Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion)

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

edit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS:,[a] Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XFD venue.

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

Notes

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

edit

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deletions in draftspace
  • Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context.
  • Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here.
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
  • For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider moving it into the historical archive, or userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that does not 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

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

Administrator instructions

edit
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 1 8 101 51 161
TfD 0 1 16 23 40
MfD 0 0 0 5 5
FfD 0 5 66 40 111
RfD 0 0 13 92 105
AfD 0 0 0 9 9

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 19, 2026

edit
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SGDF55
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with all other !votes in favor of keeping this page. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:SGDF55

edit
User:SGDF55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Highly disruptive, overly long, doesn't serve any point. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reason for deletion under nom's reasoning, WP:UPNOT, or applicable CSDs. Again, I do not understand how this is actively disruptive (maybe I am wrong). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can you explain why this is “highly disruptive”? User pages are pretty low standard and users are allowed to create useless test pages. TruenoCity (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn honestly yeah my bad Gaismagorm (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R2me2
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with all other !votes in favor of keeping this page. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:R2me2

edit
User:R2me2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Very large and unneccesary, disruptive to the wiki Gaismagorm (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reason for deletion under nom's reasoning, WP:UPNOT, or applicable CSDs. I do not understand how this is actively disruptive, and a page being "very large and unnecessary" is not an inherent reason to delete. Maybe other editors have a reason. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t see how this is disruptive to Wikipedia as it does not contain anything inappropriate for Wikipedia aside from being borderline nonsense. User pages are pretty low standard. TruenoCity (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nevermind then. I don't know why I nominated this for deletion, definitely a mistake on my end. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner

edit
User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

There are two main reasons that this page should be deleted. The more pertinent and obvious is that it acts as an instrument for WP:CANVASing. Plenty of the notices here are on things that Larry feels strongly about (and has gone to the media to complain about Wikipedia's consensus-based treatment of), such as the Israel-Palestine conflict and ANI reports about his friends. It is important to note that, per his own admission, Larry is not entirely opposed to canvassing, arguing that organizing people to vote a certain way on important issues is not necessarily against WP:CAN. This page is a necessary part of the proposed WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, which states [r]eign[ing] in over-aggressive blocking by Administrators and advocate for permitting responsibly-written sources that represent views of currently-disfavored ideologies, parties, nationalities, religions, and other viewpoints. While here it is claimed that they do not instruct people what to say or how to vote, I do not believe that a simple denial is enough, and I do not believe that if anyone other than a major player in Wikipedia's foundation constructed this that it would stand.

Much less important (in my opinion) is the admitted LLM usage (it is augmented by LLM output at key points), which seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:LLM that goes beyond basic copyedits, because the LLM is clearly introducing content of "its" own: by Larry's admission, the pages are [c]lassified by anthropic/claude-opus-4.5.

To close, I do not think people like Jimbo or Larry should be immune to the processes of WP:ANI or XfD, and this seems like a serious violation of basic policies to me. wound theology◈ 12:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this seems like a noticeboard similar to others maintained by various WikiProjects, so nothing unusual in its intent. As for WP:LLM, the nutshell reads "Don't use AI writing tools such as large language models to generate or rewrite article content", which instructs activities about using AI to write and edit mainspace articles, not WikiProject subpages. I'm not a wikilawyer, but on a quick read the chart seems policy compatible, but will watch this discussion to check if I'm mistaken, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is something that could be done by hand, and does no harm to readers. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, should this be moved away from userspace, delete. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fixinathing (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixinathing You don’t say the reason for why delete VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, got distracted; adding now. Fixinathing (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons being: 1) I agree it seems like a tool easy to abuse for canvassing, and 2) I don't think LLM usage (as LLMs currently stand) for any purpose should be allowed even the smallest toehold into Wikipedia. Fixinathing (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What wikipedia really doesn't need is organised political factions whose only existence seems to be as a focus for canvassing. If this is allowed we will have a Trotskyist faction, an anarchist faction, a liberal faction, a Stalinist faction, a Christian democrat faction, an Islamist faction, a right-libertarian faction... The one thing that allows wikipedia to function as a successful encyclopaedia is the protections afforded by WP:CANVAS. And, lets be clear, we don't need to wait to see if this will cause problems with canvassing. It already is, these noticeboards ARE canvassing.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2026

edit

Portal:Journalism/News

edit

– (View MfD)​

Group nomination of news subpages in portal space entirely reliant on the now-defunct Wikinews and/or manual updating, both of which have been superseded by Template:Transclude selected current events (check my contribution history to see the implementation of this amazing template!). Very similar to the MfD that concluded as delete a few days ago, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Journalism/News/Wikinews, these subpages are likely to be misleading for readers as they'll no longer be updated. This should be a pretty uncontroversial, final janitorial clean-up of the pages missed in the first nomination. Thank you! Johnson524 01:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Defunct concept, moribund, a failed experiment, from the 1990s. Inferior to, and detracting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism for editors and Journalism for readers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Albert Eisenstein/List of things I hate

edit
User:Albert Eisenstein/List of things I hate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

As implied by the title, this is a polemical list of things the creator doesn't like. While I don't think many would take offense to the common cold, pinkeye, and chronic pain being listed here, this list also includes atheists, furries, and canadians. I consider this to be a personal attack against any editor who is in one or more of these groups. Even if the groups were removed, this page is otherwise unrelated to Wikipedia, and is better of deleted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This new-ish user seems to be having a challenging time productively engaging at en.wiki. Hopefully they will find their way. In the meanwhile, in the spirit of AGF I would let them harmlessly vent in their own user space. While not exactly civil discourse, I'm not sure writing "I [expletive] hate [list of about 24 groups]" really qualifies as a personal attack. As a member of at least 4 of those groups, I certainly don't feel personally attacked. To be clear: I wouldn't love to see pages like this proliferate in userspace, but feel this user will either find their way, become less frustrated, and hopefully tone down their stridency with time on their own; or will flame out and we can then either ignore this or delete it as some sort of administrative clean-up of abandoned userpages (if we ever do that, if not, doesn't matter). Martinp (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a textbook WP:POLEMIC violation, though? It attacks several groups of people. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that it goes against WP:POLEMIC. It is not desirable userspace content. But sometimes when someone is struggling, the best thing is to let them find their way, or leave if they prove unable/unwilling to, not to jump for the maximum possibly justifiable corrective action. Besides, I'm not convinced "I hate [group]" qualifies as an attack. Martinp (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per reasoning above. Not really a good thing to have in userspace, but it's not the worst. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2021–22 PWHPA season
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G7. RL0919 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2021–22 PWHPA season

edit
Draft:2021–22 PWHPA season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

scrap it. Hmlarson (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. I was going to snarkily !vote speedy keep per no valid reason for deletion provided and WP:LUDA. However, the nominator neglected to mention that they are the creator and sole meaningful contributor to this draft, so we can treat this as if they had placed an {{Db-author}} instead. Martinp (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G7, requesting speedy deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Hmlarson is attempting to hide the page history and AfC comment which note that an LLM was used to create it. Instead of moving the page which would preserve the history, they've created a copy+paste version of the page (sans comment) at User:Hmlarson/2021-2022 pwhpa and requested deletion. They've used G7 to hide page histories before for the same reason at Draft:PWHL Takeover Tour. If Hmlarson wants the page removed from draftspace, it should be moved into their userspace instead. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's the issue? If there's a user conduct issue, admins can see the history. Beyond that, I don't think adding a LLM tag is material enough editorial action to negate a G7 request. If a user has created a draft (with or without the assistance of an LLM), no one has materially edited it, and the user wants it gone, we should nuke it. There is no need to retain the history of a page we are deleting anyway, unless I'm missing something. Martinp (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
G7 isn't for curating unflattering page histories, and should not be used to hide the fact that content was generated using an LLM. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2026 (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 17, 2026

edit

Portal:Slovakia/Slovakia news

edit

– (View MfD)​

Group nomination of static news subpages in portal space. These are grossly-outdated subpages which claim to be presenting "news", with some proudly displaying events that happened 20 years ago as if they were happening today. As just one example, Portal:Maryland (via the transclusion Portal:Maryland/News) currently displays news from 2007 as current events! Similar proposals have been made in the past under the guideline of WP:POG#How often to update? (See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North American railways), and while no longer an active guideline, I believe the point it was trying to make still stands: being that subpages which claim to be presenting news that are years out of date shouldn't be kept around as they may confuse readers and impact the creditability of the portal they're viewed on. After going through each one individually, these are all very similar in nature, which is why they're in a single nomination. Noms are separated by year of last update so this doesn't look like a WP:TRAINWRECK, with additional info in brackets on the side if needed. The same as with my last large nomination here, I'm more than willing to go through and remove any transclusions/red links left behind on active portals if the result of this discussion is delete. Thanks! Johnson524 17:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 12, 2026

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jignesh Mhatre

edit
Draft:Jignesh Mhatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTRESUME — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. I would think that some CSD might apply, but there’s nuance to that… 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unreferenced BLP and NBIO concerns beating out WP:LUDA per Robert McClenon. (Would not delete from draftspace on purported but unproven LLM concerns in isolation). Martinp (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Stakommus3053/Userboxes/User Stalinist

edit
User:Stakommus3053/Userboxes/User Stalinist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Userbox possibly violates WP:UBCR, as it gives support to a specific historical figure responsible for mass famines, mass political violence, genocide, and other crimes against humanity, thus being inherently inflammatory and/or divisive. There's a difference between representing your political leanings and whatever this is. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Like nom, I pause quite uncomfortably on what all stated support for Stalinism could reasonably be inferred to include, and the argument that this is inherently inflammatory and/or divise has some merit. However, I also see some possibility that one could argue support for totalitarian-accelerated imposition of Marxist-Leninist principles as a philosophy without endorsing the specific horrors Stalin actually inflicted. The user who created this userbox hasn't been around since 2023, and did in their time here edit on communist-related topics in an apparently non-disruptive manner. There is no evidence of others using this divisively, just one other user transcluding it as part of a portfolio of userboxes indicating their own strong personal pro-communist beliefs. So on balance I find this a reasonable forthright statement of personal, albeit extreme, political views and possible editing biases rather than a drama magnet. But it is a grey area, and I can easily do thought experiments where I replace that word with others that I would then argue to delete, while others might find similarly objectionable. Martinp (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Old business

edit

June 11, 2026

edit

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ManualEditBot

edit
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ManualEditBot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Improperly-filed BRFA by an inexperienced user who has now vanished. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 07:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any compelling reason to delete this page rather than simply closing the request as denied? (The bot user should probably be blocked as well, since it was never approved and no longer has an operator.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the same way we don’t delete bad XfDs, I would imagine. No real reason for deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 9, 2026

edit
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cartoon Network (3rd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cartoon Network

edit
Portal:Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
All prior XfDs for this page:

Does not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Portal#Purposes of portals:

1. "Providing a variety of sample content of subtopics ("topic tasters"), from within each portal's subject, that the reader may find interesting." - All portal content is based around one specific topic, with little variety.
2. "Aiding navigation." - Portal and it's subpages have been unmaintained/not updated for many years. Content is generally out of date.
3. "Providing bridges between reading and editing, and between the encyclopedia proper and the Wikipedia community, via links to pages in project space..." - Heavily links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network, which also seems inactive.

In addition to the above, the portal receives very little pageviews in relation to the number of articles that link to it. (~30/day for ~250 pages) InfernoHues (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to hear other people's views, but it looks like the last time this was nominated for deletion was back in 2011, with it speedily deleted in late March of that year (although, honestly, the participation was pretty low, and only one more person agreed to delete it, the OP, than those who favored keep: 2 people), but then kept in late June of that year. It does appear it hadn't been updated in a while. Can the portal perhaps be redirected to either the Cartoon Network wikiproject or just Cartoon Network itself? If it is getting low pageviews, a redirect may still be worthwhile. I do agree it is outdated in that now Cartoon Network, since the studio, as far as I understand it, is basically just a brand now, and not really an active studio as it used to be, especially since it is a subdivision of a megaconglomerate. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject is itself marked inactive, so I don't really see the point of redirecting it there. The views for the portal come from it being linked at the very bottom of articles, above the categories (e.g. The Powerpuff Girls). Every article I've checked has Cartoon Network linked in the first sentence, so there's no point redirecting it there either in my opinion. InfernoHues (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with deleting it, but ultimately we'll probably need a separate discussion about how large a topic needs to be before a portal is warranted (in the past I've suggested narrowing it down to about a dozen of the largest topics). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The portal experiment is dead and over. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we accept "delete because it's a portal" as a rationale. You are, of course, welcome to re-run WP:ENDPORTALS in case consensus has changed. Certes (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Portals are a failed experiment, attempted years after web portals had fallen away in favour of internet search engines. They are not effective for anything, and confuse diffuse and detract from mainspace articles for readers, and WikiProject pages for editors. For readers, up to date and well curated information and links are found at Cartoon Network. For editors interested in this topic (narrow topic), they should coalesce around Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network. Continued efforts at Portals are a net negative to Wikipedia.
Subsequent to Wikipedia:ENDPORTALS, the top portals were removed from the Main page, their pageviews plummeted, confirming that their pageviews were curiosity clicks from there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removing incoming links to any page, good or bad, will reduce its views. Having found consensus to keep portals in general, it is inappropriate to pick them off one at a time simply for being a portal. Arguments for removing the entire namespace are out of scope for MfD. Certes (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of ENDPORTALS. I just stumbled upon this one and thought it shouldn't be here because of the reasons above. Not trying to pick them off one at a time. InfernoHues (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this portal is a narrow topic and has fallen below the usual standard. The portal's main page doesn't need manual maintenance – it automatically rotates between subpages and picks up any new ones – but the lack of new material in that rotation may deter repeat visits. I'm just keen to avoid assuming a general principle that all nominated portals should be deleted simply because they are portals. Certes (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Certes writes: The portal's main page doesn't need manual maintenance – it automatically rotates between subpages and picks up any new ones. The portal only rotates between the subpages that were created when the portal was created. The idea of robotically picking up new subtopics has not been implemented and should not be implemented, because that can be better done by links and categories. Portals do need manual maintenance, and have very seldom had manual maintenance, and will probably never have need manual maintenance. But please do not attribute artificial intelligence features to portals that they don't have. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator wasn't saying to delete the portal because it is a portal. The nominator was saying to delete the portal because it is both unmaintained and little used. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not updated to account for newer shows since c. 2012. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If no one has wanted to really update this portal for the past ~13 years it is unlikely they will want to now. Portals are largely irrelevant because of search engines anyways. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This portal was created in 2011 by an editor who does not appear to have done maintenance on it, and who last edited in 2022. The edits to this portal between 2018 and 2021 have been by two editors who make occasional edits to portals because they like portals. This is an old-style portal with subpages that are partial copies of the selected articles. There are 37 general articles and 6 biographies, as well as slots for the future nomination of another 14 biographies, which is 43 selected articles. A misfeature of the portal design with subpages is that the subpages are partial snapshots of the contents of the articles, and they are not updated when the articles are updated. In this case, this has resulted in a BLP violation, which can be seen by comparing Ted Turner to Portal:Cartoon Network/Selected biography/3. The failure of the subpages to keep up with edits is an inherent misfeature. Perhaps when old-style portals were first developed, it was assumed that portals would be actively maintained, and portal maintainers would actively refresh the subpages. If so, that optimism was silly. Articles about persons who have recently died are updated by editing the article about the person. In the last three completed calendar years, the number of daily pageviews of the portal has been less than 1% of the number of views of the lead article.
YearArticle PageviewsPortal PageviewsPercent
20233127200.64%
20244221190.45%
20252998200.67%

A reader who wants an overview of the topic, Cartoon Network, can make better use of links than of a portal. User:Certes writes: I don't think we accept "delete because it's a portal" as a rationale. Should we accept "Keep because it's a portal"? Is "Delete because it is a little-used portal with a BLP violation?" an argument? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep because it's a portal" would be as invalid as "Delete because it's a portal", but I don't think anyone is making that argument.
It's neither helpful nor fair to compare pageviews between articles, which appear in searches and title completion suggestions, and portals which do not. However, if we are to judge portals by article standards, then lack of pageviews is not a valid reason for deletion. There are certainly valid arguments for deleting individual portals, including this one, but each case should be assessed on its merits rather than on a general like or dislike of portals.
BLP violations are a serious matter and do need to be fixed, but the usual procedure is to edit the offending text rather than blindly deleting the entire page, especially if the only violation is being slow to mention that the person died last month. One future-proof way to achieve this is to replace the extract by {{Excerpt}} or similar, though if the portal is kept then I would recommend replacing the entire subpage system by one simple call to {{Transclude random excerpt}}. Certes (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for at least four reasons:
    • The portal is unmaintained, and has been unmaintained for at least 13 years.
    • The portal is little used, probably because it provides only a subset of articles, while navigation via the lead article and links and categories provides access to all related articles.
    • The portal has an inherently unsound architecture relying on subpages that are content forks. This architecture is still used in many legacy portals including this one.
    • The value of portals has never been clearly established.
    • Addressing any one of those reasons will not address the other reasons. That is more than enough reason to delete this portal, and many more portals, but only this portal is being considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree broadly with the nominator and the other deletion rationales here. I would emphasize the fact that the topic is far too narrow to sustain a portal. The lead article Cartoon Network is a far more effective jumping off point to all our coverage of this topic. There is no easy or worthwhile fix and the topic does not meet the standards for maintaining a portal in the first place. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robert McClenon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With my main reasons being its small scope and the lack of maintenance. An unmaintained portal immediately impacts its credibility to those viewing it, and with no one to take care of it for going on 13 years (per Robert McClenon), I see no signs of it becoming helpful to readers again. Johnson524 17:06, 18 June 2026 (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 8, 2026

edit

Wikipedia:Source assessment/DoorDash Girl controversy

edit
Wikipedia:Source assessment/DoorDash Girl controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This strikes me as a borderline BLP violation and certainly an unnecessary page given that we have firmly decided against having a page on this subject. Working on sources for an article we are not going to host is unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DoorDash_Girl_controversy Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the description at the top. The story is still developing, there are more sources now than there were when the article was deleted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how this is a BLP violation. It doesn't make any claims about the subject, it is only a list of reliable and unreliable sources that were present on the now deleted article and an assessment of them. TruenoCity (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking at GNews shows sustained coverage for this. It's reasonable to keep this somewhere to reconstruct a new article even though the AfD was clear, since it's not unreasonable for an article on this topic to exist in the future. Definitely should not be kept in article space yet, but the subject was recently indicted, suggesting an actual criminal case rather than something that blew over after one news cycle. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was news to me that we have Wikipedia:Source assessment, and that we keep around sources for (some) deleted articles in Wikipedia space just in case. Given that we do, this page seems OK. The claim this is a BLP violation seems stretched (per above). And while we did decide to delete at AFD 6+- months ago, I don't see it as having been particularly "firm" and a number of !delete votes were focused on question of lasting significance. Recording the appearance of multiple new sources 6 months later is at least credibly related to that, and so there is a plausible narrative how keeping this serves the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Now I don't think we have reached "lasting significance" yet, and I rather hope this type of event never will, but I don't feel comfortable conclusorily stating we are (never) going to host this article. And so source assessment is not impossible to defend. Martinp (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:HOST; Wikipedia is not a web host for material that's otherwise not suitable. The underlying page was deleted so there's no point in keeping a compendium of sources for an article that no longer exists. WP:AVOIDVICTIM also comes into play. As I understand, the victim in this case has not come forward, so hosting -- and debating -- various sources & interpretations of events (i.e. here) could lead to further victimization. I don't see how this advances the goals of the encyclopedia, so it's a delete for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The underlying page was deleted so there's no point in keeping a compendium of sources for an article that no longer exists.
    If that were the case, Wikipedia:Source assessment/Mr. Beat could've been deleted after the article about Mr. Beat was deleted last year following a premature move from draftspace. That would've forced editors to re-assess all of the sources that were used so far (or search for all of the sources again if the draft hadn't been restored), but hardly anyone can be bothered to build that type of table to begin with, let alone rebuild one. Your other points against this source assessment page are stronger though. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mr. Beat situation is quite different, and perhaps more representative of a typical source assessment use case. There, notability/SIGCOV was the only issue, or at least the primary one, and there were no major BLP concerns. There were a lot of online sources but most were local, routine, interviews, or were otherwise found not to contribute to notability, so highlighting the few that count and identifying the problems with the others was a valuable exercise for the next time. Here, there are significant BLP concerns and other problems that are not addressed despite multiple national outlets covering the story. Lack of SIGOV was not the reason for deleting the article and there would not necessarily be any need to re-create the source assessment if there is an attempt to re-create the article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @K.e.coffman, my first inclination was like yours, but I read at Wikipedia:Source assessment that This is a place to collect sources and assess the notability of subjects that do not (yet) have an article on Wikipedia, or whose article was deleted, which is exactly the situation here. Martinp (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are additional considerations at play here, as I noted in my comment, i.e. WP:AVOIDVICTIM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nom and with K.e.coffman. Any potential useful purpose is overshadowed by the BLP concerns and the facts of the controversy and prior AfD. The AfD had good participation and resulted in deletion despite the source assessment at the time purporting to show SIGCOV. Thus the deletion did not hinge on the source assessment and keeping it does raise BLP and HOST concerns. Additionally, the ample coverage online shows that it is trivial to find sources in the event that something changes and this story meets our inclusion criteria, in which case the article itself would need to be written from scratch, anyway. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think BLP policy prohibits a page which collects published news articles (and which does not provide any commentary beyond a basic statement of the facts of the case) from being maintained outside of mainspace. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous comment, I don't think this would be a BLP violation, it is merely a collection of sources. Looking at the AFD, it seems the consensus was that the subject was well sourced and meets WP:GNG, but lacked lasting significance, so it isn't really firm that we won't have a page on the subject; the subject can be notable again if there is lasting significance in the future, so keeping this source assessment isn't really unnecessary either. TruenoCity (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Why is this even a question? How is this at all an attack page? It's literally just a collection of sources you can easily find online.
  • "BLPs have to adhere under strict notability guidelines"
  • "Okay, here's the page that shows the subject's notability via sources"
  • "Delete that, it's a BLP violation"
Like what? The page doesn't even show up outside the project namespace, which the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users don't visit. This isn't personality protection, it's just unreasonable paranoia. You're not protecting anyone by deleting this, you're just making it more inconvinient for other editors.
"an article we are not going to host", you're not going to host it YET. Notability can change. Consensus can change. A draft is currently in development that will hopefully fix these BLP issues. So this list of sources is still encyclopedic and valid.
Sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but this source assessment page shouldn't even be a concern. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 7, 2026

edit

Help:Buying Wikipedia

edit
Help:Buying Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I propose moving this page to the Wikipedia mainspace, and to userify its subpages, including:

To be clear, this is not an attempt at being the WP:FUNPOLICE; nevertheless, the presence of such pages in the Help namespace is inappropriate, which is supposed to contain information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software. Some of these pages are intended for readers of the encyclopedia; others are intended for editors, whether beginning or advanced. I understand moving the main page in Wikipedia namespace as a humorous page, but the subpages have every low traffic, and I think they should therefore all be moved to their respective creator's userpace, at least; I am not prejudiced against deletion of some of them, as they include actual hoax biographies, but my main goal here is to have them moved out of Help namespace. Pinging the creators of the subpages: @Balsam Cottonwood, Panini!, InvadingInvader, and Andrybak: Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support most of the nomination, as it makes sense to me. Though subpage Help:Buying Wikipedia/price should remain a subpage at Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia/price.
For additional context, the only other Help-namespace page (that isn't a subpage) in Category:Wikipedia humor is Help:Section 348 B-27a of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would probably make sense to move it to userpace as well. Regarding the price subpage, I was actually not sure if it would be required or not from a technical standpoint, so I am fine with keeping it a subpage. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That page appears to be a component of this joke as well, and should be renamed or deleted along with it. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the Help namespace should include humour. We're trying to make Wikipedia more user-friendly to new editors, and I expect a bit of professionalism in the place that new editors would go to to find help. All of these pages are inappropriate and seem to be in-jokes for a few mutual editors. I'd be happy to move them to User subpages if the page creators want to retain them. qcne (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect...? I think this !!!HUMOUROUS!!! essay shouldn't be in the help namespace, but maybe in the Wikipedia Project namespace?
It's kinda funny— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenghtqru888 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Arenghtqru888, remember to sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end of your comments. I did it for you this time. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, forgot Arenghtqru888 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, delete all except for /price, and move /price to WP namespace? Based on the above. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
…Change !vote to move all to projectspace (would be my preference) or userspace. Newer !votes made this more clear… 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if one of the authors wants to keep these pages. This isn't very funny, and it certainly does not belong in the Help namespace. I'd add that using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to display misleading page names (e.g. on Help:Buying Wikipedia/Wikipedia Purchase System) is not okay, especially when it makes pages appear to be real articles. Omphalographer (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it shouldn't be in the help namespace, but it seems like a perfectly fine bit of humor playing at efforts to control Wikipedia. Projectspace is probably fine. It's not really clear to me what the relationship is between this page and the subpages. It looks like they're largely connected through the link to "instructions", but they're written by different people. Userfying them in multiple userspaces may be unnecessarily confusing. So I guess move them all to projectspace? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Humor in the help namespace is misplaced, as it is to a namespace for help, not humor. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 19:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - On the one hand, as multiple editors have said, this does not belong in the Help namespace. On the other hand, after reading much of it, I am more annoyed and confused by it than amused by it, so I don't consider it useful to decide where to move it to, and I would probably say to Delete All if it were already in project space. It presents fictional material as factual material, which isn't exactly a hoax, but is too close to be something that should be moved to project space to save it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, move to Project namespace. As other editors have said, could be confusing in the Help namespace. 97104, not 97100! (t•c•r•l) 00:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody is saying that it doesn't belong in Help so, move it to Project or possibly userfy. 97104, not 97100! (t•c•r•l) 14:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if the creators don't object. I don't see why deletion is necessary here. Katzrockso (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to projectspace or keep. I'll chime in as the original author of the page (but not most of the subpages). First, projectspace and help space currently serve overlapping/duplicative functions. I don't buy the argument that newer editors would be any more or less confused by this in one namespace versus the other. In either case, there is a bold humor tag at the top, so the risk of misinterpretation for any competent editor is basically zero. I put it in the help namespace originally since it assists with the joke, i.e. someone is looking for help buying Wikipedia. With that said, looking at WP:FOOLR, it does seem like Rhododendrites established a rule against April Fools' jokes in the help namespace. I don't think that restriction is necessary for a page like this, and one could argue that retaining the page as is still respects the spirit of the idea that we shouldn't do anything that might confuse newcomers. One could also argue that, although this wasn't an April Fools' joke, the spirit of that ban should be expanded to apply to any humor page.
    As for userfying, the only argument I'm seeing for that is that some editors don't find the joke funny enough to warrant inclusion. Humor is always subjective, so I don't take any offense to that, but it is not the remit of MfD to determine what is and is not sufficiently humorous to be a joke page. There are a gazillion joke pages in projectspace, and unless they are not properly disclosed or otherwise disruptive, we let them be on the principle that they'll rise or sink on their merits. It's probably worth noting on that point that this page was picked up by the Signpost and led to me receiving multiple Barnstars, so while I wouldn't say it's my best work, there does seem to be a constituency for it. The delete !votes above present no argument as to why deletion would be preferable over userification (and in some cases seem to be arguing for userification rather than deletion) so I would not expect deletion to be given weight by the closer.
    All the subpages (beyond the price calculation page, which is necessary for the main page to work) were the work of other editors. I'm not attached to them in any way; if editors want to see them gone, I'd suggest just removing the link to them from the main page, and then speeyding them as orphaned fragments once it's clear they are orphaned. Sdkb talk 01:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like I should maybe make my position clearer, in light of the greater amount of delete votes than I expected. I am opposed to the deletion of Help:Buying Wikipedia, but strongly feel like it should be moved to project space (along with its price subpage since it depends on it). I am however also opposed to the move of the other subpages to project space; my preference is their userification, but I am not opposed to their deletion either. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is hard to stumble on for new wikipedians, even if they really believe it, they could be told that this is a joke. But maybe adding an disclaimer would help prevent newbie's from getting fooled Reflecho (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree seems hard to find. 97104, not 97100! (t•c•r•l) 23:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{Humor}} is currently the disclaimer on the page, in a banner at the top. Sdkb talk 01:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant if it's hard to find or not, I still think it's unprofessional to keep humour in the Help mainspace. qcne (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to either projectspace or userspace. It seems like the real issue here is where the pages are located. If they were moved to projectspace or userspace (both of which house some Wikipedia humor), it would be more consistent with other humorous pages. FishOnSkates 18:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 3, 2026

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia

edit 
– (View MfD)​

Note: while I am filing this under Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia, I do not think that page should be deleted. I am doing that in order to better organize this MFD.

I believe these pages should be deleted as they are copyright violations. While parodies are typically protected under fair use (Fair use#Parody, ), we have stricter guidelines surrounding non free content, including fair use content. By either Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text or Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy, these pages due not appear to adhere to policy. Within the confines of "other non-free content", these pages do not fit the one-article minimum, minimal usage, or content criteria. For text, these pages are not Brief quotations of copyrighted text and are not in quotation marks. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

parodies are typically protected under fair use

In my highly arrogant opinion case closed.
I don't know how the non-free content guidelines are meant to apply on pages in other namespaces, but if the parodies can be considered fair use, then... no harm, no foul? Some helpful person (talk?) 23:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The non free content policy applies to every namespace. Its why non-free images can't be used on userpages, for instance. The policy restricts fair use content's use on the project. This content doesn't fit the criteria allowed by that policy. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no obvious policy violation and therefore no need for action based on the argument provided.
The paragraph under WP:NFCCEG, "Text" does not apply. Those are nonexhaustive examples, and these are not quotations so not covered by them. WP:NFCCP does apply, but I don't see why it would necessarily be being violated. Items 1,2 there: no problem. 3b: the whole text of a parody is generally necessary to effect the parody. Item 4: in general, "derivative work" should in most cases apply. Item 5: no crystal-clear violation, though whether encyclopedic is worth discussing. Item 6-8,10: No issue or n/a. Item 9: potential vulnerability since in wikipedia space not article space; however the tenor of the language of the policy seems to refer to media, and applying it strictly to all non-free text in all other namespaces would disallow, for instance, using even brief quotes from articles' sources in content discussions on article talk pages and that is clearly not intended. While this is not that specific situation, it justifies applying Item 9 as intended rather than literally.
We may still decide that all of these parody songs are unencyclopedic and delete for that reason. Or some may turn out to be less defensible than others (and equally well, some may perhaps not be parodies at all? I don't know). But I don't see the need to delete this whole package of pages based on the argument provided. (Not a lawyer) Martinp (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the reasoning behind the rest of your argument, but how does item 7 not apply? These are free use media, and NFCCP applies. They are not in articlespace, so they wouldn't pass that criteria, no? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 12:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I read item 7 as satisfied since the page is the article. On reflection, you're technically correct since they're pages in Wikipedia space not in articlespace (which I alluded to regarding item 9). However, I treat these pages as being articles, i.e. transmitting information rather than chatter about wikipedia policies and users, that happen to be placed in Wikipedia: space merely since they are Wikipedia self-referential (and wouldn't pass our notability guidelines as mainspace pages). Thought experiment: if a journalist writes a critique of Wikipedia, we do not use item 7 to prevent ourselves from quoting, under fair use principles, what they wrote in Wikipedia: space as part of discussion about it. I think your read of item 7 would preclude even that, since technically that would be non-free content being used in non-article namespace. Martinp (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting is under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text rather than Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy and has a different subsection of policy associated, at least from what I understand. So quoting the journalist in Wikipedia-space would be fine under policy, at least if said quotation abides by the text requirements for non-free content. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My meta-interpretation is different. The #Policy part is general and over-riding. #Text interprets that for specific common situations, including textual quotes. But if the 2 feel inconsistent, it's not that policy is different for quotes than for other stuff, but that one is reading the policy differently than intended, since the 2 should not be inconsistent. The interpretational guidance for parodies as opposed to quotes has not been worked out since it's a much more special case; in its absence, we do our best to interpret the policy, guided by how it has been interpeted in analogous situations.BTW I'm not criticizing you; I admire anyone who is doing their best, like me, to parse arcane intersections of law, policy, and its pragmatic interpretation in this area. I'm just explaining why you see an issue but I don't, but I don't claim to be any more right or less wrong than anyone else! Martinp (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is still sitting here open, noting that I've reviewed the subsequent comments (including ExtraordinaryWrit's delete, below) and still stand by my argument above. In the end, I don't think the wording of WP:NFCCP was crafted with the case of textual, derivative-work fair-use in mind, and so we need to infer intent rather than blindly apply the listed criteria literally as written. With that in mind, I continue to end up on keep (i.e., no need for action) based on the analogies provided, recognizing no analogy is a perfect substitute. Martinp (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. No persuasive reason given. They are related to Wikipedia, so there is not problem from that angle. Copyright concerns are unclear. Get an opinions elsewhere, probably at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Beware copyright paranoia. Fair use includes a lot more than parody. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
More of a comment, but it is really funny that I got a talkpage message about this because I substantially contributed to the page literally eighteen years ago. I don't even remember this page existing. I was, what, between 12 and 15 when I made the bulk of my edits? Anyway, I say keep, have a sense of humour. Editor510 drop us a line, mate 15:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Keep, mostly because this feels like something that is supposed to be exempt from certain policies but has not been marked at such. Under policy, we would also have to put the lyrics in quotes, trim them to a sentence or so, etc and even then they might not strictly meet expectations… yet they have existed for over a decade and:
  • no one has sued
  • they are technically fair use
  • they are used without any intention of infringement
  • they are (mostly) altered significantly from the original lyrics (maybe just delete mine then lol)
  • it strengthens the community and such
Soooo why not?? Just saying this is something they might have missed with policy, though that argument could go either way. Perhaps they should be evaluated individually rather than blanket-removing all songs based on a copyrighted one in any way. (At the very least Hotel Wikipedia is on Meta-Wiki, so it feels like someone would have objected by now.) Some helpful person (talk?) 12:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Whoops, make that two decades of inaction.) Some helpful person (talk?) 12:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason Hotel Wikipedia isn't under a deletion nomination at meta is because I wanted to see where consensus was on these songs here first. Meta doesn't allow non-free content of any kind. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant it’s odd that the songs have been around this long without discussion. Some helpful person (talk?) 21:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly has been some discussion (1, 2) though no one until now AFAIK has nominated these pages for deletion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Per SmokeyJoe. Theses parodies are related to Wikipedia. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Related to WP, definitely. User97104 (t•c•r•l) 14:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Some helpful person: WP:NOT only covers Wikipedia’s scope, as in, if something should belong on Wikipedia. It does not cover copyright, or if something can be put on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian Talk to me! or not… 04:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I meant to ask in regards to it being “pretty close to the WP:NOT line to begin with”? Some helpful person (talk?) 00:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, these are not direct quotations of unrelated copyrighted text but are parodies relating to Wikipedia. The policy doesn’t seem to address this issue. It does say that non-free content is only allowed in articles, but this isn’t verbatim non-free content, with some songs significantly differing from the original. This is confusing, but I think it would be good to figure out what is supposed to be done here than ignore the complications. Some helpful person (talk?) 01:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Extraordinary Writ, we are not used to evaluating NFCC deletion reasons, so some explanation and patience please.
I don’t read it as applying at all to the top listed page, Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia, which flags this nomination as a train wreck. When I look at some subpages, I see copied text used without what I would call “fair use” justification. On other pages, I do not, I see altered text, parady, textbook fair use justification as a comparative reflection for educational purposes, which makes it pass both “related to the project” and “fair use”.
I understand that NFCCP#9 reads “Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions”, noting “articles”, and that the exemptions don’t apply here, but I also understand that this short phrasing is a lie to children, and that any discussion of any copyrighted material must be able to be discussed for the purpose of Wikipedia self-evaluation, invoking fair use against any copyright claims. Fair use Is an extremely broad doctrine, and is especially generous with comedy research and parody of ideas conveyed in written non-quotation text. The subpages with altered lyrics that do not contain quotations are squarely, completely, exempt from even being labelled potential copyright infringement.
I think the nominated list needs to be divided, start with the clear cut cases, remove the non-applicable cases, and give specific justification for deletion to all non-obvious cases.
Avoid copyright paranoia.
— SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Given how complicated this issue is, should we perhaps open an RfC, or would that be too early?
Wikipedian Talk to me! or not… 22:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not so much complicated, but it’s too many pages and the generic rationale doesn’t clearly apply to any, and doesn’t apply at all to some.
I recommend trying again with only the most obvious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good points in your comment and in Newyorkbrad's comment below, so I'm just going to strike out my !vote, at least until I can think about it further. I do think we shouldn't be relying on fair use for this sort of thing, but we may not even need to get that far for some or all of these. As for your comment about the main Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia page, note that the nominator says while I am filing this under Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia, I do not think that page should be deleted. I am doing that in order to better organize this MFD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia seeks to be a scholarly work, and scholarship relies inherently on the concept of fair use. I think it is perfectly ok for projectspace Wikipedia self-reflection to rely on fair use. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first page listed is Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia/No Deadline. I do not see the copyright problem. With the first listed being very unclear, and receiving no direct comment from the nominator, the bundled nomination is a train wreck. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination statement, song parodies are generally classified as fair use. Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia/No Deadline appears to be a parody of Revolution 9, and thus should be fair use. Since we have restrictions about fair use, I am contending that these parodies don't meet the criteria given for fair use exceptions. Apologies if my nomination statement was unclear. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Fair use can be argued doesn’t mean Fair use must be relied upon. Have you established that these are unacceptable Derivative works? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But my serious recommendation is: Start again with the worst most obvious case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian Talk to me! or not… 04:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to CP I don't believe MfD should be deciding whether pages should be deleted over NFCC and copyright, this should go to CP which regularly deals with complex matters and can sort this out. Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.
Wikipedian Talk to me! or not… 20:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1360247173"