Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:NFD)

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 9 108 49 167
TfD 0 1 16 20 37
MfD 0 0 0 7 7
FfD 0 5 68 27 100
RfD 0 0 17 73 90
AfD 0 0 0 15 15

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 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]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tuankiet65/userbox/7th grade
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. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tuankiet65/userbox/7th grade

edit
User:Tuankiet65/userbox/7th grade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:CHILDPROTECT, I don't think it is a good idea to have a userbox for a student year that may be under 13, as 7th grade is usually age 12-13, unless that's different in other countries.

Also, the userbox isn't transcluded by anyone currently (only linked in the creator's user subpage), and the creator created it in 2012. TruenoCity (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now this is a throwback! I made it when I was younger and experimenting with Wikipedia. I'm much older now so the userbox doesn't apply as much anymore. But I don't mind cleaning up stuff from my younger self, so consider this my request for deletion. Tuankiet65 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Absolutely no valid reason for deletion. Author is willing to have deleted, though, so requested speedy deletion for the page via WP:G7. If the CSD is declined I !vote keep. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:42, 17 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 12, 2026

edit

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]

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]


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]

Old business

edit

June 9, 2026

edit
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:I can't find some userboxes so I'll create them myself/fascist
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:I can't find some userboxes so I'll create them myself/fascist

edit
User:I can't find some userboxes so I'll create them myself/fascist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Gross violation of WP:UBCR. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @I can't find some userboxes so I'll create them myself: You have made 12 edits to the site, all concerned only with making this userbox. Your username apparently indicates that this is your primary motive for creating an account and therefore for editing so far. Even while WP:AGF, it is hard to think you are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Can you tell us anything that would make us think differently? Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I really did not plan to come back here to get rid of a userbox, but here we are I guess. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, making a userbox like this is simply ridiculous. Given the username I would also be concerned about WP:CNH. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trolling. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to explain other than as random trolling by someone not here to write an encyclopedia (unless this is a bad-hand sock, and then we don't need it either). Martinp (talk) 22:54, 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:Gptsparcus/sandbox

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

User uploaded AI slop for this page to Commons. So I don't trust this page by GPTsparcus. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:47, 9 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]

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]

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: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]

June 2, 2026

edit

User:LiterallyDivinity/sandbox

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

Yet another sandbox copy-paste of List of presidents of the United States, which yet again exists to alternate-history a different list of presidents than the country has really had. This one seems to stay on track up until FDR, but then he leaves office earlier than reality and is succeeded by a mixture of people who were president but not at the times claimed by the list (Nixon in the early 1960s, Reagan in the 1970s) and people who were never really president at all (Thomas Dewey, Estes Kefauver, RFK, Jesse Jackson, Dick Cheney), until coming back to reality for Obama.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just do anything you want to for the lulz, and content in sandbox still has to be accurate to real history just the same as mainspace content. And since one of the misrepresented non-presidents here (Dick Gephardt) and a couple of the fake vice=presidents (Newt Gingrich, Gary Hart) are still alive as of today, this violates WP:BLP by containing false information about living people. (And yes, this was again left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, violating WP:USERNOCAT.) Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my mistake, man. Genuinely didn't know that the Sandbox pages were meant to be "historically" accurate. Figured it was a space to toy around with the Wikibox format and such. I can remove the content, sorry for the issues. LiterallyDivinity (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If y'all need to, please delete the page. Had no understand I was breaking the rules, and will avoid doing so further in the future. Would just like to avoid any penalties on my account. LiterallyDivinity (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I've restored the page to the original historically accurate source content while maintaining the MfD categorization. If you still wish to delete the article, I will not have any issues with this, but I have unlinked the false information.LiterallyDivinity (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BLP violations and for other reasons. The originator has blanked the page, which takes the fictional stuff out of ordinary view but not out of the history. There are two problems with the blanking. First, it doesn't remove the BLP violations from the history. Second, the {{MFD}} template says not to move or blank the page. When this sandbox is deleted, the user will be able to use it again for any permitted use, because the history will be visible only to admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moot, i.e. history deletion not needed. The problem has been solved, we can go back to writing an encyclopedia. With respect to @Robert McClenon, whose opinions on deletion I generally agree with, the false information is harmless buried in the history of a blanked user sandbox. And while indeed technically the MFD template says not to blank a page, I applaud the creator's blanking in spite of those instructions as a way of mitigating the problem they caused through inawareness. Scenario: If someone, rather than nominating at MFD, had contacted the creator on their talk page, and the creator had responded as they did above here (blanking, showing understanding and apologizing), then we would be done. So I'm fine with moving on here too. Martinp (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that this sort of thing is common in "imaginary elections" communities; see for example . These people are almost certainly not aware that Wikipedia sandboxes aren't for hosting this material, even if the chances of someone reading them are low. OwenCobalt (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The chances actually aren't low, because the people who do this very routinely leave their sandbox pages in all of the real mainspace categories that were on whatever article they copy-pasted, meaning that it's left in those categories for other people to find and read. Which is precisely why we have WP:USERNOCAT rules in the first place, but people keep doing it anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we could have the MFD categorization removed at some point given the issue has been resolved, that'd be great, but I understand if it needs to stay up. As someone has also mentioned, a deletion of my previous revisions is also totally on the table. Just curious about the process of eventually having that removed in case I do decide to utilize the sandbox properly in regard to rules of conduct in the future. Like I've stated, though, whatever has to happen can be done. LiterallyDivinity (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1359893207"