Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[a]
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.
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

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:

More information Instructions on listing pages for deletion: ...

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.

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}}

{{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

More information V, Dec ...

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	126	131	257
TfD	1	0	8	9
MfD	0	0	1	1
FfD	3	5	26	34
RfD	0	17	64	81
AfD	0	0	28	28

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

March 15, 2026

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/JONS

Userbox about supporting a political party described as "neo-fascist, ultranationalist and xenophobic" on its Wikipedia page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

User:UBX/Anit-FTX

I propose deleting this unused userbox about hating a defunct company (there is a typo in the pagename "Anti FTX"). The userbox was created by an indef-ed sock account. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

JeiAllenYes's user pages

Alternate history pages about fictional military conflicts; Wikipedia is not a frree web host and we're not allowed this sort of thing on user pages. User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox5 andUser:JeiAllenYes/sandbox7 have been tagged for pending deletion by CSD U6 Bot (which is how I found this situation) and I've tagged the remaining pages that qualify for speedy deletion under either criteria U6 or U7 for speedy deletion, as follows: User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox, User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox1, User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox2, User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox3, User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox4, User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox6, and User:JeiAllenYes/sandbox8. If criterion for speedy deletion U5 was still around, all the pages in this user's userspace would qualify, but since that's no longer the case, I'm nominating those that don't (because they were created in the last six months or are root user pages) for deletion here. I'm going to mention this nomination at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion as a case study, but I'm not sure how much it should influence any changes to the speedy deletion criteria. Feel free to improve the formatting of this page; I'm not used to doing multiple nominations like this. Graham87 (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Alternate history, or fiction, is not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia and its mere existence poses a risk. Does anyone know why there is rush of these things in the last few years? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, its the editor here, if i can't post a page about Alternate-history or in fictional battles, then where do i post one and not in Wikipedia?, since i have no other choice of posting in other fandoms about Alternate history and fictional battles, i respect with this questions. JeiAllenYes (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Docs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Neocities! — Hex • talk 12:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Editor here, a second account (I can't log in), but what about the "Infobox: Military conflict"? They're kinda important to me, to be honest. JeiAllenYes2 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You can use a MediaWiki hosting service or install MediaWiki yourself. Graham87 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete All as web hosting by a non-contributor and as things that were made up. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - There have long been editors, and subcultures of editors, who have wanted to create and display various sorts of fiction and fantasy. Many of them have discovered that Wikipedia provides the technical capabilities that they are looking for. They exist on Wikipedia until the Wikipedia community discovers and deletes them. The basic answer to your question is that Wikipedia provides the technical capabilities that they need. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Trilletrollet/Userboxes/Epstein Fury

I don't like Epstein and his actions towards his victims but I also am against the actions of any civilian deaths (both Iranian and non-Iranian civilians) too. All of that aside, the userbox alongside with the name are not appropriate during this time and could offend any anti-child exploitation activists who are of Iranian or Israeli descent. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Just a completely frivolous nomination, no reasonable person would be offended by this. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 06:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The nomination is made because name is very unacceptable. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Clever satirical rhetoric, I am not sure whether it is ok as a userbox, but I am sure that the embedded redirect is not ok in mainspace and I have listed it at RfD, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15#Operation Epstein Fury. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This userbox is very questionable. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newbie council

This page was a "mental note, made public" according to Stevertigo's edit summary. Stevertigo has been banned since 2015 and the ~~article~~ page has not been edited once since its creation 17 years ago. Nothing appears to have come of the idea, so I am unsure if it can even be marked as historical. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 00:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Userfy for User:Stevertigo.

As for the idea, I think the notion is good for a “Newbie focus group”, not a council. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the point in userfying something for a banned user? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I remember Stevertigo, with some affection. He was interesting, and had interesting ideas, including this one. Interesting, even if not baked. He shouldn’t have put it straight into Projectspace, like other things he shouldn’t have done, but that does not mean it should be deleted. It should have been put in userspace to start with.

It should be kept, like nearly all of Stevertigo’s edits are kept. There is historical value in the ideas of early prolific contributors, even if the value is not immediate or obvious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If anyone wants to preserve content for 'historical value', it is entirely possible (and advisable) to make an archive copy of the project. Or more sensibly, a whole series of snapshots through time. Meanwhile, the purpose of the project we actually edit is to create and maintain a working encyclopaedia, not a historical artefact. Filling it with arbitrary content kept for no better reason than 'I liked the guy' is contrary to its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

As a historical record, it is undesirable to separate the record from the authors edit history. His edits before and after give context. In contrast, moving the page to userspace is simple to do and preserves the context. It is not “advisable” to copy paste content without good reason.

The main purpose of contributing is to build and maintain the encyclopedia. Things like checking that all editor groups are valued, the thrust of this mental note for 500-5000 edit contributors, is in support of that main purpose.

Clearing stuff like this, unilateral halfbaked ideas, out of projectspace is a good thing, and I support it, but needless deletion of historical ideas I don’t support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest anyone should copy-paste anything. If you don't understand how the Wikipedia:Database download system works, and why material available through that is the appropriate form for preserving a 'historical record', that's your problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Userfying on old unfollowed essay-idea is far easier than forking the project, and remains available for any Wikipedian going forwards, unlike the fork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making ridiculous shit up. I wrote nothing whatsoever about forking the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete as a nothingburger of an idea that went nowhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Nothingburger is not a fair comment. 500 to 5000 edits represents editors who have become serious, but are still new. Likely, they won’t be quick to put forward their views. However, in the vein of WP:Editors matter, ensuring that this cohort is respected is an idea with merit. Establishing a council is not, in my opinion, ideal, but from ideas come other ideas.

Put it in his userspace where anyone who reads it won’t be confusing in thinking it is a project activity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete : We need to distinguish this page from the concept of some sort of emerging editor focus group. The former, this page, really is a nothingburger created by a banned user that has almost never been used. If any sort of council or project or task force had been in operation, there would have been activity on its talk page. There is no talk page. It appears that there never had been a talk page. This page itself is almost never viewed. In 2025, there were 8 pageviews. That is pageviews in the year, not average daily pageviews (which is about 0.02). In 2024, there were 7 pageviews. The concept of some sort of emerging editor focus group is not a nothingburger. If someone wants to launch the idea, they were welcome to do so, and can describe it in more detail than the banned user did, who created this page and left it alone for six years before being banned. The idea of moving it to the banned user's user space is not so much silly as bizarre, making it into a sort of zombie. If anyone wants to advance the concept of a group, they can discuss it at the Teahouse or the Idea Lab or in other forums. It seems like a good idea that does not need to be weighted down by having been mentioned seventeen user ago by a user who wrote it down and then did other things for another six years. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 14, 2026

Wikipedia:Redlinks within reason, Bluelinks within context

This essay does not seem to have aged well. It endorses the removal of redlinks simply for the sake of not having too many — this appears to go against current policy per WP:REDDEAL. The rest is more or less a cumbersome restatement of MOS:OVERLINK. Defeats the purpose of having an essay when it explains the content less clearly than the guideline itself. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. 20 year old essays do not get deleted. Your concern should go to the essay talk page. There are many ways to address your concern, and deletion is very far down the list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, what do you think are the merits of this essay? Is there simply a practice of never deleting really old essays? As I've already said, the part about removing redlinks is blatantly wrong, which already invalidates half of the basic premise of this essay. The guiding factors in adding redlinks and bluelinks to articles should be exactly the same (whether the linked subject notable and relevant to the topic of the article), thus making an essay that discusses them as if they are different useless. — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In the context of 2006, when articles were in exponential growth, and redlinks were produced my anyone’s idea of a missing article, and writing articles to turn redlinks blue was a standard method of new editors getting started, this was a perfectly good essay.

Deletion of project essays should be reserved for essays that should never have been written.

If the old essay is obsolete due to new better guildlines, MOS pages, or changed practices or standards, options better than deletion include:

Update the essay;
Archive the essay;
Redirect to current better advice.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep as first choice, or Mark Historical as second choice. When SmokeyJoe says 20 year old essays do not get deleted, I assume that he means that they should be kept for historical reference if they are no longer useful in the present. The nominator hasn't made what I consider a case that there is anything obsolete about this essay, but if it is obsolete, or misleading, we can just put {{historical}} on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Bravelake/userboxes/keepstatues

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Nonexistent does not mean non-notable

This microessay is an extension of Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. It was created by an account that was recently blocked for disruptive editing, and recently restored by an user that somehow learned it existed. Such ideas can be expanded in the aforementioned page. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability as a caveat to that essay. BD2412 T 19:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect. Revert to User:Tbhotch‘ redirect of 5 March. The essay reads as a fair point, but it is a brief point by Oh, It's Me! So Cool! (talk · contribs), blocked as a vandalism account. Over a week later, Special:Contributions/~2026-15350-66 reverts the redirect. Unregistered accounts don’t have accountability and so should not be in projectspace, either WP:Register or stop WP:SOCKING. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect as per SmokeyJoe. We don't want to encourage unregistered editors trying to "improve" the work of vandals. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

March 12, 2026

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Fornication

Violates WP:UBCR: "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)." Created and only used by indef blocked editor with few positive contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep tons of shit worse than this. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not a credible reason to keep a newly-created userbox used by one indef blocked user. AusLondonder (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all Lazereon (talk · contribs) subpages as trolling by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Infidelity

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep — Many, many, many userboxes exist that signal the user’s position on policy questions. This seems like a targeted nomination to remove userboxes you personally disagree with. Bravelake (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

All nominations are "targeted" in the sense that every nomination for deletion has a target and yes, this nomination is particularly targeted to a userbox created by a disruptive non-contributor. Furthermore where and when is adultery a "policy question"? AusLondonder (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I would say keep but the wording is making me think of deleting. If it was "this user thinks that..." I would be okay with it. "This user recognizes..." is delete-worthy. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Estado Novo

Userbox supporting a fascist dictatorship. Violates WP:UBCR: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive." Created and only used by indef blocked editor with few positive contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Novorossiyan Sympathy

WP:UBCR -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Violates WP:UBCR: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive" and "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)." Created and only used by indef blocked editor with few positive contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all subpages by this recently arrived and blocked troll. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. They are used to publicly express support for fascist organisations. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Anti-natsoc

WP:UBCR -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Isn't this an anti-Nazi userbox? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
yes and no. see the ANI thread for context. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#My_block_of_User:Lazereon. if I've misinterpreted, im open to withdrawing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Pipoin does make a fair point. Support deleting this and all the other stuff under User:Lazereon/Userboxes/*. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Rexist supporter

WP:UBCR -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. They are used to publicly express support for fascist organisations. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Leftist naming resistant

Inflammatory userbox by user blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE and WP:HID. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 16:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Violates WP:UBCR: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive." Created and only used by indef blocked editor with few positive contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes in this userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete all userboxes in this userspace, per TheTechie. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Fish-fag

Bad use of AFC process. This can be created for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects instead. -Lemonaka 15:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutral at this time. If let alone, would have expired in three months. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

True, but that’s not a reason to bring it to MfD. Ignore per WP:NDRAFT. Draftspace exists to keep stuff like this contained, and bring it to a formal discussion here defeats that purpose. The idea that it could go to a variation on the AfC process is a reason to WP:Move, not delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep for now, not causing any problems. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

User:ImDefAHuman/sandbox

Alternate history sandbox positing imaginary candidates in the 1868 United States presidential election. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any science fiction you want to for the funsies, and creating a page in userspace does not absolve it of having to be accurate about real history. User is almost certainly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, either, as their edit history has been exclusively to this page except for a single bit of mainspace vandalism to 1800 United States presidential election, adding random extra letters to the name of the winner for no apparent reason, in 2021. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up and as web hosting by non-contributor. U5 is gone, but the rule against web hosting by non-contributors is not gone, and we should still delete such stuff. We just need to discuss it first, and this is the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:N6wsef/sandbox

Alternate history sandbox reversing the results of the 2002 French presidential election. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any science fiction you want to for the funsies, and creating a page in userspace does not absolve it of having to be accurate about real history. User is almost certainly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, either, as their only other edit outside of this page was a bit of mainspace vandalism flipping the result of the 2000 Romanian general election. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete for various reasons, including as a biographies of living persons violation with respect to Lionel Jospin, as well as presenting fiction as fact. I would have said Weak Delete on the first edits by a new editor, so that we cannot be sure that they are a non-contributor, but being a new editor does not excuse BLP violations, even if incidental, when there is no need for the fantasy piece anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax with BLP violations, per Robert McClenon. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. How interesting; so far I saw only POTUS–related alt-history crap around here. I had no idea that there's similar "content" related to France tho. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Lazereon/Userboxes/Conquered not Stolen

Plainly inappropriate userbox. WP:HID -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Violates WP:UBCR: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive." Created and only used by indef blocked editor with few positive contributions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Clearly disruptive, propogating hate and a hoax. Star Mississippi 01:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
it was tried, but declined... hence xfd. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: made by a disruptive editor to express hateful ideas. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete for obviously being inflammatory and divisive. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Upcoming Katy Perry album

This draft violates WP:CRYSTAL when there so far has been no sign of an album being in the works yet, or even what it could contain. The tidbit about one possible song to be featured (which either way has incorrect credit listings) is just unconfirmed speculation, as is the part mentioning a 2026 release. The given refs are more about one track anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:LUDA Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Mere essays don't hold much weight compared to policies or even guidelines. I'd rather not enable premature and speculative writing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll vote on Keep, as a creator of this draft. Unless Katy Perry retires, like Britney, her upcoming album must be going to be released. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's an oversimplification to assume another album "must be" at some point released in the future without retirement when sometimes people stick to just EPs or standalone tracks after putting out some albums. Nevertheless, we cannot say for sure when any new releases will follow. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep - The nominator says that they are trying to avoid premature or speculative writing, but deleting a draft because we don't know when or whether it will be released seems speculative. The draft should stay in draft space until it is released, or at least until the information is more solid. Does the nominator really want to encourage editors to rag pick in draft space to have between 10 and 100 MFDs a day for things that might be speculative writing? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what to say about "rag picking", but my point that you're glossing over is it would be better to wait until have some indication that production has begun or at least is being planned out before we start a draft. It otherwise comes off as pulling unconfirmed ideas out of nowhere. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: This is the purpose of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep this is exactly what draftspace is used for. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

March 11, 2026

User:A3RO/TeenWiki

From User talk:HKLionel#Speedy deletion declined: User:A3RO/TeenWiki: The linked cabal was deleted at MfD, there are no other links, and there's no page history that should be kept. There's no use for this userbox and its existence would only serve to confuse, especially as part of the legacy of a user indeffed since 2010. Cabal MfD: WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal HKLionel TALK 11:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedy meh. Not used anywhere and not edited since 2009. Seemingly harmless. I'm not sure why someone landed there and decided to expend effort to try to get it deleted 17 years later, but if in an admin's opinion, it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, then (absent some actual disruption) it's also not worth expending community effort on to discuss here. Some sort of guideline to garbage-collect unused, long-abandoned crud will probably eventually be necessary, but it's not worth individualized attention. (Yes 'Speedy meh' is a bit facetious, so treat this as a Weak Keep.) Martinp (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete, useless userbox, even for socializing. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 12:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete a harmless, albeit useless userbox. I can't find anything online about that website/group online; it's probably a long-defunct website. TruenoCity (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral wasn't aware what a cabal was until now. It's an unused and mostly useless userbox, but no real reason to delete. --TruenoCity (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ Weak Keep - No real reason given to delete, and no strong reason to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Archive, blank. Do not delete history. This happened. Apparently teen celebrity political activism is hard to do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and EasternShah. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

March 9, 2026

User:UBX/Anti-Neurodiversity

violates WP:UBCR "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive" and WP:POLEMIC. being "against neurodiversity" is clearly inflammatory and hurtful to our large neurodiverse editor base and is harmful to a collaborative and friendly editing environment. it's only used by one user, its creator (and their new account). ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete This userbox was clearly meant to attack autistic people. For the record, I hate the word "neurodivergent" despite being autistic myself. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Neurodiversity is not a euphemism for autism, but an umbrella term & framework which includes a number of other communities as well, although our opinions on the term itself are irrelevant to the deletion of this userbox. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 20:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Personality disorders, dissociative disorders, ADHD, and other mental disorders are also neurodiversities. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete hurtful attack userbox. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: This definitely smells like a divisive userbox to me. YOSHI128K ^talk! 16:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above TruenoCity (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 21:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete I was going to nominate it for deletion myself. It's a hateful userbox. I didn't because I had recently discussed the userbox on a Wikimedia Discord server, which might be where sawyer first saw it. I didn't mention the name of the userbox, but I still didn't want to accidentally canvas. Don't worry, sawyer didn't mention the userbox in the server after nominating, I just found out about this discussion after wanting to delete it myself. I 100% agree with sawyer. - Sebbog13 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete as an obvious attack on autistic people. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
It's... not only for autistic people, jeez. See Neurodivergence. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per non. This userbox is offensive to neurodivergent people and violates Wikipedia:No ableism. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Kill line

I am withdrawing this draft for consideration. See the discussion around the Wiktionary entry, potential for redirect to Precariat for more details. Notdexterslab (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment @Notdexterslab: Since you stated that you're withdrawing the draft, I've gone ahead and removed the AfC template from Draft:Kill line. That will remove it from the reviewer queue and it's no longer considered for publication. You don't need to delete the draft itself, but if you still want to, you can just tag it as WP:G7 and bypass the MfD process entirely. ~Liance^talk 20:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
@Liance Thank you, it's appreciated! Notdexterslab (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Allow deletion as a request by the sole substantive author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies

This essay should be moved to someone's user space (probably the original creator, JzG's) because it flaty contradicts WP:DENIALS, part of the core BLP policy. WP:ESSAYS says Essays…that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace” Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Move to userspace. Not sure how this blatantly policy-violating essay has survived this long, but it has well and truly been supplanted by policy in any case. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I think with this change, which has not been challenged, the essay is no longer violating policy. Off and running (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Funny. WP:DENIALS was written specifically to rebut this, by people who think that implausible denials should be given equal weight with fact-based critique. Pretty much the exact situation Mandy Rice-Davies was talking about, in fact. The scenario I was discussing was, for example, RFK Jr. claiming not to be antivax, when every single credible source says he is. When the only source claiming a fact not to be true, is the person the fact is about, we should ignore it. But I recognise that this view is as unpopular on Wikipedia these days as the need for multiple independent sources, the idea of not being a directory, and the rest. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Funny. WP:DENIALS was written specifically to rebut this, by people who think that implausible denials should be given equal weight with fact-based critique. I don't think that is accurate, just before you made this essay, this was the BLP policy, which states If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep This essay does not contradict WP:DENIALS. The essay applies to institutions, not exclusively individuals. While it may be agreed that, for the purpose of BLPs, a denial ought to be included, the same does not apply to organisations, businesses, governments, etc. For this reason, the essay should be retained. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Aside from a random mention of "fake universities and fraudulent journals", every specific example in the essay refers to an individual. Therefore, it is in violation of BLP, and should be moved to user space per the OP's point regarding WP:ESSAYS. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 17:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not a BLP violation; that's absurd. No living person is even mentioned in the essay.

The essay refers to "the subject" of an accusation. This term can refer either to a person or to an institution. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite, the essay is well useful for multiple scenarios, and though I think we should include WP:DENIALS per WP:BLP in cases where an accusation is made against a person, we are allowed to weight the positioning and highlighting of the denial accordingly per WP:MANDY. and there are cases where WP:MANDY applies and its not a BLP, such as for orgs, or if, say, the president of the US is trying to deny the USA ordered air strike on a school, hypothetically. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I did a cursory set of WP:BOLD changes, pinging @JzG who was the original author, feel free to revert if you think this breaks the spirit of what you were aiming for. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I further edited the page. I cannot fathom that the intention of the essay would be to say that it's OK to violate WP:NPOV. Off and running (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to userspace seems sensible to me. Doesn't seem like anyone's arguing to delete this, and userspace is precisely where we keep essays that some users agree with but which have a ... complicated relationship to actual policies and guidelines. Doesn't mean the essay is never ever useful, but I agree it is problematic given the stronger consensus about WP:DENIALS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, I am pretty sure DENIALS post-dates this and is reactionary in nature. There is a terrible tendency to behave like a newspaper. Newspapers always include a denial, however implausible. We are not obliged to follow suit. Consider all the accusations of rape against certain presidents. Do we need to include the denials of the world's most prolific liar, in rebuttal? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
At the time of the essay's creation, this was the version of WP:BLP, which includes If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.. It's only the shortcut WP:DENIALS that was added a few years later, and it looks like there was an RfC around that point, too, reaffirming the existing language. I don't know that a reductio ad trumpum (I can't be the first to coin that, right?) is good basis for these kinds of broad bits of guidance, but userspace essays are good places to make a case that a piece of policy should be changed/read differently than it commonly is. Personally, and in general, I don't think a handful of words acknowledging the denial amid a bunch of text providing evidence and rebuttals and testimony harms understanding of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I like "reductio ad trumpum". I may end up stealing it. ;) I also don't think it's a good idea to only have Trump in mind when examining the impact of this essay. Imagine a situation where Whistleblower says Company has a policy of dumping nuclear waste in lakes all over the world. Company responds by claiming the Whistleblower did it all. Whistleblower strongly denies this, saying he never had access to any of Company's nuclear sites other than the one where he was employed. This essay tries to tell editors to not include Whistleblower's denial, because... "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?". This just doesn't sit right with me. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 17:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep if my bold rewrite of the nutshell is allowed to stand. Off and running (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to Userspace - Keeps getting used as a justification for ignoring BLP policy. It basically says to ignore WP:DENIALS and I don't think that's a good thing for the project. PackMecEng (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
With this change, which has not been challenged, the essay no longer says to ignore WP:DENIALS, just to put the denials in the proper context. Off and running (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
This essay is still named after an incident encouraging skepticism of denials, though. And includes lines like " the denial is not compelling or significant " linking to WP:UNDUE. But that's just the point: actually a denial IS usually significant, and very much DUE, even when (actually) false. Are you proposing "Mandy Rice-Davies doesn't apply"? I would think the essay fans would rather keep the spicy version in userspace, then a toned down one that says "actually, what this essay said before isn't Wikipedia policy". SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
We could change "the denial is not compelling or significant" to something akin to "the denail is expected" (and the association with Hitchens's razor which follows the phrase is not clear to me at all - it should probably be deleted).

The question is: do you think the essay could be salvaged? Off and running (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely, just either via A) userspacing the current spicy version (dissenting opinions are fine, allowed, how else would policy ever change), or B) Changing the slant and probably moving the essay title entirely to something like "Relevant denials, irrelevant denials" that discussed the topic in more the "official" stance (since yeah, BLP is something we want to be careful on putting dissenting opinions into Wikipedia space). My assumption is that the essay fans and creators would rather A, the full spicy version, and would consider B essentially a separate essay... but who knows. 16:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Probably userspace but open to keeping in Wikipedia. This is a wide essay in topic, and some parts are harmless enough for Wikipedia space, but the spicier claims are best in userspace (which as usual does not mean something is wrong). For the case of something like RFK Jr., who says a ton of contradictory nonsense, of course a side comment that he's not anti-vaccine is probably not relevant to include, because he indisputably has said tons of actually anti-vaccine stuff and stands by it, so we report the WP:DUEWEIGHT proportion of his slant. And more generally, "rhetorical" claims - like a prosecutor announcing he's a kind, merciful person who only makes special exceptions for vengeance, but by the way we're seeking the death penalty because this case is just so horrible - we wouldn't use this to report "XYZ says he is a kind and merciful person." Obviously. However. The case of criminal or scandalous accusations is very different and one where actual Wikipedia policy is clear, and unfortunately the page is named for this. Yes, we do provide the benefit of the doubt, and yes we do include denials. Re comment above: Yes, absolutely, if someone denies rape that is almost always worth including, even if they were caught on videotape or something. We can't have one rule for people accused of terrible things we dislike, and another rule for people accused of terrible things we like. All of them get to have their say, even when it's bonkers and at total variance with the seeming facts. Sure, maybe 80% of them are guilty, but police also just... lie. All the time. Plenty of accusations that seemed ironclad have turned out to be built on sand. It's valid to disagree with this stance, but I don't think including it in projectspace is the place to be. I suspect userspacing it would be easier than refactoring it to maybe say something the fans of it disagree with. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to userspace, given how often it is mistakenly cited as a blanket justification to remove denials (even if the essay strives to be more nuanced in some aspects). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 01:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ended today on 16 March 2026. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

March 4, 2026

User:Hrabowyc

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

Delete - Not U6 or U7 because a user page rather than user subpage, but work of a non-contributor. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to subpage and redirect it appears that 18 years ago Hrabowyc used the user page as a draft space while writing Tutor expertise in adult education. I’m not sure if our policies considered that inappropriate then, but it is now, and so it should be moved to a sandbox and then redirected to provide attribution. 1brianm7 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Can we merge the history of User:Hrabowyc with the history of Tutor expertise in adult education? It looks like the last revision of the former (before I got there) is identical to the first revision of the latter. Apocheir (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I honestly have no clue. I read up on WP:HISTMERGE and I think I misunderstood its attribution requirements and my reading of it has this not qualifying. Very possible that I am wrong. 1brianm7 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
As one of the regular histmerging admins, it is technically possible to histmerge given consensus to do so. It's not strictly speaking required since the userpage has only one author (and different histmerging admins disagree over their willingness to grant such a request). Personally, I would support histmerge and delete which seems to satisfy all perspectives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Information on the process

Before nominating a page for deletion

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Administrator instructions

Archived discussions

March 15, 2026

JeiAllenYes's user pages

March 14, 2026

March 12, 2026

March 11, 2026

March 9, 2026

March 4, 2026

Related Articles