Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MfD)
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. For mergers for discussion, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers.


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

[edit]

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

  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.

Before nominating a page for deletion

[edit]

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.
Deletions in draftspace
  • Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context.
  • Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here.
  • 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.
  • For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
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 page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, 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 moving it into the historical archive, or 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

[edit]

How to list pages for deletion

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Administrator instructions

[edit]
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 50 0 50
TfD 0 0 13 0 13
MfD 0 0 4 0 4
FfD 0 4 35 0 39
RfD 0 0 4 0 4
AfD 0 0 14 0 14

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

Archived discussions

[edit]

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

Current discussions

[edit]
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.

April 5, 2026

[edit]

User:Aliwaleed755

[edit]
User:Aliwaleed755 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a misuse of user space for hoax purposes. The entirety of this user page is being used to create a fictionalised version of 27th Arabian Gulf Cup, where the tournament supposedly takes place this month in Oman instead of Saudi Arabia in September. Ironically, even the sources used confirm that the tournament is in Saudi! There is nothing worth saving from this user page and we frequently delete hoax user space material (such as fake election results and alternate history pages) at MfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and maybe move to a subpage. This person appears to be active in improving Gulf Cup-related pages, and we should have no problem with them experimenting with wikimarkup/editing in their userspace. If it were someone who were only here for hoax material, I'd say delete, but I don't see silly experimentation as out of scope for userspace. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between this and say this, this or these? Also do WP:NOTALTHIST and WP:MADEUP not also apply for user pages or are they typically exempt? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTHERE is the difference. As I mentioned, this is a user who actually edits these articles in an encyclopedic way, so it would not be true to say they're only here for alternative history/fantasy stuff. All it requires is assuming good faith that they're experimenting in a sandbox. Generally speaking, if moved to a sandbox nobody will ever see it or be confused -- no need for drama over trivial userspace stuff IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is a difference between non-encyclopedic material and non-encyclopedia material that is contrary to fact. Non-encyclopedic material is only a waste of time, and usually we should not increase the waste of time by debating whether to delete it. Contrary-to-fact material that appears to be factual is actual misinformation and must be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 4, 2026

[edit]

Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments

[edit]
Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a talk subpage dedicated entirely to entertaining arguments about the answer to the Monty Hall problem: whether it is more beneficial to switch doors or if it makes no difference. The former is the commonly accepted standard result, and the article reflects this in wikivoice. The latter is still a commonly held view and is given plenty of mention.

The intent behind the talk subpage was to sequester away the pointless arguments started by folks who arrive at the article's main talk page wanting to debunk the standard result, and perpetuated by folks who don't understand that some people refuse to look through the telescope. There are fifteen archives worth of these arguments going back to 2009, each archive page being extremely long.

It has been, and will continue to be, an inordinate waste of time for all editors involved to participate in these lengthy debates. There are much better ways to deal with a situation where an article's claims are frequently contested by users.

Still, it's an old page with a lot of history. My first choice would be to archive or otherwise deprecate. My second choice would be to delete. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 20:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "waste of time" argument is nonsense. The people who spend time there, guess what? it's their time to waste, not yours. You don't get to account for it as a cost in any way whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's their time to waste, yes. But Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to do it: Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else.". The /arguments subpage, in my opinion, is very far out of bounds.
    There is a tangible cost to the project when we let this sort of thing happen: some of the folks who have frequented those debates are perfectly productive editors, who are just having trouble resisting the siren song of proving other people wrong on the internet. Monitoring these discussions so that they can be moderated takes volunteer time too. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they could be otherwise productive, it's still their choice, not yours. It's frankly offensive to think you get to arrange things to make other people more productive. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed.
    • some of the folks who have frequented those debates are perfectly productive editors, who are just having trouble resisting the siren song – Thank you, but productive editors are perfectly capable of dealing with siren songs without your unwelcome help.
    • Monitoring these discussions so that they can be moderated takes volunteer time too – No, it doesn't. The crazies who congregate there can just go on forever on their own, like these guys (worth clicking on for one of Capt. Kirk's best heartfelt entreaties!).
    /arguments is a vital pressure-relief valve that keeps cranks from bothering the rest of us. Please, please leave it alone. EEng 22:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. The first point, I can see it was probably out of bounds to insinuate that sort of thing. I apologize, I didn't mean any wrong.
    I'm not sold on the idea that the /arguments tab is working to prevent the cranks from bothering other folks, though. It escalated all the way to ArbCom once.
    If this talk subpage really is the best viable way to keep productive editors on task as best as possible, then of course it should be kept. But have other alternatives been considered? I figured having a scary looking banner and a scary looking edit notice, plus getting in the habit of closing discussions that are clearly not going anywhere, would be sufficient. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would resist the temptation to "close discussions that are clearly not going anywhere". They're going around in circles in an obscure corner where they can be ignored; that's sort of the whole point. If you try to suppress them there, they might go around in circles somewhere more bothersome. --Trovatore (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about closing discussions at the arguments page. Yes, it's possible to do what you said on the main talk page. But it's definitely the higher-stress option. It can also be corrosive to discourse if there's a difference of opinion about which discussions are not going anywhere. People "close" discussions on their own initiative, the other side (which sometimes may have had a point worth listening to) gets offended, you have a close-unclose edit war, all sorts of bad feelings ensue, and it's hard to get back to productive talk. In principle the same sorts of things can happen with moves to arguments pages, but in practice, they usually don't. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I just moved a thread from the talk page to /args. That can also offend someone, but it rarely happens, because the cranks know they can crank away at /args, so they just start there and entertain one another. (To be clear, there are some non-cranks at /args, who out of the goodness of their hearts try to bring the cranks back to planet Earth, but so far they're wasting their time. EEng 04:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We just went through this discussion in the last few months (thought apparently not at AfD). EEng 22:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Cantor's_diagonal_argument/Arguments_(2nd_nomination)? Or do you mean something else? We're at MfD, not AfD. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD, MfD, whatever. Yes, that's the discussion, and all the points made there apply here. That nominator had the grace to withdraw the nom to save wasting more time, and you would do well to do the same here. EEng 04:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deleting this page will result in disruption of the article talk page, Talk:Monty Hall problem rather than having a side room.
    • The nominator says to Archive or otherwise deprecate. Yes. This page is deprecated from its creation by being a subpage of an article talk page.
    • There is less disruption by providing a place for argument than by deleting the place for argument and then trying to keep the arguments off the article page.
    • The nominator writes: There are much better ways to deal with a situation where an article's claims are frequently contested by users.. I disagree. What does the nominator think is a better way to deal with good-faith misguided arguments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant 'deprecate' as in mark it as not being open for any further discussion, without actually deleting the page.
    I thought the better way to prevent disruption would be to do it the way I've seen it done everywhere else on the project: usually through an edit notice (see [1] for some examples) and a FAQ banner. That sort of thing, though, I realize is not exclusive to having the /arguments talk subpage deprecated.
    I see there's a lot of support for the status quo, so unless there's a non-objection I'd like to withdraw from the nomination. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 08:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the number of pages that link there, let alone everything else. Graham87 (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Adhora Anthology

[edit]
Draft:The Adhora Anthology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not an attempt at a wikipedia article. It appears to be a short story. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Please see WP:Leave useless drafts alone. This draft is not currently harmful and it is better to just wait for it to expire. Doesn't currently meet anything in WP:DELREASON, since it's not an article, so the reasoning that it won't be an article does not matter. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT and WP:BLP contain the most frequency Policy reasons to delete things in draftspace. WP:Notability guideline based reasons do not apply to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT. NOTWEBHOST. NOTPROMOTION (of The Adhora Anthology). “Leave useless drafts alone” is only valid for plausible drafts; this page is not a plausible draft. It is a misuse of draftspace and a misuse of Wikipedia. The Adhora Anthology (talk · contribs) needs to learn this straight away. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, endorsing Smokey's rationale. I am a frequent invoker of WP:LUDA. But it does not apply where there is prima facie evidence this was not intended as a draft of an encyclopedia article in the first place. Martinp (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This didn't really need to be nominated, since draft space is self-clearing, and I'm generally inclined to leave useless drafts alone. This draft is a little worse than useless, though, because it's misusing Wikipedia as a webhost, and that violates a policy which applies to all namespaces. If I had seen this rejected draft oustside of MFD, I might have just left it alone, but since we're here we might as well delete it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - No, Leave Useless Drafts Alone is not only about plausible drafts. It is also about pages in draft space that are not plausible drafts, because the demand on volunteer time of reviewing the MFD nominations is more of a waste of Wikipedia time than any imagined harm done by the presence of non-encyclopedic pages. We are already here, but when we start deleting non-encyclopedic pages in draft space because they are already at MFD, we will send a signal that reviewing and deleting non-encyclopedic pages is a proper use of review time and of MFD. Leave Useless Drafts Alone is not only about plausible drafts. It is also about non-encyclopedic pages in draft space. If an experienced editor finds that a new editor is creating drafts that will never be articles, it is reasonable to advise the new editor that they are wasting their time, but it is counterproductive to take the stuff to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 2, 2026

[edit]

User:JoshyfromShelton/sandbox

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

Non-encyclopedic content from a long-ago-deleted draft. Fails WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTGUIDE with most content consisting of marketing language, meeting times and locations, and many links to the subject's website and social media channels. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly nominate this for speedy deletion instead? There seems to be a new rise in opposition to deleting drafts in MfD. If not, then this bad draft should just be left alone. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 04:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any speedy deletion options that would apply. As usual for these types of discussions, keep. Leave useless drafts alone. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a user sandbox, not a draft. WP:LUDA is based on the premise that drafts are deleted automatically if not edited for six months; user sandboxes don't do that. Omphalographer (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blank with {{Userpage blanked}} is sufficient. There is no need or benefit to bringing old innocuous old drafts to MfD. This page has none of the BLP or Copyrights concerns that motivated to desire to delete old stuff. The previous G13 deletion is not a justification to delete now. However, it is a hopeless draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe @EasternShah @Organhaver Thanks for the comments. I didn't see a CSD category that qualified and I am not sure of the rules for blanking a userpage without discussion, but I have no objection to someone closing this this early and doing a blanking instead. I do not participate often at MfD, so if I misjudged the correct approach here, I'm sorry for wasting community time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are no “rules” for blanking, it’s a matter of etiquette and judgement. It’s poor etiquette to fiddle with others’ userspace, but if the page is worthless with some negative value, and the user is long inactive, then choosing to blank is in my opinion, good judgement. Blanking doesn’t have the cost of an MfD discussion. It’s cheap, and easily undone, if done mistakenly, or with poor etiquette or judgement.
I think blanking is nicer to the old user, assuming they are lurking or one day to return. It was quietly done, without public allegation of poor judgement on their part. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, keep with no opposition to blanking. An organization article sourced almost entirely to its own websites seems pretty G11ish to me, but short of that, if it's just a low quality sandbox draft, that's not a reason to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above; and SmokeyJoe's commentary on blanking is wise. In fact, I'm tempted to think we should add elements of it somewhere in our MFD process pages, to try to stem the flood of unnecessary user sandbox MfD nominations. But then again, those pages are full of well-intentioned words that are sufficiently overwhelming that it seems not many read anyway. No criticism of nominator implied; we need to be clearer and more concise. Martinp (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 30, 2026

[edit]

User:UBX/Eurosceptic

[edit]
User:UBX/Eurosceptic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A userbox being unused is not a reason for deletion (to my knowledge). Also, in the future, when nominating userboxes for MfD, wrap the deletion template in noinclude tags. Twinkle has an option for this, even. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Organhaver. At worst, this should be userfied it to Gulf of Carpentaria's (the creator) userspace, but I don't see a good reason to even do that. I don't think this violates WP:UBCR, as it's a pretty neutral statement of a political position. This is not TFD, so I don't see how it being unused is a valid reason to delete it, or take any other action. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per other editors, being unused is not a reason to delete userboxen, and the political position is not hateful. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Unused is not a reason to delete. Reasons to keep in general include potential to be used, and history of it being used (eg. in the history of userpages). SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WBATPOUTPVWTVIAA

[edit]
Wikipedia:WBATPOUTPVWTVIAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Ancient parody project page that is hardly funny and that hardly makes any sense, does not also seem very important in the community (checked WhatLinksHere). Aasim (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 29, 2026

[edit]

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Marriage

[edit]
User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused, politically divisive and possibly inflammatory userbox created by an editor who is now community banned partially for creating problematic userboxes. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an opinion that isn't directly harmful to anyone and specifically about Marriage in the Catholic Church. I don't believe it's "politically divisive". A userbox being unused is also not a reason for deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unrelated, but thanks for wrapping the deletion tag in noincludes... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't see it meeting the bar for "divisive and inflammatory" enough to nuke speedily, and as an unused userbox I don't see it worth community time to spend discussing. I wouldn't be opposed to a policy where userspace of community banned users (of certain types? under certain circumstances?) is deleted, or material abandoned and unused for long enough in user space is too (again, would take some thinking exactly under what circumstances). But weird abandoned stuff like this is not worth fussing about if not blatant enough to speedily delete. Martinp (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection if someone familiar with a bigger picture wants to delete per WP:DENY. I don't see it, but I trust others if they have the battle scars to say it's trolling. Martinp (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

[edit]



March 26, 2026

[edit]

Draft:RPAC, LLC

[edit]
Draft:RPAC, LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Duplicate of Draft:RPAC (company) Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 23:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag this draft to be merged into the other draft. If the two drafts are known to be the same, one can be redirected to the other. The creation and submission of multiple copies of drafts is common, and usually it is not obvious to a reviewer whether the drafts are identical or almost identical, and it should be the responsibility of the originator to decide which one is the submitted copy. It is not the responsibility of MFD to clean up duplicate or almost duplicate drafts, which should be edited by the originator and will be cleaned up automatically if left alone for six months. It is not the job of the community to delete duplicate drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 18, 2026

[edit]

Wikipedia:Text of the GNU General Public License

[edit]
Wikipedia:Text of the GNU General Public License (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)

I believe this text is not allowed under Wikipedia's current licensing policy. The very first section states Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. This is a no-derivatives license, which contravenes the definition of free cultural works. Thus I believe this passage is actually non-free content. Since Wikipedia can only distribute content under CC-BY-SA and/or GDFL (or freer) under WP:CRANDO, whereas there is no evidence that the FSF has ever licensed the text of the GPL under such a license, I do not believe we are able to host the literal text of this license lawfully on any Wikimedia wiki. So I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. I think both of these are best hosted on WMF Governance where the "Creative Commons" footer can be hidden from view (so it can be made clear that the text is not CC licensed). Aasim (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous MFD. This is overthinking the matter. At absolute worst, this is cause for request to find a fancy way to hide the footer, or just explicitly including a disclaimer at the top that the default footer does not apply here. But a footer being on 100% of a website but only applicable to 99.999% is not a problem. It's very unlikely someone will mistakenly think the GPL is licensed under Creative Commons - anyone who would even think about the question already knows enough to know it's not. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is fully protected so I can't edit it, but would it be acceptable to drop off an edit request to add something like {{Selfref|The GNU GPL is not licensed under cc-by-sa 4.0; disregard the footer statement at the end of this webpage.}} ? Using Template:Selfref would make it so that ideally re-users don't accidentally import a bizarre disclaimer. Or heck, even an image of that text to make copy/paste errors impossible. SnowFire (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WMF Governance. That way, WMF can hide the footer so it is clearer that the text is not licensed under CC BY-SA. Aasim (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I'd be inclined to ask that Project:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License be listed here so we can debate transwikiing as well. Aasim (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note when searching a bit, I found User talk:Aistrue, which only edit is to add the GPL with some application-specific text at the bottom (so probably copy-and-pasted out of some specific application's license). That probably should be include in this discussion? Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I boldly tagged that as copyvio because even if we carve out a very narrow case under wmf:Licensing policy for this page, using the text anywhere else would potentially be copyright infringement as it is incompatible with CC BY-SA. Aasim (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought the GFDL MfD was completely frivolous and still don't buy the licensing concerns, but projectspace doesn't exist to compile open-source licenses that we don't use. Apparently only two people have linked here in the last twenty years, and anyone who wants to join them can easily just make an external link. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 14, 2026

[edit]

User:Bravelake/userboxes/keepstatues

[edit]
User:Bravelake/userboxes/keepstatues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Obviously inflammatory and divisive, this userbox violates WP:UBCR by essentially endorsing neo-Confederate opposition to the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not name Neo-Confederates. Historical statues, plaques, and other public monuments and memorials are are broadly worldwide issue not specific to any culture. There is strong academic opposition to the destruction of historical statues, in favour of moving them, or at least applying an explanatory plaque noting current rejection of prior opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the image used in the userbox is that of a Confederate monument located at Loudon Park Cemetery in Baltimore. The message is pretty clear, IMHO. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I consider that choice of statue to be subtle enough that the userbox should still be read in a general academic context.
The Confederacy happened. Memorabilia honouring the Confederacy exists. This memorabilia is now considered in bad taste. This is a story common to social change everywhere and always. Social change is not best managed by knee jerk destruction of relics, there are more civilised ways to come to terms with one’s uncomfortable history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the choice of that image for this userbox as a clear sign of what the userbox was meant to be – a clear endorsement of neo-Confederate views regarding the removal of Confederate monuments. If the userbox was created in good faith, without the intention to endorse inflammatory and divisive views, then the creator would choose pretty much any other image for it. We, for sure, don't lack endangered cultural/historical heritage and monuments in this world – so the creator's options for an appropriate image would be quite limitless. Finally, I don't see anything subtle (nor acceptable) in displaying images of monuments erected to glorify those who spent 4 years fighting to perpetuate slavery in North America. There is no reason for those monuments to be preserved or honored; likewise, there is no reason for us to allow userboxes that clearly display neo-Confederate sympathies. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 02:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One’s desire to preserve historical artifacts isn’t a sympathy towards the history those artifacts arose out of. That’s such a reductive viewpoint.
this userbox uses the same image was another userbox. The image could be replaced with any statute, or any removed statute, and its sentiment would be exactly the same. It doesn’t express “neo-confederate” sympathies anymore than it expresses “neo-Jeffersonian” or “neo-Churchillian” sentiments, or sentiments for any other statue that’s been removed in recent years Bravelake (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On further reading, it does seem that there is a current US anxiety about neo-confederacy that is not easily transferred to more distant historical statues. Artwork, yes, but statues not so much. I suggest that the image be changed, even if it’s not so easy. I suggest changing the statue to File:UCT Cape Town - Statue of Rhodes.jpg. It’s modern, but at least it’s not US-centric. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having in mind the controversy that surrounds Cecil Rhodes and his legacy in South Africa, I'm sure that some less controversial solution for the image could be found. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 11:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think controversial is what’s wanted. Controversial can avoid “inflammatory and decisive” by going historical. The Cecil Rhodes is not more in the past so much as at least not US-centric. Another example might be a lot better. I didn’t find any ancient examples. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By controversial, I meant that calling for preservation of the monuments to Cecil Rhodes in South Africa isn't much different than neo-Confederate opposition to the removal of Confederate monuments in the US. Both examples are inflammatory and divisive. A possible alternative, and an acceptable image, could be related to destruction of cultural heritage by the Islamic State, for example. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 12:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following is a good example: File:KV55 sarcophagus (Cairo Museum).jpg. The general topic is damnatio memoriae. A later example is File:Julia Aquilia Severa - detail.JPG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both of these images are acceptable; I see nothing controversial / racist attached to them. Still, my personal choice would be File:Sargon of Akkad (frontal).jpg or File:Sargon of Akkad.jpg. It is still non-controversial, and is an example of damage in the ancient times; the mask was likely mutilated during the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC. Also, the Nefertiti Bust is another acceptable example from the ancient times. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 04:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As the other voter said, this info box civilly represents a valid academic position on the virtue of preserving historical artifacts.
That you disagree with its principle is not dispositive evidence that it violates policies or guidelines. It is no more inflammatory than many other userboxes discussing contested political ideals. In fact, its language is much more civil and polished than other userboxes, particularly those condemning Trump, for instance.
Wikipedia is not censored. That you find it offensive is not reason to try to purge Wikipedia of content you dislike Bravelake (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:UBCR: "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for...Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)...Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics." Many would argue supporting the existence of Confederate statues is also "inflammatory or substantially divisive." AusLondonder (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh I keep the opposite userbox in my userspace because I can't think of a good reason to keep confederate statues up. However, I acknowledge that non-confederates might have a reason for not destroying art work depicting bad people. For that reason, I will not be casting a !vote in this discussion. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm not against political userboxes more broadly, even ones about contentious topics. I generally think being transparent and honest about our biases can be a good thing. But I'm also a believer in & endorser of WP:NOCONFED, and this qualifies as a neoconfederate userbox to me. The text of the userbox is tame and vague, but the image makes it obvious this is specifically about Confederate nostalgia, contrary to SmokeyJoe's keep rationale ("worldwide issue not specific to any culture"). My support for deletion is being made easier by the fact that there's currently zero users using this on their userpage, so whether it stays or goes isn't really a big deal.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm also a believer in and endorser of WP:NOCONFED (I'm also one of its co-authors), I thank you for bringing it up in your vote, as I forgot to do it myself in the nomination. Thanks again! — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 02:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox expresses support for keeping historical statues. It doesn’t specific which kind. The image could be replaced with any removed statue and its sentiment/purpose would be unchanged. Bravelake (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is about Confederate statues and your ridiculous denials here and on the other AfDs are entirely disingenuous. How stupid do you think we are? --DanielRigal (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is quite obvious Confederate trolling. There is no good faith to assume here. I am genuinely unable to understand how you are not seeing this. The picture on the box is File:Loudon Park Confederate Monument.JPG. (Details at Loudon Park Cemetery.) We are being trolled. The author probably finds the keep !votes hilarious. OK. Look. I'm sorry if I sound exasperated. I am exasperated, but I don't mean to take it out on you. It's just that it is 2026. We have had more than a decade to familiarise ourselves with the language games and plausible deniability tactics being used here. I'm not even American and I can see this as clear as day. I would hope that anybody else would be able to see it too. Obviously, I must accept that that is not the case, given the fact that some people are !voting keep in good faith. I think that's deeply concerning for Wikipedia. If we can't deal with fairly obvious provocations like this then how can we stand a chance against more subtle attempts to disrupt the project. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a picture of a Confederate monument labeled "This user supports preserving historical statues." It's not an AGF vio to put two and two together and recognize that this userbox is about the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. That's just what it is about. We don't have to assume the image must have been chosen completely randomly and that it's just a coincidence that they picked out that picture for this userbox. AGF does not require us to play dumb and let it slide as long as there's the thinnest layer of plausible deniability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The box is disruptive and dishonest. The box doesn't have the honesty to say "This user supports preserving Confederate statues in locations where they serve to intimidate and demean the black population", or even to link to an article about Confederate statues. The infobox owner is playing games with us here and also with some of his other infoboxes which are also at AfD. The game is to hide bigotry behind euphemisms and faux-civility and see how much can be sneaked past us unnoticed and what provokes a reaction. In other words, this is trolling. It's more subtle than a lot of trolling but it's not that subtle. We do not have to be gullible. We do not have to bend over backwards pretending that we don't know what this box actually means. We do not have to give the benefit of the doubt when there is absolutely no doubt to benefit from. Hate is disruptive. Dishonesty is disruptive. Trolling is disruptive. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The meaning of this user box became crystal clear once I clicked on the image. These tiny thumbnail photos are user box eye candy for many editors in our global community, and in this specific case, especially those who are interested in visual arts, public art and sculpture. After clicking it was shocking to see the image of the confederate soldier, which seemed like a deliberate choice. I'll try to assume good faith that the intention may not have been to provoke or buy into the culture wars (which are very relevant to these times), so I will say that it was truly a poor choice that lacked good judgement and sensitivity. Perhaps a lack of clue, perhaps not. There are hundreds if not thousands of sculptures that do not provoke hatred and racial tension that would have been a much better choice for the encyclopedia. This image divides people, it fractures our community, it polarizes our readership. WP:UBCR and WP:NOCONFED apply, I do not think it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted and strongly so. Netherzone (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This MfD is now officially "old business" and there have been no new comments in a while. Does anybody want to bring it to a close? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be relisted in order to get further/clearer consensus, if admins would prefer that. Naturally, being involved and the nominator, I wouldn't want to relist it myself. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't click on the image when I saw the userbox (and I'm not familiar with that monument either), so all I saw was the text: "This user supports preserving historical statues." which seems neutral to me. If the image is what makes the userbox offensive, then I suggest changing the image to something else. Some1 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If other people were using the userbox in good faith then I would agree but there is nobody using this userbox other than its creator who is using it for the purpose of trolling. This AfD has been running for quite a while and at no point has the creator changed the image because the image is the whole point of the box. The text is a sick joke, a provocation and transparently insincere. Hence it is intentionally disruptive to the project and needs to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bravelake Would you be okay with editors changing the image of the userbox to something else? Some1 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 4, 2026

[edit]

User:Hrabowyc

[edit]
User:Hrabowyc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

20-year-old abandoned draft of Tutor expertise in adult education. Apocheir (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge and delete per Pery Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 22:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - zero valid reasons for deletion given. Someone drafted an article on their userpage, which is common even if we prefer it be done in a subpage. Then they copy/pasted to make it an article rather than move it. Nobody is required to move their sandbox rather than copy/paste, but it is preferable so a histmerge is probably the best outcome here. In any event, we need a reason to delete, and nobody has provided one. It's not a copy of an article or a fork, it's where the article was drafted. Not opposed to moving to a subpage and redirecting after histmerge if that's what folks want but delete doesn't gain anything here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1347220712"