Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts

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

WP:MFDND

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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	58	76	134
TfD	1	20	10	31
MfD	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	3	2	5
RfD	0	0	25	25
AfD	0	0	8	8

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

June 13, 2025

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. James500 has struck his delete vote, so Oblivy's speedy close is now valid. If someone else still thinks the essay should be deleted, they are free to renominate the page. (non-admin closure) silviaASH (inquire within) 07:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~This essay blatantly attacks anyone who has ever received a warning, by referring to them as having a social disorder, which is blatantly false.~~ Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 01:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a better explanation is given about how this attacks a specific editor or group editors. I read it as an attack on WP:DTTR on the basis that it's somehow helpful for neurodivergent people to get templated. Maybe I'm wrong -- it doesn't make sense to me, but it's a user page so I'd think a high bar is needed for deletion. Oblivy (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:The essay implies that user warnings are for communicating with neurodivergent people, and since user warnings are actually mainly for disruptive editing, it’s not hard to make the connection.~~ Whoops…

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 02:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. That is not even close to what the essay is saying. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are that (1) Legend of 14 put a user warning template on another editor's talk page, (2) the other editor removed the warning with an edit summary that read "DTTR", and then (3) Legend of 14 wrote this essay 30 minutes later to criticise that edit summary. James500 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the nominator has completely misunderstood the nature of the essay. Move to User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessibility feature in order to ensure correct spelling and then Keep. For what it's worth, I agree with the essay myself, as a neurodivergent person with a social communication disorder. If it were to be expanded upon, it could even enter the Wikipedia namespace one day, and I would welcome that. Patient Zero^talk 03:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This essay is poorly and hyperbolically worded, but it's making a reasonable point that some people use user warnings because they don't feel confident in communicating their concern in their own words, or aren't able to do so effectively. It is of no consequence to keep this essay and leave it as it is, though improvement is always welcome. We should not nominate any further subpages of User:Legend of 14 unless clear problems with individual pages can be identified and articulated. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLEMIC. The essay appears to be retaliation against this edit summary, which was made 30 minutes before the essay was created. To anyone who has been following this, it is obvious that these essays are commentary on other editors Legend of 14 has had disputes with, and it is obvious who the essays are talking about. I appreciate that this essay does not actually name the other editor, but I don't think that matters because we know who this essay is talking about. [There is presently no indication the community supports Legend of 14's use of Template:Uw-editsummary2, which is the user warning this essay is talking about, and this editor evidently did not appreciate being templated by Legend. The essay seems to be arguing that Legend should be allowed to put that user warning template on the talk pages of editors who do not consent to it.] James500 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking my !vote because User:Oblivy asked me to. I am prepared to accept his reasons, and I am not going to argue for deletion if everyone else still wants to keep this. I tried to revert my edit conflict back to Oblivy's speedy keep close, but SilviaASH reverted me. James500 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 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.

June 12, 2025

Talk:Progressive scan DVD player

Orphaned talk page with no discussion. Proposed for speedy deletion under CSD G8 which was contested —danhash (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep = There was an article at Progressive scan DVD player. It was then merged into DVD player. The talk page didn't have any discussion, but was available for discussion. Leave this as a historical stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the talk page of a redirect. We generally do not delete those. They may be used for discussing the redirect (though the talk page of the redirect target is almost always a more visible place to do so), and they may also be used for maintenance and tracking. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, G8 shouldn't have been applied since the main page is a redirect though it can make sense to redirect the talk page to the corresponding talk page of the target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to match the subject. G8 does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above, who said what I was already going to say. We just leave talk pages around in situations like this. Graham87 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legend of 14/Civility is optional

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Reasonable editors may disagree reasonably as to how to enforce civility, and we may fall short in maintaining civility, but civility is not optional. This essay is contrary to Wikipedia policy and should not be in user space or project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The author took criticism badly and left this as they slammed the door on their way out. An admin then locked the door. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you saw this, but this editor created a Project-space essay after virtually every bad interaction they've had, and these essays are practically solely targeted at the editor they had the dispute with. WP:Not a law library, WP:Stay uninvolved, WP:Unsolicited advice, and WP:Participation optional are the one's I know for sure are targeted. I would rather not say which editors are targeted for the purposes of denying attention, but some are quite obvious. WP:Sometimes patience is better, WP:Tag updating, and WP:Why does this redirect here?, may or may not be related, I do not know. Curbon7 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sarcastic or cynical userspace essays are allowed. Blocked or not, Legend of 14 is far from the first person to observe the unequal application of our civility rules. I'm not convinced that that's applicable in the case they chose to quit over, but that's beside the point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Robert McClenon. After reading the ANI thread that led to the creator's blocking, I see this as a clear-cut violation of WP:UPNOT, specifically WP:POLEMIC. This is not a substantive or useful essay; it is a personal screed from an editor who refused to listen to good-faith feedback about their editing and WP:RAGEQUIT when they didn't get their way, and insisted on blaming everyone but themselves for the consequences. Tamzin is correct regarding the observation about how the civility policy is sometimes applied unequally; however, there are other, better essays from editors in good standing on the matter, and I don't see any value to the project in retaining this one by an editor who evidently had little interest in being civil themselves. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a variation on Wikipedia:Unblockables. I don't find the essay contrary to Wikipedia policy exactly; whatever the motivations of the original author, the idea that civility is often treated as optional is well known, so commentary on that is appropriate. However, delete in this case as the essay is targeting a specific individual, probably not something we want on user essays whatever the merits of the claims. CMD (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I missed the fact that they linked to the diff of EEng's reply to them at ANI. 110% delete. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an essay, but a WP:POLEMIC rage-quit statement with a link targeting another editor. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted this, the link has been removed. Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that the page should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:POLEMIC. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I highly suggest the same for the other user essays this user created. – The Grid (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– The Grid (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing deletion of these other essays on procedural grounds. They are not the subject of this MfD. They may have issues, and some of them may need to be deleted, but other MfDs for those essays must be started separately so that editors can evaluate their worth individually. Just because we've identified one problematic page doesn't mean we need to indiscriminately nuke everything the creator has ever done. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked on WP:CIR and made these "essays" as a backhand response to the complaints they received. The user warnings essay starts off with Social disorders are a disability that affect Wikipedia contributors. They can impair Wikipedia contributors to effectively communicate in their own ways.

This is not gravedancing, it's removing WP:POINTY material that would have been removed instantly if they were posted outside of the userspace. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is a discussion that should be held at the appropriate location, namely: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessability feature. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This essay is exactly the opposite to the bullet of WP:5P, and I do agree that it falls within the WP:POLEMIC. Not quite sure why the user created stub-essays, some which I feel are unnecessary. But that is to be dealt in a case-by-case basis. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pointy complaint post. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I am not in favor of deleting the other essays. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we should leave people who are hurt alone. I've removed the link that calls out a specific editor, so I think it's fine now. We don't need to twist the knife by deleting everything in their userspace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying we need to delete everything. Or at least I think most people are not. I'm only in favor of deleting this one thing, and not solely because of the thinly veiled personal attack- that didn't help matters, but is not the reason for its nomination. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just remove the essay template and move on. Creator is indeffed. This bit of frustration is fine to have in userspace, but it doesn't really seem intended as an essay -- as an essay, I'd say it's just WP:POINT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:POINT, and as such it should be deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 10, 2025

Wikipedia:Don't ignore community consensus

Single-line essay that just repeats the title. There's zero meaningful content. Cambalachero (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Restating the obvious is harmless. It has minimal meaningful content, which is not zero. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no problem here. Sometimes it helps get the point across better when something is expressed plainly and simply as opposed to in multiple paragraphs. Writing an essay this way is fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Floquenbeam/Don't delete short essays just because their title says it all --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this essay has an important message despite being short. An essay being short is not a valid grounds for deletion. ApexParagon (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DDSEJBTTSIA. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 8, 2025

June 7, 2025

User:Syeddeep2025/sandbox

this page contains links, and im consider these as advertisements. so, please remove this page. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of whether the page contains promotional content, just having external links does not mean that the entire page is an advertisement that should be deleted. @Modern primat please be careful not to WP:BITE newcomers. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lets think about this user is old user. does it really matter? deleted content may still recovered by admins. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 19:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I plan to move this content to Draft:Syed Mosharaf Hossain and improve it per Wikipedia guidelines. I welcome constructive suggestions. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:DUD.

2. Improve existing content before trying to add a completely new page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plausibly notable. Reasonable userspace draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The presence of promotional links may be a reason for deleting the links, but is not a reason to delete a draft. What does the nominator mean by: lets think about this user is old user. does it really matter? deleted content may still recovered by admins.. That makes no sense. The originator is not an old user, and there is a guideline that says not to bite the new users, and you have bitten new users. Deleting a draft and asking admins to recover the deleted content is bizarrely more complicated than deleting the questioned content and keeping the article. That comment makes no sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a valid reason to delete a page. Yes, it is an autobiography, but no, having external links doesn't make the sandbox promotional in nature. I do agree that you have bitten a newcomer, a big no-no on Wikipedia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user explained what they meant with lets think about this user is old user. does it really matter? deleted content may still recovered by admins.. should be speedily kept and primat trouted. —-~~

User:Chrisgreyfe/sandbox

this page contains links, and im consider these as advertisements. so, please remove this page. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for your review, I deleted the "promotive links" or advertisements as suggested even thought that wasn't my intention, can you please verify the article again and check if it can be published or not? this article is very informative to the fans or new fans. thanks in advance Chrisgreyfe (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of whether the page contains promotional content, just having external links does not mean that the entire page is an advertisement that should be deleted. @Modern primat please be careful not to WP:BITE newcomers. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no policy that calls for the deletion of an article or draft because it contains promotional material when the promotional material itself can be deleted. There is a general rule, not always easy to interpret, that "Deletion is not cleanup". It isn't necessary to delete a draft to clean it up of questionable links. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid reason to delete the page. External links in a page do not make the page promotional as a whole, and also that the draft has potential, so it should not be deleted without a good clause. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2025

Wikipedia:Silver nitrate

I just don’t see the point of this essay. Unlike WP:Veganism parable, it does not highlight an issue with the topic it is on by comparing it to real life, and unlike WP:Wikipedia is a MMORPG, it is not meant to be satirical, though it isn’t funny. House^{Living room}_{DIY Fixings} 09:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: As a disputed single-author essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still Userfy after edits. It is still a sole user’s idiosyncratic joke of no value to the community. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this page is to be linked to in a !vote of the form "*Delete and salt the earth with silver nitrate." It was not exactly meant to be an essay in the usual sense so much as a glossary entry. It is meant to be satirical, and the nominator does not have the same sarcastic sense of humor as the author does. It was meant to be used in !voting for the deletion of zombie pages that had already been deleted and brought back to life. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For previous uses, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Silver_nitrate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have changed the short description, which was incorrectly added through a good-faith error. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. User space is the place for this sort of "Well, I think it's funny" type content like this without much usefulness value. SnowFire (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Humor needs indicators, and this page doesn't have any. I wasted time trying to figure out what it was for. That shouldn't happen. Failing deletion, userfication would be an acceptable alternative. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or weak keep; definitely add a humor indicator to the page. It's meant to be a satirical metaphor for salting pages, though it's not as elaborate or useful as the other pages the nominator mentioned. It's still technically related to Wikipedia so I don't think it warrants deletion. If it is userfied, keep the redirect to avoid breaking links in old AfD discussions. ApexParagon (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 22:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC) ended today on 13 June 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

June 3, 2025

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grundle2600/userboxes/Sweatshops

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

Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 19:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the idea that sweat shops are better for workers than the alternative has some support within economics and business ethics, Wikipedia is not a place to be expressing controversial beliefs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore.: This is an item of political economic debate. It is not black and white as the nominator implies. This one can be read as supporting free trade. It is just another political userbox. There is no policy against users displaying political Userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe but there is a guideline that precludes most political userboxes, and it's linked in the nomination statement. Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive. Do you disagree that this is "substantially divisive"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is a well known debate of perspective, as mentioned in mainspace at Sweatshop#Support.

In a poor country, sweatshop employment is real employment and injection of money into the grassroots of the local economy. Sweatshops lead to economic improvement.

On the other side, in the wealthy country that buys the sweatshop product, they point to working conditions that are illegal in the wealthy county. They claim moral superiority in banning the import of sweatshop product. Or is it de facto protectionism, to protect the rich country’s inefficient production practices?

I find the proposal to ban this userbox more offensive than the userbox.

Maybe Wikipedia should get out of moral political debates, and simply ban political Userboxes? Or do political Userboxes provide useful introduction of the user, with free and easy self-descriptions contributing to a collegiate and productive community of volunteers?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A pro-sweatshop userbox is obviously designed to ruffle middelbrow westerner moral sensibilities, and it is therefore purely inflammatory, regardless of how right or wrong. It is designed to provoke. —Alalch E. 13:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not obvious at all. I don’t think think it is, at all. I also don’t agree that it is correct or fair to label it as “pro-sweatshop”.

It is fairly balanced. “More good than harm”.

“This user believes …” makes it personal about the user. It invites you to ask them about their beliefs. Inflammatory Userboxes declare something offensive about others. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This user believes ... " is boilerplate, form. The substance is a an expression designed to aggravate said moral sensibilities. It's such an unlikely userbox seen outside of broader discourse. Of all the things, why would someone share this on their user page? It targets the sensibility, precisely to attack the sense of moral superiority. That's why it's used on user pages that also have userboxes against political correctness, against the "right not to be offended". It's a finely tuned subtle-ish (plausibly deniable) political provocation, like many such userboxes. I don't think it's worse than many userboxes. But once such userboxes are brought up for deletion, I will generally support deleting them, because that's the path of least resistance, and nothing is lost really. —Alalch E. 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It’s like most political opinion userboxes. I’m ok with leaving them all, or deleting all that don’t connect to the project, but deleting selected opinions because some don’t like them, with not objective criteria in that, that’s a problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well-known debate, one that divides people substantially. You could say that it's substantially divisive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Thebiguglyalien. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think old Grundle would enjoy this. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it within policy to have userboxes that support similar ideas like slavery, involuntary servitude, child labor, coerced labor, etc.? Are those also an item of "political economic debate?"Catboy69 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar is not the same. Sweatshops in poor countries do some good. The balance of good versus bad is a thing. “Slavery, involuntary servitude, coerced labor” are bad regardless of whether a sweatshop is involved. Child labor is only definitely bad with a forced definition including “exploitation”. I think you and others are in denial of nuance.

I suggest an important question is who owns and profits from the sweatshop. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a difference between a userbox articulating a controversial point of view, and being "inflammatory and substantially divisive". We've chosen to have a policy prohibiting the latter, but this one is only the former. Martinp (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 20:34, 13 June 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates