Back

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.



Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 7 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

[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.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[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:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

[edit]
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 0 58 58
TfD 0 0 1 20 21
MfD 0 0 0 3 3
FfD 0 0 1 9 10
RfD 0 0 0 39 39
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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.

June 26, 2025

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

The result of the discussion was: withdraw by nominator. (non-admin closure) ―Howard • 🌽33 23:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Omer Benjakob

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

I am not sure what exactly to do with this page but it doesn't seem right to have a project page about a living person since the first result I get on Google searching "Omer Benjakob" shows this page. As this is a project page, it isn't subject to BLP but it may still mislead people into thinking it's an authentic article. This should either be deleted or somehow forced to not appear on Google search results. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may also apply to Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison. This page is the first result when looking up "Stephen Harrison wikipedia" ―Howard • 🌽33 20:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding {{NOINDEX}} would cause the page to no longer appear on Google search.– Supertian8 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just fixed the pages. Catfurball (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, thank you. I was not aware of this template. ―Howard • 🌽33 23:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


June 25, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article

[edit]
Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I am usually rather inclusionist when it comes to humorous essays, because I would rather see someone rebut the premise of an essay with another, opposing, essay, than to delete it because it presents an unpopular viewpoint. However, this essay seems to me to be simply nonsensical, and it does not really offer anything potentially useful in terms of editing Wikipedia. It sounds to me like a riff on WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, mixed either with WP:No Nazis, or Godwin's law. But the Trump-related essay actually addresses an issue about content, whereas it's entirely unclear whether the nominated essay is criticizing the Trump essay, criticizing Trump, or criticizing editors who find fault with Nazis. It strikes me as just making a dumb joke. After all, it's not like we have too many users creating pages about things Hitler did. Ultimately, I think it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. I suggest that it should either be deleted, or moved (back) into userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion of Poland and the annexation of Austria are new events, they are very unlikely to have any lasting effect or significance. They are brief news stories that will be forgotten in a day.
This sentence in the essay should probably tell you that the essay is parodying speculative comments. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The point of this page is clearly that it's riffing on WP:CRYSTAL, pointing out that if Wikipedia had existed in 1939, editors would have debated whether or not these events warranted articles. The (fairly salient) implication is that perhaps in the future the Trump essay will be out of date, and maybe, once we know how history will have shaken out, it'll look very funny that editors were arguing over whether or not events that may seem obviously significant in the future warranted inclusion. Same general stripe of humor as Before they were notable, but taken to an extreme. I found the joke funny. I think it should be kept. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I have reservations with the underlying thesis of the essay, it's pretty clear that this is a counterexample to WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, used to demonstrate that sometimes the major headlines really are notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The challenge is to merge short similar essays. There is no justification of deletion. Maybe come back to MfD if the merge attempts are unreasonably blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been giving careful thought to the arguments in favor of keeping. I now understand that the intention is that this essay should provide a counterpoint to the Trump-related essay, in the context of WP:CRYSTAL: that some content related to Trump (and perhaps other kinds of content about recent events) should be kept because, who knows, with the passage of time we may come to see some things that appear trivial now, as actually having historical significance. I think that an essay making that case could be of value, and could be one well worth keeping.
But this isn't that essay. This essay says, in effect, that some content related to Trump should be kept because, who knows, with the passage of time we may come to see Trump the way we now see Hitler. Whaaat?
The Trump-related essay is framed in terms of "outrageous" things Trump says or does, and the lead image gives the example of not needing to have a page about every golf game he plays. The nominated page, on the other hand, is framed in terms of the events that began World War Two. A logical counterpoint would have used examples of things that seemed trivial at the time, but are now seen as historic. The examples chosen by the nominated essay do not illustrate what the essay claims to show.
Even more importantly, Hitler is simply the wrong choice to make the case the essay intends to make. Most people do not think "notable historic figure" when they first think of him. More likely, they first think "archetype of the personification of evil". Although it's possible to make humor about Hitler, it's very, very difficult to do that successfully, and this essay isn't funny. It's arguably offensive, and that gets in the way of understanding the point the essay tries to make. There's an abundant supply of notable figures who have done things that might have seemed trivial at the time, but which have come to be widely agreed to have been history-making. Hitler simply is not one of those.
I can easily think of examples that would work. The Boston Tea Party might have seemed, at the time, to just be some rowdy trouble-makers doing nothing of historical importance. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry might have seemed to be some crank making trouble, and no more. Rosa Parks might have seemed some woman who sat on the wrong seat on a bus. The anonymous Tank Man of Tiananmen Square might have seemed to just be some random guy who stood in the wrong place. And on and on. There are so many ways to illustrate how something that might look insignificant today could come, with the passage of time, to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes. And without seeming like a tasteless and offensive joke.
The solution is not a matter of merging. Maybe there are other essays that should be merged. This essay needs a WP:TNT rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2025

[edit]

Draft:PubKey

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

Subject does not meet GNG, and someone keeps on submitting the draft for review after it got rejected without making any actually significant changes. I'd support userfying this too. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for WP:G13. User:Gommeh misleads, the draft has not be resubmitted following its only rejection. Rejection and decline are different.
Support for Userfying is asserting of plausible notability and is a reason for keeping, subject to G13. Don’t Userfy if they don’t ask. They are welcome to Userfy, see WP:DUD.
AfC has good processes. Learn them and follow them. Don’t skip ahead. MfD is misused by drawing attention to bad drafts. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts where they don’t waste others time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what the difference is then? I'm still new to AFC. But for these purposes I'm probably going to treat them as if they were the same. » Gommeh (he/him) 22:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the question at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This draft has not been resubmitted after it was rejected. Rejection was the proper action on the eighth submission after seven declines. There is no need to nominate a draft for deletion immediately after it is rejected. Stopping the resubmission is what rejection is for. If a draft is resubmitted after rejection without discussion, deletion is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patience, i.e. Keep for now and just let standard AFC and Draft policies deal with it. Creators(s) were slow to learn from declines, and it does seem unlikely this will ever pass muster as an article. Hence the most recent rejection. No need to do anything else now. Absent disruption, either WP:G13 or more focused editorial effort to improve the article significantly and demonstrate suitability (seems unlikely, but it is possible) will take care of the matter. Martinp (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, G13 exists for a reason and taking drafts to MFD is always best avoided. If a user were to continue to keep submitting after a reject, that's a different matter, but that hasn't happened here.
CoconutOctopus talk 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Flashnet

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

Reads like an advertisement and the company is not notable enough. See WP:ARTSPAM. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Ignore. “Reads like and advertisement”? Are you thinking WP:G11? Where is your CSD log? It is rarely productive to bring non-G11s to MfD. “Not notable”? WP:NMFD. Notability is not required in draftspace.
“Advertisements masquerading as articles”? This issue was solved by inventing draftspace. Drafts, with the prefix “Draft”, not not mistakeable by promoters as Wikipedia articles and don’t lead to UPEs being paid.
The draft has been declined. WP:AfC has good processes, follow them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator tried to submit it twice for AFC - it was pretty much the same article both times. WP:NMFD says "Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement". We could also just let it go and wait for it to be deleted after six months or so. But I doubt the draft will change much by then. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Twice is a harsh interpretation of “repeatedly”. The AfC reviewer is supposed to leave comments. The draft proponent can take six months to read and reflect on those comments, before the draft and associated comments are deleted via WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2025

[edit]

Draft:List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025

[edit]
Draft:List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

There is already List of Coronation Street characters introduced in 2025, which is fully sourced and contains the information in this page and much more, hence making this page redudant DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jsonantenor

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

Nothing but unencyclopedic ramblings from the user (mostly in Filipino) and one random unintelligible comment from an IP who may be the same person or an offline acquaintance. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie

[edit]
Draft:Inanimate Insanity II: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:OBJECTSHOW, all pages, documenting object shows are not allowed because they're lacking independent, reliable sources for them CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Object shows are not categorically disallowed. If reliable sources surfaced for them, they would be permitted just like anything else. The purpose of WP:BFDI is not to tell editors that the thing they like is categorically excluded from Wikipedia (which would drive away productive editors), but to inform them of what it would take for BFDI (or anything else that has been similarly ignored by the media and academia while being quite popular) to have an article.

    Although consensus against allowing article development on BFDI specifically has been developed, this does not mean that the same applies to any similar works, until and unless editors pushing for their inclusion become similarly disruptive. Unless this is the case, deleting such drafts is simply WP:BITING potentially productive editors. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this mean? There's not a reliable source for this. It might have been obviously invented by the creator of the draft? Or is it fake? Should the draft be occasionally edited to prevent speedy deletion of G13 criterion? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:NDRAFT and WP:LUDA. In general, if a draft on a non-notable topic has not been tendentiously resubmitted by its creator and poses no other problems (see here), we should leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per MOS:PLOTLENGTH the summary is far too long for any reasonable article. Obviously this doesn't disqualify it from existing, but the sheer amount of plot compared to the real-world parts of the article makes it verge on the edge of WP:JUSTPLOT. The fact it only has unreliable sources (random guy on Twitter, IMDB and two literal comics) does not help at all. GarethBaloney 20:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you could fix the problem by clicking the [Edit] button and removing unnecessary details, then the page shouldn't be deleted.
The real problem is the lack of ordinary reliable sources. But in the Draft: namespace, we leave those alone. After all, we don't want to delete a page on Monday, only to have the original creator come back on Tuesday to say "Hey, where'd the article go? This film just got featured in a huge article in today's Film News, and I want to add the source!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 20, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III

[edit]
Wikipedia:Essays/The Moral Duty to Prevent World War III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:ESSAYS, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Essays are for clarifying Wikipedia issues, but this essay is not doing that. Sjö (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The author also created User:Alirana24/sandbox/WW3. – Supertian8 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever this is, it doesn't belong in project space, nor should it be a subpage of WP:Essays. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5AF:9096:9EC1:275E (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for this reason. » Gommeh (he/him) 23:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This essay offers a moral and philosophical reflection on one of the most pressing global concerns of our time: the prevention of a third world war. It is clearly marked as an essay and does not attempt to create or enforce any Wikipedia policy. The content has been revised for neutrality and tone, with appropriate internal links and a disclaimer. It fits the purpose of the essay namespace by encouraging thought and discussion without violating WP:NOT, WP:ESSAYS, or WP:ADVOCACY. Alirana24 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per what Sjo said.
ALSO...
Alirana24 why have you made the majority of your comments unable to be replied to? Due to the nature of this page itls not possible to shove in a reply with editing either. You are actively hurting your points by making them unable to be argued against. Also, the fact you are a newcomer has nothing to do with your essay being disallowed. It simply does not fit Wikipedia. GarethBaloney 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – While not every essay will align with internal Wikipedia policy commentary, this particular essay explores the moral and philosophical imperatives behind global peace efforts. It raises valuable ethical questions on war prevention and draws from international precedents, which can be relevant to discussions on Wikipedia articles such as World War III, Conflict prevention, and Peacebuilding. It is well-written, sourced, and can contribute to broader reflection within the Wikipedia:Essays namespace. Wikipedia benefits from diverse viewpoints — not only technical rule discussions — and this essay offers a reasoned, non-disruptive perspective. — Zahid131 20:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Alirana24 – Follow-up to my previous keep rationale:
  • Thanks to all who shared their views. I want to clarify a few points and respond constructively.
  • 1. The essay is no longer in my sandbox (User:Alirana24/sandbox/WW3). That draft has been removed to avoid duplication or confusion.
  • 2. The current page is clearly marked as an essay, not policy or guideline. It presents a moral and philosophical reflection, not a political manifesto, and does not violate WP:ADVOCACY.
  • 3. The piece respects Wikipedia’s standards. It has been revised for neutrality, includes relevant internal links, and aligns with the Essay namespace’s purpose: to encourage thought and discussion around ideas relevant to humanity and knowledge.
  • 4. If necessary, I am open to relocating it to a user subpage, but I believe it still qualifies to remain in the essay space as many essays explore broader ethical or societal implications in relation to Wikipedia’s mission.
  • Thank you for considering this perspective.
  • Comment by Alirana24 – Follow-up clarification:
  • Just to clarify, the essay and my support comment were written entirely by me (Alirana24), not generated by any AI. I have not used any alternate accounts or engaged in any coordinated or tag-team editing. Any support offered by others (such as Zahid131) is independent and voluntary.
  • For transparency: if you check the edit history, my vote was posted at 14:26 (UTC), and Zahid131’s was added later at 17:01 (UTC) — which clearly shows no simultaneous or scripted posting.
  • I remain open to improving the essay constructively, and I appreciate the community’s engagement on this matter.
Robert, the pages Wikipedia:Essays and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, to which you link, are about pages which express personal opinions of one or more editors about matters relating to contributing to Wikipedia but which have not undergone the kind of consensus building which justifies classing them as policies or guidelines; they are not about use of Wikipedia to host personal pages expressing opinions about issues in the outside world, unrelated to editing the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Alirana24:
  • I would like to share a few thoughts, not as a defense, but as a reflection on how we approach contributions on Wikipedia.
  • I wrote this essay sincerely, based on my understanding and concern for global peace. It is not promotional, personal, or political in nature — it’s a moral reflection, clearly labeled as an essay, and aims to spark thought and discussion. I understand it may not align perfectly with every editorial standard, but I’m surprised that instead of collaborative improvement, the immediate response has been deletion.
  • I also want to acknowledge that my account was briefly blocked, partially due to concerns raised during this discussion. However, after I explained the situation in full, the block was reviewed and lifted by the same administrator, who accepted that I acted in good faith. This shows I’m not here to misuse the platform — I’m here to contribute meaningfully.
  • Is it because I’m a new contributor that my work isn’t given a chance? Are newcomers not allowed to bring fresh ideas to Wikipedia? We all edit and improve each other’s essays and articles — why not this one? If the consensus is that it doesn’t belong in the essay space, I’m happy to move it to my user sandbox and polish it further. I may even share it outside Wikipedia under my name. But if there’s space for thoughtful, ethical reflections on issues like peace and war — which shape human knowledge and concern all of us — then let’s consider improving it, not dismissing it.
  • Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Let’s treat each other like partners in that mission.

June 19, 2025

[edit]

Old business

[edit]


June 18, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:What's a forint?

[edit]
Wikipedia:What's a forint? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No connection with the goals and processes of Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:Unsolicited advice

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

Not a useful addition to project space. Manifesto of an insufficiently collaborative and now indefinitely blocked editor, explaining their divergent attitudes about editing and conduct, that are contrary to the the norms and conventions of the Wikipedia community. If you find feedback, advice, and criticism controlling and demeaning, you can't participate in this encyclopedia-building collaborative project. While this is not an appropriate page for project space, I am not opposed to userfication.—Alalch E. 13:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Userfy which will move the essay into limbo, because the userspace of a banned or indeffed user is a limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nominator under criteria 13 of the deletion policy. The essay seeks to facilitate disruptive behaviour by silencing criticism of that behaviour. For example, the line "Editors shouldn't directing comments at specific editors about what they should and shouldn't edit, unless it concerns a policy or guideline" (emphasis added) seeks to prevent editors from citing an essay like Wikipedia:Ragpicking to criticise the form of disruptive behaviour described in that essay, on grounds that it is only an essay. It seeks to limit the scope of the guideline WP:DISRUPT to only the specific examples given in that guideline. James500 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than move. When would it be appropriate to tell an editor, "While you may think your being helpful, other people especially the user you're giving advice to can find it controlling or demeaning. Remember, Wikipedia is a volunteer service, you're not the boss of anyone."? Also, as written, isn't this essay saying to never cite WP:BRD? That seems pretty opposite of the community norms. Rjjiii (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, it sounds more like a sibling spat – more "You're not the boss of me" than a principled (if simplistic and erroneous) view about Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. The essay also cites several essays.
    I lean a little towards what @SmokeyJoe says: it's a disputed essay, so dump it in userspace. If the editor comes back in the future (because indefinite doesn't mean infinite), future editors may wish to know how this user thinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is generally inappropriate to userfy to indeffed users' userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2025

[edit]

Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation)

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

Hatnote is sufficient per WP:TWOOTHER. There was no consensus to use this page at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55 § Redirects in WP:DABCOMBINE? —Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hatnotes are low quality information in the prime real estate of the page. DAB pages are better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page can be used in the hatnote to make it more concise: {{Redirect|WP:DAB}}, which yields...
"WP:DAB" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:DAB (disambiguation).
P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search