be a copy in user space of an article that was deleted after a deletion discussion. This is no longer exactly a redundant fork, but is ready to be Rejected in draft space because it was already deleted in article space. If my understanding is incorrect, please ping me. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the sandbox for the now deleted article. An hour after finishing editing the page at MfD, they created the article (no issue there, I often create articles the same way). But it makes no sense to keep a 4 year old BLP draft for a now AfD deleted article (and by an editor who hasn't edited since). Fram (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary restrictions UBX

These are described as "Dietary restrictions and stuff that I just bloomin' hate" on indefinitely blocked and TPA blocked former editor's personal Userboxes page. These violate UBCR, as they target and attack users with these dietary restrictions in a vulgar, rude manner, as well as arguably promoting FRINGE views about those dietary restrictions. I would also like to note that seemingly no one is using these userboxen and so they're just lying around gathering dust on our servers. They are inflammatory and not very useful, and multiple other userboxen by this user seemingly were already deleted, with the exception of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is getting some use, so I'm not nominating it. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Needlessly imflammatory/divisive. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not conducive to Wiki collaboration --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't normally get involved with userbox deletion discussion, but these smell bad. On examination, the difference between these and coprolites is that they have not fossilized, and so they still stink. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2025

Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

AI-generated hoohah. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this draft article is unsalvageable. I found some sources were valid. I think it would be worth keeping this draft in case other editors besides the page creator want to improve it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unless the nominator or another editor explains how the draft is rendered toxic by the use of artificial intelligence. Note that this draft was just rejected immediately before being nominated for deletion. Rejected drafts should normally be ignored for six months, unless they are either improved by a good-standing editor, as suggested by Liz, or are resubmitted or otherwise reworked, in which case they should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This draft has far to go to be ready for mainspace, if it ever will be, but is not unsalvageable. That is precisely what Draft space is for. Likely AI source hallucinations in its earliest incarnations seem to have been addressed, so that's neither here nor there now. Martinp (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future months 2026 to 2036

All those future months have not begun yet, so there is no point in having those pages that say nothing besides what day of the week those months begin and end on and how many days they have. The "Events by month" template should then be removed from all year pages from 2026 to 2032 to avoid redlinks. GTrang (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but only from January 2027 and onward. 2026 is right around the corner so what's the point of the 2026 ones when it'll be recreated again in nearly the same format? 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The portal is being actively maintained and viewed. The pages appear to have been recently created by editors who are probably involved in maintenance of the portal. I see no argument for deletion of these pages as long as the portal exists, and I do not see an argument at this time to delete this extremely active portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2028 and later Mass creation of nonsense should be discouraged. It looks like most have been created recently by 5120North15thStreet (talk · contribs) (222 edits; account created on 27 September 2025). Have they been notified? See WP:CRYSTAL. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That editor looks like an enthusiastic newbie. We should carefully direct him to something more useful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GTrang, please post a notification at Portal talk:Current events. This is firstly a question for editors involved with the portal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason why current events pages need to be created over a decade in advance. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:B5DA:AC06:5749:A86A (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes no sense to create pages so many years in advance. Catfurball (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 6, 2025

User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

Apparently orphaned userfied version of an article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) and salted in mainspace (Involuntary celibacy). Valoem has not edited since 2020. Fails WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Pinging userfying admin GorillaWarfare for her input. Sandstein 15:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an abandoned draft. I userfied it at the request of Valoem, who never ended up editing it, and hasn't edited since 2020. Thylacoop5 did edit the draft in 2018, but was checkuserblocked in 2019 and hasn't edited since. The draft hasn't been substantively edited since 2018, and could always be undeleted again if someone decided they need it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Treat this as if it had been in draft space, or as an attempt to game the deletion of the topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was actually looking in to the history of this page just over a year ago, because I knew that how and whether to cover this topic had been a matter of extreme controversy in the past, and was toying with the idea of asking GorillaWarfare whether it would be worth moving the userspace history behind a main namespace redirect or something for historical interest. Yes, if this discussion closes as delete, the page can almost definitely be undeleted if necessary in the foreseeable future, but Deleted history can be theoretically cleared at any time though it's vanishingly unlikely these days (see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages). I also wouldn't be surprised if, with a topic as controversial as this, there are plenty of things in the edit history that are much better off being deleted. So I'm not certain enough about this to cast a !vote either way, but I'll take this chance to note the one thing that I was looking for when checking out the early history of this page, the earliest date when someone tried to write a page about this concept, which was 13 March 2004. Graham87 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the concern about deleted history being cleared, can you clarify? I'm skeptical of the value of maintaining this draft, as it's essentially a userspace POVFORK. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Unlike normal page history, deleted history isn't backed up anywhere externally (for good reasons) so on the highly unlikely event that it's ever erased from the Wikimedia servers, there'll be absolutely no way to get it back except old database dumps. My user subpage about page history observations shows the consequences of deletion of this history (mostly in 2003 and 2004) on various articles. But (a) the software is very different now, so this is much much less likely for many reasons, (b) old Wayback Machine versions might be good enough for whatever research people want to do, and (c) as you said, the topic's scope has changed dramatically over the years. My problem is with the idea that undeletion would be a relatively permanent solution if someone did want to retrieve the content in the future; it is in practice now, but it is and was never meant to be that way. Graham87 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Incel, to err on the side of history being available. The current article appears to be stable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, but we don't do cross-namespace redirects, right? Involuntary celibacy already redirects to Incel. And given that we have an uncontested "delete and salt" AfD, I see no grounds to undelete the history of the deleted article in mainspace. That would need to go through WP:DRV as an appeal against the AfD closure. Sandstein 12:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do cross-namespace redirects all the time. Userspace to mainspace and draftspace to mainspace routinely happen when a draft is mainspaced, and the redirect persists indefinitely. It is routinely the solution for draft forks, WP:SRE. It’s just mainspace outgoing redirects that we don’t do.

The SALTing having been sidestepped by the writing of a stable version at Incel is clear evidence that the SALT is unwarranted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that these are different topics. Incel is about an online subculture. The subject of this draft is about a supposed condition men who can't get sex have. That is the topic that was deemed inappropriate for inclusion and salted. I see no grounds to overturn that determination here. Sandstein 19:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are they different topics?

I am reading Talk:Incel/Archive 1#Recreated despite salt? for the first time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ciolyl/sandbox

Fantasy election sandbox for a fictional country. This basically copies 2025 German federal election and then mucks around with the introduction and infobox to present a 2023 election in "Yorn", while leaving the bulk of the body text as the real German election -- and while the infobox uses fictionalized names of party leaders, it uses the photos of Jacinda Ardern, Bill Clinton, Julia Gillard, AOC and Shinzo Abe to represent them. But even if you're changing names to not misrepresent the real people in words, it still violates WP:BIO rules to misuse images of real people by pretending that they're somebody different than they are.
As always, sandbox is for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when it's done, not for writing any random science fiction you want to for the funsies. And, as usual for this sort of thing, it was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is an absolute and total no-no. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are three problems with this page:
- The lede section is contrary to fact.
- The images are those of living persons and are being used contrary to fact, which is a biographies of living persons violation.
- Most of the body of the article is a copy of a mainspace article.

Any one of those problems would probably be sufficient to delete, and three problems is more than enough for the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daubmir/Old Daubmir page

Rejected G10, I don't think "fuck him" next to a person's name should be allowed to continue in user space. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(G10 decliner here) Then just remove that, which can be done without deleting the page. Otherwise, this is a (boring) humorous Uncyclopedia style page filled with stereotypical joke vandalism like we had it before we had antivandalbots and edit filters. It isn't particularly worth keeping around, but doesn't clearly meet any deletion criteria so it certainly isn't worth spending a lot of effort discussing. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not yet decided whether this warrants a Weak Keep or a Weak Delete. It is an unfunny attempt at humor that is, in my opinion, a slight net negative to the encyclopedia. It is not U5 (while there is U5) only because the originator did make 900 edits in 2011. Our guidelines are not clear about what to do with ugly pages by departed users. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The page was actually a copy from Uncyclopedia, not simply "Uncyclopedia style", and thus is a copyvio (Uncyclopedia's license is non-commercial and incompatible with ours). I've restored a previous version of the page (which is clearly acceptable) and requested revdel in the meantime. OutsideNormality (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 5, 2025

User:Mwmwali

This is an unsourced autobiography of a living person, which alone is a good enough reason for deletion at MfD. To provide further context, the user in question has been editing here for over 19 years yet has made no constructive edits to date, only self-promotion, including the now-deleted Masood Waseque. Their user page has been used as an unsourced CV for 13 years, despite Wikipedia not being a webhost. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. This is no better and no worse, in my opinion, from other unreferenced autobiographies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 4, 2025

User:Starchild33/sandbox

Unsourced BLP from 2016 Paradoctor (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP, unless a reliable source is added within seven days. I.e WP:BLPPROD. It doesn’t matter when the page was written, the writing of unsourced BLP material is not in support of the Wikipedia project. This sort of stuff is not “wrong”, and you can find the content at fandom, but it is not what Wikipedia supports. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no acceptable sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. This has been an unreferenced draft BLP for nine years, by an editor who only came to create this page and go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Our approach to BLPs has (rightly) evolved. This is stale, abandoned, and runs counter. No objection to restore if user re-appears and shows willingness to speedily add sources and work on this. Martinp (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maybelle Peralta

per WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion/vanity article, similar to User:Mqperalta94/sandbox. 0x0a (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not so promotional as to be G11. Notability is not a reason to delete drafts. See Drafts are not deleted for notability. It is a reason to decline drafts, and this draft has been declined. This draft is inadequately sourced, but is new. Unsourced biographies of living persons are deleted, but an originator should have a reasonable amount of time to add sources. Leave this alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Draft space is a good place for figuring out whether this has potential for an article. It feels unlikely, but that is not a reason to short-circuit unless this draft is tendentiously resubmitted or similar. Martinp (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Homosexualist/three-state

Was already really insensitive when it was created in 2009 and now it'd infuriate people. Distracting to the purpose of the website and userboxes. We're not a social media or shock site grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah shoot this should be in templates for discussion instead, my bad. How should this be fixed? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD is the correct venue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are we looking at the same userbox?? It's no sillier than any number of other silly userboxen. I don't see who this is supposed to be insensitive to. Nationalists? Homophobes? And the lack of an MfD in 16 years suggest it is not actually "infuriat[ing]" anyone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC), inflammatory second question mark struck 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind tone, it reads excessively dismissive. I don't think I'm a fool for suggesting this, contrary to your tone. It's offensive to both sides of that conflict. If the Korean War or large-scale violence related to the Korean conflict was still fresh or going on, and I saw foreigners making cracks about how a third division of Korea should be made for gay people, I'd think they were insensitive jackasses when there's still so much bloodshed. Of course people do make cracks about the Korean conflict now, but that's because the worst of it is long long past. But when stuff is going on literally now? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lack of deletion in 16 years is most likely due to obscurity; this template has only been used a few times. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you're a fool, grapesurgeon. I was bemused at this nomination because it's a bemusing nomination. The userbox is about as mild a joke as it is possible to make about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and off the bat you're saying it "was already really insensitive"; that's the kind of assessment that, yeah, makes me wonder if we're looking at the same userbox. Maybe the issue here is one of values. Maybe to you it's categorically offensive to joke about wars. It's your right to see things that way, but that's not a universal value, and in particular it's not a value you'll generally find among Israelis or Palestinians, two cultures known for morbid humor. You haven't cited any policies here, but the actual standard for deleting this kind of thing is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or ... to give widespread offense. If you say this offends you, I believe you, but I don't believe it would cause "widespread offense". And while the 'box might irk some nationalists or religious conservatives out there, I also don't think it meets the standard of likely disrepute, which traditionally has been a pretty high bar at MfD, usually reserved for outright advocacy of hate or restrictions on civil rights, or offensive images. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved discussion about tone

*:::Then agree to disagree; my read on the situation is not aligned with yours at all. I wouldn't disrespect you by laughing at your opinion and then doubling down on it. Do some of them make morbid jokes? Absolutely, but I imagine many are fuming. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I said your tone implied you thought I was a fool for nominating, and your latter comment confirmed that's what you think. There's really no feasible excuse for this, your tone was just rude.

To be clear, disagreement is normal; I'm ok with that. Being rude is not. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grapesurgeon, I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth, especially words I've explicitly rejected. I didn't say you're a fool, and I don't think you're a fool. I didn't laugh at your opinion, and I wouldn't laugh at your opinion. It's not really possible to critique a nomination that is based on the nominator's personal impression of something without getting into whether that impression is a reasonable one, but I made clear above that, while I don't think your impression is reasonable, I think it comes from a place of an honestly-held opinion as to what's okay to joke about. That's not foolish. It's just idiosyncratic, and probably not something to base an MfD nomination on. If you want to avoid this kind of feedback on nominations, I'd encourage you to stick more to policy and facts rather than personal opinion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to stick more to policy and facts rather than personal opinion this is putting words in my mouth. I made this nom to my understanding of the policy pages you linked; I already knew about those. We just disagree on whether or not it triggers policy.

didn't laugh at your opinion, and I wouldn't laugh at your opinion compare to I was bemused at this nomination because it's a bemusing nomination. Definition of bemuse, [1], to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement. Literally your message. If you didn't intend the rudeness, that's ok, but you need to be more careful about tone. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? First sense, "To make confused". I was confused, because what you said didn't line up with what I was looking at. I don't know what I've done here to cause you to look for the worst meaning in everything I write, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[2] What prompted it is the sarcastic jab mentioned here. And that's not an uncommon definition for bemused; google "definition of bemused" and generally the top hits include the dry sarcastic amusement bit. It's a common definition for it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we chose to take a more charitable interpretation to your tone, it's still "I think your opinion is bad to the point of being strange"; that's still rude. I never treated your opinion like that.

Again, I don't know how why/how you're still trying to spin this and make it like I'm the issue here. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad. It is strange. That's not rude. Anyways, if you really feel that the problem here is someone other than the person badgering the first !vote against their position in an XfD, you're welcome to take this to AN/I. I'll be asleep, but I'm fine letting my comments here speak for themselves. Good night. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No desire to take this to AN/I, common rudeness doesn't pass that line. Of course, no acknowledgement of the sarcastic jab you made. Good night. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My second question mark was unnecessary for getting across the otherwise valid point that your description of the userbox seemed inconsistent with its actual contents. I apologize for that. Apologies aren't transactional, so I'm happy to leave it at that, but I do hope you can think over this interaction over the next day or few and consider whether this was an appropriate way for an XfD nominator to respond to a slightly-too-pointed criticism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology, I'm willing to move past it too. The reason I escalated was because you kept denying tone instead of just apologizing up front. I'm very quick to forgive, but doubling down annoys me. Granted, I should have been more direct about pointing out what specifically had bothered me, but I feel like sarcasm is easy to spot. Water under the bridge though. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely wasn't denying anything. I just didn't realize that's the part that was causing you to read in that tone. And maybe I should have! But I didn't, and I'd rather you think of me as naïve than malicious. Tomorrow when I'm awake I'll send you a recording of the tone I had in mind with the double question-mark, but till then, at the risk of switching from one unclear medium to the other, think 😝, not 🙄 or 😠 or 🤭.
Feel free to collapse this exchange if you want. Totally up to you: I don't mind it staying up, but I also don't want this MWOT to scare people away from !voting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, with that in mind I apologize for coming off strong, no need for recording. I'll collapse this bit grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on this, It's not really possible to critique a nomination that is based on the nominator's personal impression of something without getting into whether that impression is a reasonable one You're acting like Are we looking at the same userbox?? was a necessary quip to include, as if the argument would've fallen apart without it. It's condescending, I'm not sure how you can deny that. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of Israelis have died and even more Palestinians have died too. I don't think it would be appropriate to say that Germany should have had a 3 state solution with one for the west, one for east, and one for the gays soon after the holocaust occurred. Humor about a contentious topic doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia since there is no free speech nor is Wikipedia a social network. Are people not going to be affected by this just because some Palestinians and some Israelis have thick skin and love dark humor? Sure that could happen, but they could also get triggered. Alternatively, people from other countries who feel passionately would get triggered. And even if no one is triggered, doing something bad and having it ignored doesn't mean what you did is bad. Also I have no idea how opposition to queer nationalism is homophobia, is opposition to maoism sinophobia, ba'aathism islamophobia and zionism antisemitism? 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 05:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Not likely to cause widespread offence. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was familiar with that userbox, and it never occurred to me that it could be divisive. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given the timing of its creation, this userbox was presumably created in response to Tel Aviv gay centre shooting in 2009. We may debate the wisdom of the sentiment, but it was an understandable and human response to a traumatic event at the time. The userbox was then removed by the user from their userpage a week later in [3]. It sounds like the nominator finds it offensive with a current-day lens, presumably assuming it is somehow intending to make light of the conflict as it stands now. That could be addressed noncontroversially by merely removing this userbox from the category where it was added in 2023 [4], and retaining it as part of the random flotsam of departed-user-space which we otherwise choose to do. Martinp (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yourlocalgeeb/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Deletion requested by page creator. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yourlocalgeeb/sandbox

Alternate history article positing an independent Islamic state that has replaced the Canadian province of Quebec. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write just any science fiction you want to for the funsies -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be transferred to mainspace as a real article when you're done with it, which obviously this cannot be. Bearcat (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as U1 or Delete as crystal balling. The originator has blanked the page after it was nominated for deletion, which may be treated as a request to delete. Recommend deletion of the sandbox rather than leaving it blanked, so as to remove the fiction from public record. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've nominated this for speedy deletion, per @Robert McClenon's idea. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:51, 4 October 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.

User:Supekolo/sandbox

Sandbox "article" about a fictional war that "occurred" in the future, principally online, over competing maritime EEZ claims by two countries much too far apart for there to ever be any possibility of competing maritime EEZ claims.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write any science fiction you want to for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be transferred to mainspace as a real article when you're done, which obviously this can't be, and just throwing the word "fictional" around in the body text a lot doesn't protect sandbox pages from having to be about encyclopedic real things. Bearcat (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as web hosting and crystal balling.
- This differs slightly from other alternate history because the originator has stated in the lede paragraph and in the infobox that it is fictional. That doesn't make this a permitted use of the sandbox. Wikipedia has articles about fiction, but they are about fiction that has been published so that the publisher is a reliable source as to the content of the fiction, and has been commented on as fiction by reliable sources. That is, saying that this is fiction doesn't make its coverage permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 2025

Draft:V. kuipers

Foreign-language draft that has the author's name but actually talks about the behaviors of baboons. Not written in an encyclopedic manner. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being in Dutch is not a reason to delete a draft but is a reason to decline a draft. Will expire in 6 months unless translated to English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:V. Kuipers/sandbox. This seems to be an initial step in a user preparing to add material to an existing article (about baboons?); it seems unlikely it was ever intended as a draft of a standalone article and probably created in draftspace using the New article wizard in error. Let the user continue working on it in their user space, and if and when they choose to introduce the material (translated) into an article, editorial proceses can determine if it is adequately sourced and not undue weight. It is worth noting that the study of homosexual behaviour in nonhumans (this fragment is about lesbianism in baboons, apparently) has a long history, for instance such behaviour in stickebacks was the Ph.D. disssertation of well-known zoologist Desmond Morris. Martinp (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (6th nomination)

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: keep. Shouldn't have tried that. (non-admin closure) Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (6th nomination)

Another potential violation of WP:BLP. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can the nominator please explain what is thought to be a violation of BLP? Is the nominator proposing to delete the article, Ken Hoang, which has been kept after five real AFDs, or to delete the sixth AFD nomination, which was an April Fool? How is the existence of the AFD nomination an insult to the real person whose image appears in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only made this nomination as a result of the subject still being alive. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there's no controversial or potentially defamatory material that's unsourced or poorly sourced. As an April Fool's joke, I say leave it alone (keep). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this page is not a BLP violation, April Fools' BLP nominations have been discouraged for a few years. Xeroctic (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inadequate nomination rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the nomination in question is for deleting a harmless, non-biographical AfD. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion, it's a harmless April Fools prank. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 04:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete and I agree SmokeyJoe that the nominators reason for nominating is not adequate. GothicGolem29 00:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this seems to be fairly innocuous as far as April Fools AFDs involving living people go. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CA8:42D8:9718:AB3C (talk) 08:00, 5 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Saboohi fortune teller

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Speedy deletion criteria U5 & G11. JBW (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saboohi fortune teller

Unsourced BLP in userspace, almost definitely an autobiography. The user has no edits outside of their own self-promotion and the text is extremely close to WP:G11 standard. I have input the WP:FAKEARTICLE into gptzero.me, which confirms that it is completely LLM generated as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator or as close to G11. This is also U5, except that U5 is about to be reworked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 3 October 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.

October 2, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses (2nd nomination)

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. This was SNOW closed as a KEEP mere hours ago; please don't immediately re-nominate it. CoconutOctopus talk 22:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

This essay is clearly a call for the following:

Indirectly enabling of fascism to unwary editors and readers
Violating WP:NQP and WP:NOFASH
Other means of WP:NOTHERE
Sabotaging consensus decision-making process

-- Ahri Boy (talk) 22:24, 2 October 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.

User:Jaafar1

Unsourced & promotional BLP in userspace from a user with few good-faith edits. The WP:FAKEARTICLE also makes false claims, for example it says he captained Australia at the 2000 Olympics, which is obviously not true. Statements like "Jaafar's talent is unquestionable" and "Jaafar can just as easily now grace the cover of any fashion magazine as he can a soccer magazine. He is credited with instilling a new "chic" factor in Dulwich Hill's dressing room." push this close to a WP:G11. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas an unreferenced BLP or Speedy Delete as G11. This isn't close to G11 because it is G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MZXKUWR/sandbox

Unsourced autobiography. The prose also borders on being a WP:G11 candidate. To date, the creator has made no edits outside of their own autobiography. Please delete as an unsourced BLP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas an unreferenced BLP or Speedy Delete as G11. This isn't close to G11 because it is G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

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: SNOW KEEP. This already has far more participation than a normal MfD and there is an overwhelming consensus that this is an appropriate essay to have up. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

Oh boy, here we go. So I actually I already posted my concerns at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, however after second thought I think this might be more appropriate. I'll just copy over here what I said there:

After reading through this, I believe ~~some~~ many parts of this may have WP:POLEMIC problems. Let's start with number 6 (I also don't want to call these "theses" since that feels pretentious for just a wall of text). POLEMIC defines it as or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Within the context of the section, this statement Thus my question: If it has this world-class influence, why do the people entrusted with content decisions on Wikipedia go by twee handles like “CaptainEek,” “KrakatoaKatie,” and “WereSpielChequers”. feels especially problematic as it deliberately names specific editors and–in my opinion–is an attempt to vilify these editors and other functionaries in general. Other sections like this one have been edit-warred in and out of the essay with the concern accusing an identifiable editor of working to systematically marginalize Christians" so that his troll army will know whom to harass. This just feels like a deliberately divisive stance that is only here to try to cause arguments. More statements like in the End or loosen restrictions on “meat puppetry just feel like trolling as well. My point is that this entire thing reads purely like some kind of attempt to stir up off-wiki and on-wiki drama alike, without serving any real purpose.

So, looking back at this, I have come to the conclusion that this does not belong on-wiki. Some editors evidently believe that some of this problematic material should be included, as shown there. So what does the crowd think? Bon appétit mes amis. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 15:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest withdrawing. The named editors have thick enough skin to survive (a) the mild implied criticism that they shouldn't be using anonymous user names and (b) the mild slight in "twee". These don't rise to the level of "attacking or vilifying". We don't need to waste as many words as will be wasted if this isn't withdrawn. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal no longer an option, since someone else has supported deletion. Good luck everyone. Keep it brief. Try and make one copy edit for every 25 words you spend here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the co-founder of Wikipedia surely has the right to publish thoughts about the backroom going-ons of the encyclopedia, and may or may not have innovated the concept of WP:SNOW (which would pertain here). Sanger is a Wikipedian and an active editor, he has as much right to publish a personal essay about Wikipedia concepts and rules and regs as the next person (but hopefully he will consider removing that the names of individual editors from the essay if the surrounding language is critical of editor actions). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep on the basis that i'm writing a really funny comment regarding it :flushedbread: consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
meh We have enough hard drive space. Sure these ideas have mostly been tried and failed. But deleting them will just bring more attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doc James and Firefangledfeathers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:USERESSAY says (bolding mine)
Polemics in the form of personal attacks against particular people, groups, real-life ideas (e.g. artists or politicians), or against Wikipedia itself, are generally deleted at MFD, as unconstructive or disruptive. Likewise, advocacy of fringe POV and pushing of fringe content and conspiracy theories is not tolerated.
, the motive of this essay seems to be to get us to both-sides pseudoscience etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once we've all had a bit of fun with engaging with this claptrap, it should be deleted. For one thing it undermines core policies of the project. For another it gives undue prominence to an editor who has no special standing and hasn't edited in mainspace for more than a decade. For a third it includes/encourages fundamentally destructive ideas like doxing. It's textbook WP:NOTHERE, the editor is free to scribble this nonsense across the internet, it shouldn't get further oxygen here. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Invalid rationale for deletion. All of the reasons for deletion basically boil down to people disagreeing with the content or tone of the essay. @Larry Sanger has the right to make his opinions known, even if the majority of the community may disagree with him. We should not shove him out the door after he finally returns to Wikipedia just because we don't like his criticism. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really want to do this, even though I highly disagree with Sanger. But the wording of these 6 attacks our admins, sysops, and other people in positions of power on Wikipedia. So, per WP:POLEMIC, I have to vote delete. I have taken two examples, "Wikipedia’s editorial work is self-managed by a group of volunteers—or what is presented as such" and "It is time for Wikipedians to grow up". If Mr.Sanger would reword his "theses" to disinclude attacks on our editors, I would be inclined to change my vote to keep. Also, on a completely unrelated note, protection from the Wikimedia Foundation won't save people from authoritarian states, like what happened to those Belarusian admins. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a case where the remedy for bad ideas is discussion of the badness of the ideas rather than suppression of the ideas. There has been lengthy discussion of these nine theses at Village pump (miscellaneous), almost all negative. If this original paper is deleted, would the discussion then be deleted, hatted, or left on the record? If the discussion were either hatted or left standing, readers would infer, maybe incorrectly, what Sanger had said. Leave these ideas standing for continued discussion and continued criticism.
- I am not asking for this nomination to be withdrawn, because the discussion of this nomination is useful to show how strongly the community disagrees with Sanger's ideas. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the first time I've ever seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT used as a reason to !keep. Bravo. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting way of viewing it, User:JMWt. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I disagree with a lot of Sanger's views (and am disappointed that he has not engaged with any of my criticisms apart from saying that I sound like a reasonable person after sharing a lighthearted anecdote about how I used to work at McDonald's) but this isn't the kind of thing that usually gets deleted. People have a right to contrary opinions, especially in userspace. I'm too WP:INVOLVED to even think about closing something like this, but I think a speedy close would be a good idea if this keeps getting WP:SNOWBALL keeps. To anyone who is not a Wikipedian reading this, literally anyone can nominate anything for deletion at any time. That doesn't nessecarily mean the content in question will be deleted. As an aside, I do think the page shouldn't name certain editors, but that's something that can be solved without wholesale deletion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless one of the mentioned editors objects. This nomination feels like a moral panic more than anything. Paradoctor (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The co-founder of this website should have a right to comment on it. T Magierowski (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something he already did at his very own personal website. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and twitter consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is not freedom of expression, but question of whether the form of expression chosen by Sanger is disruptive. Constructive discussion is always welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it constructive? As you've said above there's a clear issue of targeting other named editors - which you weirdly then waved away by saying that only matters if they object. What about all the other editors who object to this framing? Why should it only matter if I'm the person being targeted? JMWt (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "mention", not "target". Calling handle "twee" is not, prima facie, a capital offence, so there is no need to be preemptively offended on behalf of others. That being said, being explicitly name may make someone fell stronger about this, in which case action may be appropriate, if for no better reason than work climate.

I said "constructive discussion is always welcome". To what degree Sanger's missive is that is what is being discussed. Paradoctor (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, it's definitely disruptive, i'm not even gonna give any credit to the idea that it isn't. it's made from a borderline childish misunderstanding of what reality is. hence my vote being based solely on the basis that it will be used for the sake of humor, because that's really all the value i think we can wring out of it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the polemic parts at least. This is a personal essay and even the co-founders are subject to Wikipedia's rules, as much as the keepers attempt to give Sanger a free pass (as a reminder, Wikipedia is not a monarchy). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog, and the content is found at https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/ his personal blog. And free text is saved at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Ignoring what the content is about, which in my view is plainly naive, Sanger goes to the point where he says this: "I do not want [the following 62 people] to be doxxed, however. I do not want their identities to be revealed without their permission; I am asking everyone to respect their anonymity. If anyone does doxx them, it will be against my explicitly stated wishes." Yet, mentions their user names for the sake of "transparency". If anyone in that list is actually doxxed, Sanger has explicitly suggested that he'd be sorry for them, it's good to know their names for the project's transparency, but he wasn't actually ask for their personal information. Coupled with this reversal of a violation of POLEMIC, the essay has the sole purpose to express polemical opinions that go against Wikipedia's purpose and the purpose of user pages and essays. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the WP:SNOW and pearl clutching, beware the Streisand effect. Mentioning specific editor names as part of an argument about the Wikipedia hierarchy says nothing about those editors in particular. Themoother (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable userspace essay. Specific statements mocking or casting aspersions about specific people can be dealt with by any admin and do not require deletion. Heads up to journalists covering this story: anyone can nominate a page and initiate this deletion process for any reason. You could nominate the Earth article for deletion right now if you really wanted to. We operate by consensus, hence legitimate and illegitimate disagreement alike are documented for all the world to see, and the conclusion is based on strength is arguments according to existing policies and guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic, but that's the one article you can't nominate for deletion REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Germane essay. The quasi-legal threat that Mr. Sanger has made on the Elon social network in connection with this essay might be another matter for discussion elsewhere, but there is nothing about this particular essay that strikes me as running afoul of our long-established leeway for commentary. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while Larry Sanger is clearly WP:NOTHERE IMO, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia, however misguided, in your userspace. Deletion will only lead to more accusations of censorship etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would be supportive of RfDing the Wikipedia-space redirects to the various user subpages—redirects to these pages do not belong in projectspace. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 2 October 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.

Draft:Burke Files

User has repeatedly resubmitted this draft despite being told many times that they have not shown the subject’s notability. Despite the draft being rejected, they figured out how to manually resubmit. And what did they change since last time? They added one source. Rejection hasn’t stopped the disruption, so let’s try this instead. Oh, and I still think it might be LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source they did add was another piece written by the subject so didn't even remotely help the case towards notability. This has now become disruptive. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib)
Delete Tendentious resubmission. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I disagree with the rejection. I will agree with the rejection if I see specific tells of generation by a large language model. Although I disagree with the rejection, resubmission after rejection is disruptive. Discussion would have been an appropriate response to rejection. Resubmission after rejection is never constructive. A partial block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon see more history at DRAFT:L. Burke Files McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mcmatter - I did see the history, and I don't see specific evidence of the use of an LLM, and I disagree with the rejection, but disagree more with the attempt to resubmit after the rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This deletion nomination is unfair, I have made significant improvements to the original draft and continued to add credible and relevant sources. Please do not conflate content issues with innocent conduct errors - my resubmission was based on the improvements I had made. If you believe the draft still does not meet the notability bar - which I would strongly argue it does given the voluminous sources relating to this active journalist - please remember WP:DRAFTSPACE exists precisely to allow for the gradual improvement of potential articles. The allegation that the content is LLM generated is untrue however I did use it to assist in formatting, as I have done with this edit! Please keep the draft. Pete Peterviddle (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterviddle This is not the case, the only improvement you have made to the article was to add more primary sources even after I informed you on your talk page what was required and provided feedback on the sources you thought were the best ones. I would be happy to revoke the rejection if actual effort to find some sources that met the criteria was attempted. So I will say it here again. The sources to prove notability need to be independent of the subject, this mean no interviews, not written by the subject in any way and not a press release. They need to be published in a reliable source known for editorial oversight and fact checking. The last thing required of the sources proving notability is significant coverage, meaning it needs to provide in depth coverage of the subject beyond the scope of "Joe is CEO of ABC Company and has this to say about the....". The reason for the rejection was your continued submittal without actually improving issues with the draft. If you find sources these criteria and base the draft off of them you will probably very quickly see this discussion change. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have citations from Burke Files in prominent news outlets:

Report: Russia Laundered Millions via Danske Bank Estonia | OCCRP

Recent coverage about his upcoming book:

Trump-Linked Political Fundraiser Writes Book on How to Launder Money

More details on six other books he has published and his career to date.

L. Burke Files DDP CACM | IFC Review

I understand the point about sources but it seems here the argument is that LBF does not meet notability requirements - this is clearly unfair, there are far more fringe published authors than LBF with Wikipedia pages at the moment Peterviddle (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterviddle, you're right there probably are, and if they don't demonstrate proper notability they should also be flagged and possibly removed. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each draft and article is always looked at on it's own we don't compare any other existing article or draft to any other when it comes to the inclusion criteria. Fair or not fair has no weight in almost any discussion here. Looking at your 3 sources here, the first is just a quote from him and offers no significant coverage of him, it confirms he exists and has some expertise, nothing else. The second only mentions him once as a co writer but spend more time discussing the other author making them almost more notable then Files, again no significant coverage on Files. The last is a profile page from a publisher, so not independent and potentially not reliable as it is most likely written by Files or his team. Don't take anything happening here as an insult to you, writing an article on Wikipedia can be one of the most difficult tasks to undertake, there are a lot of policies, guidelines and nuances that can be difficult to understand and get at first. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 30, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:StefanDressmaker/VinceDalmasso

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:StefanDressmaker/VinceDalmasso

Please include User:StefanDressmaker/vincedalmasso in this nomination. Both are unsourced BLPs, likely hoaxes, given that they tell different stories for the same person. Found zilch on the purported subject in the wild. Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an unsourced BLP. That is enough for deletion, nothing else needs saying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as two unreferenced BLPs, neither with useful information. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:52, 3 October 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.

September 29, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maria Daglas/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maria Daglas/sandbox

Unsourced BLP of non-notable person. Paradoctor (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I generally deplore ragpicking old user space, but in this case Paradoctor has found a 2017 user sandbox containing a Facebook-sourced promotional BLP. No part of this pagespace should remain anywhere on Wikipedia. A reasonable BEFORE finds a similarly-named, similarly-located person on LinkedIn who is a self-employed Tasmanian freelancer with no credits. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional BLP with no sources (only one reference that is actually a link). Not quite U5 because the editor made a few useful edits to plants, but close enough to be in line for deletion at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. Lorstaking (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:59, 3 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Steve.s.xu/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted by JBW $Salvio giuliano$ 17:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve.s.xu/sandbox

WP:STALEDRAFT #4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transistor as a service. IYAM, this is pure WP:OR, maybe even a hoax. Paradoctor (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I misread this with old glasses as Translator as a service, and thought it didn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense. It is also U5. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indeed a hoax; I'm familiar with the EDA field, and no such product or technology exists. Omphalographer (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran the page in question through speedy deletion and got it removed. Can someone please close this nomination? GrinningIodize (talk) 18:41, 4 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ngabitsinze

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 07:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ngabitsinze

This user only has two edits creating this user page from over three years ago. It looks to be a résumé, though we have no way of verifying if this is the same person or an impersonator.

We're not LinkedIn and past MFDs have held that it's not appropriate for a user to simply dump their biography here while not making any edits to the project itself. I recommend deletion. MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator says that the originator shouldn't simply dump their resume here while not making edits to the encyclopedia. That's also what U5 says. This is also an unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) about U5. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this is an unsourced BLP, which is still a delete here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Chrysostome Ngabitsinze has all the sources you need; quite frankly, that article needs a little bit of work so if all the people are oh so concerned about... listing major events in a Rwandan politician's career, your time could be much better spent by actually improving the mainspace article on him... GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 01:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concerns about notability of the person. I still think that we should delete the unsourced BLP in userspace. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't; you have an entire unsourced list of living people, claiming they're all members of a club with connections to violent racism[5][6] in your userspace. User:Spiderone/PEML Why is yours okay and this one not? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 08:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag that for deletion if you wish, I won't contest it. I have no recollection of making it. For 'User:Ngabitsinze' it's basically an attempt at writing an autobiography article. It's a BLP with no sources in userspace. As a valid draft, it could perhaps be moved to draft space but since Jean Chrysostome Ngabitsinze already exists it would be redundant, so deletion is fine, as the mainspace version is far superior. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles but are not intended for mainspace. I am still not convinced that we need to retain this userspace article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per nominator, it is not 100% clear whether User:Ngabitsinze is Jean Chrysostome Ngabitsinze himself or someone impersonating him. Again, we lose nothing by deleting the user page since the mainspace article contains all of the necessary information about him and more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 1 October 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.

September 28, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deertine/Userboxes/Francoist

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 01:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deertine/Userboxes/Francoist

Fascist userbox. Should be deleted, just as the "User fascist" userbox was deleted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User fascist. Was previously nominated as part of the trainwrecked MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dictator Userboxes as a "dictator userbox", but the primary problem is not that it is a dictator userbox, the problem is that it is a fascist userbox. No serious editor transcludes it. It is only transcluded by "provocative political userbox" barely-here users who are attracted by the privilege of hosting "politically incorrect" content on the Internet. —Alalch E. 23:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 16:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:HID and WP:NONAZIS. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLEMIC, WP:NONAZIS], etc. Extremist advocacy has no place on Wikipedia. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 04:23, 5 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormoftherain459/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stormoftherain459/sandbox

Sandbox creating an alternate history version of 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial election -- while it hasn't messed around with the body text yet, the infobox has been changed to give the candidates different names and vote totals than they had in reality.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write science fiction for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace as an article, which this obviously can't be. And as usual, doing this kind of thing violates principles of WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP. And, as is par for the course for this kind of thing, it was once again left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comment, do you think it is worth creating an RFC to specifically make fictionalized WP:COPIES content in userspace by WP:NOTHERE users eligible for U5? Such pages only vaguely fall under "personal web pages in WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#GOALS under WP:UPNOT but neither specifically include WP:MADEUP parodies of real articles, but could be amended to. Or, amend WP:G3 to include fictionalized WP:COPIES content. I don't think I've seen pages like these survive MFD, unless there is a rare reason they might that I'm not aware of. TruenoCity (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This uses the names and images of living persons in a manner that is contrary to fact. To answer TruenoCity, I don't think that we need a criterion for speedy deletion, because there are not so frequent that we can't handle them at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon.—Alalch E. 14:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:40, 29 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Radio World New plymouth/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radio World New plymouth/sandbox

Yet another sandbox which exists solely to create a fictional alternate history version of List of presidents of the United States. This one seems to stay on track with reality up to Bill Clinton, but then goes Al Gore, John McCain, Barack Obama with the wrong dates, Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write science fiction for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace as an article, which this obviously can't be. And as usual, doing this kind of thing violates principles of WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:BLP since several of these people were either never president at all, or were president but not at the claimed times.
And, as is par for the course for this kind of thing, it was once again left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is another part of why this kind of crap is a problem. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator cites several policies. I have only checked the biographies of living persons policy, which is enough reason to delete. This sandbox is using the names and images of living persons contrary to fact, and that is not acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:04, 2 October 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TimeToFixThis/sandbox6

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 delete by Significa liberdade (G7). (non-admin closure) ObserveOwl (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimeToFixThis/sandbox6

User sandbox consisting of infoboxes presumptively crystal-balling a future J.D. Vance presidency, complete with Marco Rubio as vice-president and a cabinet that's mostly just everybody in DJT's cabinet staying in the same place except for Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard getting promoted. As always, sandbox is not for making predictions about the future -- and even in the event that Vance does win the 2028 election with Rubio as his vice-president, updating their articles at that time will not be difficult enough that we would already need anticipatory sandboxes to exist three years in advance of actually knowing the election result. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re reading way too much into what I’m doing in my own sandbox. This is not some attempt at WP:Crystalballing a presidency, it’s me practicing the technical mechanics of succession boxes and infoboxes. That’s exactly what a sandbox is for. Sandboxes are not mainspace and they’re not meant to be policed like I’m publishing predictions. Everyone’s sandbox is open to view, yes, but that doesn’t give license to nitpick or assume motives that aren’t there. What I choose to use as placeholder examples in my sandbox is my business, and it’s not harming the encyclopedia. If and when real-world events happen, the relevant articles will be updated in real time; nobody needs to speculate otherwise, and I’m not doing that. Frankly, it’s frustrating to have someone combing through my sandbox and accusing me of “predictions” when I’m simply using it as a workspace. If it bothers you that much, I’ll slap a disclaimer at the top making it crystal clear (no pun intended) that this is a practice draft only. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want other people to come across it, then why did you leave it sitting in mainspace categories where other people would come across it (and, in fact, had to come across it because userspace pages sitting in mainspace categories is an absolute and total no-no that requires immediate cleanup, meaning there was no way for anybody to ignore it)? Also, one can easily learn and practice the technical mechanics of succession boxes and infoboxes without misrepresenting real living people in the process. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The author is reading too little into what they are doing with the sandbox. They are using the images of living persons in a way that is contrary to fact. I find the argument that the author needs to practice the mechanics of succession boxes using real people in a contrary-to-fact context to be unconvincing. Biographies of living persons policies apply in all namespaces including user namespace. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this really isn’t that big of a deal, to be honest. I wasn’t expecting people to be snooping around my workspace. If it’s that much of a problem, feel free to delete the page or I can clear out the contents myself. The only reason I made it was to practice wikitext editing with a large, detailed infobox - that’s all. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent updating and improving biographies and infoboxes, and this was just me practicing the mechanics. In the event of any future administration, regardless of party, that’s the type of technical formatting I was working on: shifting offices down, adding a new one at the top, and testing how it looks. It wasn’t meant to be a statement or anything deep. Feel free to look at my other sandboxes to back up my claim - this is what I do here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 07:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If that is what the community wants. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 08:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:41, 29 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormijennerfp

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stormijennerfp

Per WP:STALEDRAFT #6: Unsourced BLP of non-notable child Paradoctor (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 29 September 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.

September 27, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ilikeyoshi/How to speak lolcat

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ilikeyoshi/How to speak lolcat

Not an essay relevent to encyclopedia writing and apparently created to troll. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understand humour, please, this to teach about to not use slang on wikipedia (a side humorous version of WP:TONE) ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 21:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may put this on sandbox ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 21:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

until this is over. ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 21:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also contradicts WP:TONE, bc its humo(u)r ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 21:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3 and consider blocking the creator per WP:NOTHERE. Sticking a humour tag on something doesn't automatically make it funny. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:1B56:14B9:F321:AFC6 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment (for now) on the nominated page, but I took up your invitation to "consider blocking the creator per WP:NOTHERE", That points to "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". As I look at the creator's list of contributions, I notice that only a small percentage are to articles. However, the percentage isn't negligible; so no, it's not clear to me that the creator is "not being here to build an encyclopedia" and therefore I for one would oppose blocking them. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The likelihood that this "essay" will cause this sort of slang to catch on in the writing of articles is small, but the likelihood that it will discourage this sort of writing is zero. I looked for a guideline that Wikipedia is not for bad jokes. I didn't find one, but we should use common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note also another copy at User:Ilikeyoshi/Verse/doc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to sandbox, move to sandbox, move to sandbox, delete, delete, delete, don't ban (not to troll) ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 14:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilikeyoshi if it's any consolation there's no desire to ban you (and I fully agree with Hoary's admin opinion above). I will offer some friendly advice as a fellow editor, however, and advise you to focus more on contributing effectively rather than making humorous essays. At the end of the day everyone's here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 08:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, delete (or move to Wikibooks if it can?) ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 16:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with the content policy on Wikibooks. You're free to move the page over, but I can't say for sure whether it will be kept or deleted. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential attention-seeking behaviour

@VolatileAnomaly:, i asked if we could move it to Wikibooks (as a manual), sire .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeyoshi (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:09, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Virgin Evans

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Virgin Evans

Redundant. Wrapper for an existing template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a coprolite in template space that is not being used. If this were in user space, it would be U5, left by a user who otherwise did not substantially edit Wikipedia. There isn't a speedy code for this, but we can Use Common Sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:08, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Linguolabial ejective stop

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: no consensus. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Linguolabial ejective stop

Non-notable, probably will not be notable ever. Also, it appears to be abandoned by the owner. BodhiHarp 03:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, redirecting probably shouldn't be done either. BodhiHarp 03:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a draft, and drafts expire when ignored for six months. Leave Useless Drafts Alone. Drafts are not reviewed for notability. If we start reviewing drafts for notability or sanity, we will have multiple drafts to review daily for deletion, and will only accomplish what the calendar does by itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 27 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bruh2899/List of EPAC Category 5 tropical cyclones

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 05:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bruh2899/List of EPAC Category 5 tropical cyclones

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Since this list is entirely WP:OR and self-published, it can't serve any encyclopedic value. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This aint an article on the main wiki, it's on the profile, also should mean other stuff should be deleted as well as this. Bruh2899 (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it should mean other articles on userspaces should be deleted like mine if it's original research Bruh2899 (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as original research in project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:08, 30 September 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.

September 26, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haruvinraj

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haruvinraj

This is an unsourced BLP (the YouTube link doesn't work for me) and a borderline WP:U5. I considered tagging for a speedy delete but wasn't fully confident that it would be deleted as a U5 as it is a long-standing user, who has been here since 2014. I am fairly confident that we should delete at MfD for being an unsourced autobiography written by a potential WP:NOTHERE user. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. It also looks like U5. Lurking for 11 years is still few edits to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:07, 30 September 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.

September 25, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Harit Sahai Verma

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harit Sahai Verma

Very similar case to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sumitprs/sandbox/Satya Prakash. Probably not blatantly promotional enough for anyone to want to delete as G11 or U5 but the fact still remains that this is an unsourced BLP/CV written by a user with no constructive edits (see WP:NOTCV) and we lose nothing of value by deleting it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. BLPPROD should apply to all namespaces. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as U5 as well as an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:07, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununennium

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununennium

Improperly created AfD with only this page having been created. I've attempted to reach out to the user twice (arguably three times counting my comment) at User talk:Oh, It's Me! So Cool! § Recent AfD about this page with no response. Since I am not willing to formally complete the AfD nomination (as it has no valid deletion reason, nor does one exist) and because no CSD can really apply, I suppose the best place to put it is here. (Also yes I'm aware of the irony of nominating a deletion for deletion.) Perryprog (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I would have say procedurally close as nonsense AFD, but nominator appears to be WP:NOTHERE TruenoCity (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would've done that if it wasn't for the fact that... what is there to close? Moot point now though I suppose. Perryprog (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for cleanup. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:06, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology/to do

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: keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology/to do

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relic without an associated Project page, not used by the inactive WikiProject (nor was ever used in any meaningful way), no incoming links. Delete as what should be an uncontroversial cleanup. TNstingray (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are a member of the WikiProject, and have noted on the WikiProject talk page that you are doing cleanup? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was once useful. The history is brief but I consider, say, this edit to be meaningful. Graham87 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical as per Graham87 and KylieTastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 27 September 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.

September 21, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Who is Rock Lee's wife?

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: no consensus. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Who is Rock Lee's wife?

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Left guide (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is effectively an FAQ in draftspace, and has been declined as obviously unencyclopedic. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously unencyclopedic with zero chance of ever becoming useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a rejected draft. Leave Useless Drafts Alone and they will go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a draft. jp×g 🗯️ 03:01, 3 October 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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC) ended today on 9 October 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.

September 23, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tyler Robinson (suspect)

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

The result of the discussion was: redirect to Tyler James Robinson. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tyler Robinson (suspect)

Article exists in Tyler James Robinson. Absolutiva 08:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of TJR. Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 12:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Tyler James Robinson. If the article is deleted, the redirect from draft space will be G8, but it is more likely that the article will be kept, merged, or redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect This is a copy as so it is not needed and can be redirected to Tyler James Robinson. GothicGolem29 01:08, 5 October 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.

September 22, 2025

User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/NoTankies

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)

Salvio giuliano

06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE; divisive userboxes are not wanted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The box's creator has pointed out that they are under an ban on participating in XFD discussions. In fairness, please see their comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dronebogus' talk page response. I'm usually against "divisive" userboxes, but this one is perfectly acceptable, and not much worse, than, say, {{User stop autocracy}}, {{User:FormalDude/Userboxes/ETR}}, or {{User:Pitsarotta/Userboxes/Anti-Stalin}}. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm not much into policing userspace, but a userbox reading "This user doesn't like (pejorative term for people with certain beliefs)" is pretty much a textbook example of the type of divisive wording we've chosen to not allow in userboxes. I note the user has said on their userpage that they didn't think this particular point of view would be that controversial, and I agree most of us would agree with it. But we can't let "it's the majority view" excuse divisive *wording*. Though it might be considered more staid and boring, the same point could be made less divisively by expressing support (or opposition to) a worldview rather than dislike for certain people. Martinp (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: Are you against a userbox expressing disdain for Fascists? jp×g 🗯️ 01:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am against userboxes that are divisive (people against people) and use pejorative labels to boot. That includes situations where I might endorse the underlying opinion. Specifically, I would not be against a userbox saying "This user is against authoritative communism" or even "This user thinks we need to be vigilant against authoritative communists". Martinp (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: Fair enough; thank you for taking the time to respond. jp×g 🗯️ 01:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dronebogus' talk page response and Cremastra. I myself have this userbox on my user page, and I don't see anything controversial or problematic about stating opposition to tankies and what they stand for. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is any different from userboxes that say they don't like fascists. It may be divisive to some, but I think saying you don't like authoritarian communist regimes and their supporters is similar to saying you don't like authoritarian fascist regimes and their supporters. BootsED (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even without touching on the fact that the term itself is derogatory and therefore problematic for use on personal pages, its formulation itself is very vague and ambiguous, which is why, returning to the nature of derogatory political labels, anyone can understand it as a hidden attack on left-wing participants. Do you remember any "propaganda of totalitarian regimes on Wikipedia"? Was it really a disguised attack on users who argued against anti-Soviet or anti-socialist narratives in any articles? If this userbox is considered acceptable, does that mean other users will also be able to create derogatory userboxes like "this user is against woke propaganda on Wikipedia" or "this user is against neo-Marxist propaganda on Wikipedia"? Even a superficial study yields too many uncomfortable questions. I am against any things that could potentially create tension or antagonism among users. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that being anti-Stalin is indistinguishable from being a Democrat, then you are (Personal attack removed). I feel like e.g. Holodomor denial is pretty clearly morally reprehensible, and if you cannot understand the difference between that and being vaguely left-leaning, there is a competence issue. jp×g 🗯️ 22:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EuanHolewicz432: This is a very confusing use of {{RPA}}; I explicitly did not claim the editor thought this (see "IF definition". Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved 2025-10-04.), and I do not think that accusing a hypothetical interlocutor of "behaving in a very strange or silly way" is a personal attack (see "OFF YOUR ROCKER definition". Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved 2025-10-04.). jp×g 🗯️ 02:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you didn't use our homegrown Wiktionary to define that idiom because of its clear pejorative implications. And it truly stretches credibility that you do not consider "if you think so and so, then you are (pejorative)" to be a barely veiled personal attack. If you are going to argue formalities, then formally this userbox is divisive and should be deleted without question, therefore I expect you to withdraw your keep argumentation shortly. To be clear, I do not actually expect that - I expect another passive aggressive non-response instead. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can be modified, but it is too inflammatory or divisive at the moment. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Tankie" is a pejorative term for a group of people with certain political beliefs, one which is common in toxic online discourse. There's nothing wrong with expressing an ideological position, but labeling people as "tankies" is not the kind of discourse we want on Wikipedia. Day Creature (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am admittedly a bit stricter on my interpretation of the userbox guidelines than some, but this seems too divisive for my liking. Userboxes expressing opposition to political groups using derogatory terms are a bad idea, and I agree with Solaire's arguments as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By strict construction of policy as written, then yes, an anti-Stalinite userbox is divisive, as well as an anti-Hitlerite userbox, but by the basic principle of common sense, I would bet fifty dollars against ten that an anti-Hitlerite userbox would be kept at MfD, which would make the selective deletion of this one in particular an asinine and grotesque mockery of the project. jp×g 🗯️ 22:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're seriously comparing the defense of Hitler and the Nazis to the defense of various communist countries in response to criticism, then you're only proving that the userbos in question should be removed as it antagonizes users against each other. Not to mention that the USSR wasn't limited to the Stalinist regime, and the term "tankie" isn't directed solely at that. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit joking around. There were many Fascists and they were all scum. I hope you will permit me to say that without demanding an apology. I realize that the comparison may offend you, but the fact of the matter is that the totalitarian dictators of the 20th century were all enemies of freedom, and they were all murderers. We are able to write freely on the Internet because they failed, and their bloody plans defeated. Anybody who seeks to rewrite the historical record to declare them heroes (whether they are Mao, Pinochet, Franco or Stalin) is in the disgusting company of racists, pseudoscience cranks and malware spammers: people whose presence here is a strict detriment. jp×g 🗯️ 08:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more you make it clear that Wikipedia is a platform for you to express your own political views, the closer you are to the removal of this userbox. You can write about anything on the internet. But please, in appropriate places. Wikipedia is not a political forum. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not troll. jp×g 🗯️ 23:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like you are now? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to the MfD? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking — you can see what the MfD is about by navigating to the top of the page, where there is a link to the page under discussion. jp×g 🗯️ 00:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the question that was asked. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This specific user has, in the past, gone on to argue at length why userboxes far less directly divisive should be deleted and therefore I consider the assumption of good faith to be broken with regards to their argumentation against deletion. Furthermore, the extent of wiki-political activism of this user approaches not-there levels (consider their XFD topic ban). This (clearly divisive) userbox serves as not much more than an extension of this disruptive activity. As a side note, implicitly equating fascism with (Soviet or otherwise) socialism is political soapboxing and not policy discussion.

EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not familiar with the concept of an analogy, I would recommend consulting the Wikipedia article, as it may prove helpful (rather than arguing about which dictator was worse — see WP:NOTFORUM). jp×g 🗯️ 09:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be discussing dictators here at all. As you yourself wrote, but somehow don't fully grasp, Wikipedia is not a political forum or a political platform. I also have my own political opinions and views, but Wikipedia is not the place for them. If I want to discuss politics with someone or express my opinion, I'll go to Twitter, YouTube, or even Facebook. On Wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia, not expressing our sympathies or dislikes for any politicians or regimes. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to strike your own !vote further up the page, I won't stop you. jp×g 🗯️ 00:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware an analogy is being made - my point being that making that analogy in this context is political soapboxing. I would also like to point out the obvious: your tone and conduct throughout this MfD is wholly inappropriate and certainly not befitting of an administrator. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open an ANI thread about my disapproval of the Khmer Rouge, or about my mentioning politics in a MfD about a political userbox. Otherwise, please do not cast aspersions or falsely accuse me of claims I have not made.

The ignorance of the userbox's creator should not be a consideration in establishing sitewide precedent. jp×g 🗯️ 23:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any eventual ANI thread that was to be made would pertain to exceeding lack of civility all throughout, indicative of an emotional involvement that reaches further than civil discussion of site policy, and not whatever persecution you seem to have imagined. Almost nothing you have said has actually pertained to said policy, and certainly nothing you are saying in the various responses that you have made all throughout this MfD actually relates to what the other party is saying. You are talking through people, at least insofar as you're not belittling them at that moment.

Why exactly this specific MfD is creating sitewide precedent that many other similar deletions have yet to establish remains another mystery. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my position is pretty easy to understand, both in terms of its relevance and in terms of its factual basis, if you read the actual things I wrote. jp×g 🗯️ 02:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you think so. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

[1] The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

[a]