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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Phil Parsons Racing

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 The result of the discussion was: speedy keep as withdrawn but this is the wrong venue anyway. Anything in the Template: namespace except for userboxes goes to TfD. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Template:Phil Parsons Racing Template:Phil Parsons Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ I don't know what this is, but if I did, it would be unnecessary for Wikipedia. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 18:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Procedural close and re-nominate at WP:TFD. MFD is the wrong venue for this page. 88.97.197.61 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Procedural close - I think that this is supposed to be a navbox, and should be discussed at TFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw - I understand - the page is now fixed. This page now seems useful. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 23:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] TROUT to User:Faster than Thunder for nominating a page 7 minutes after it was created, which is against the instructions for New Page Patrol reviewers. The page was "fixed" because the nominator nominated it while it was still under construction. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment - User:Finn Shipley technically violated the instructions on the {{MFD}} template, which is not to be removed while the MFD is in progress, but no fish are being used, because the MFD template was a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Community (NBC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This project for the TV series Community was created by one editor and never had even a talk page created. That editor is now also blocked. There is not even anything worth saving as the page just lists a partial cast and crew list which is better listed in the actual article. Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Much of the work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page. A project without a talk page is a stillborn project. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate copy of our article about Drake, which appears to exist solely to provide an editable content fork because of the mainspace page's current semiprotection status. So far, the creator's primary interest appears to be imposing non-standard page formatting variations (like replacing {{Official website}} with [https://drakerelated.com Official website], and incorrectly moving the infobox so that it starts in line with the second paragraph of text instead of the first) without providing any reason why those changes would be warranted -- but there are obvious WP:BLP sensitivities around Drake ever since the Kendrick feud last year, which an unlocked content fork of a semi-protected article could potentially be misused to circumvent. So a full duplicate copy of the existing article should not be unlocked at an alternate title without a much stronger justification for it than just wanting to muck around with page layout. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - See the user page guideline against copies of mainspace articles. The existence of this content fork would be a problem even if the article were not protected, but, as the nominator notes, is more serious because of the protection of the article and the history of BLP violations that resulted in the protection. By the way, User:Bearcat, the article is not merely semi-protected, but extended-confirmed protected. I think that the nominator is understating the case. This page is more problematic than the nominator says. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above discussion.—Alalch E. 13:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tammylyon/sandbox2. I had naively assumed mentioning it there would include it. Sorry about that. Paradoctor (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is an unsourced biography of a living person, and has been abandoned. It looks the same as my memory of the previous deletion cited by the nominator, but that doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Palestinian liberation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

violates WP:UBCR -- Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive. and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise). I'm not sure there's any conflict more substantially divisive than Israel-Palestine, and particularly a declaration of support for a one-state solution that would result in the dissolution of Israel falls under that guideline. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - far from being inflammatory, the userbox is a neutral statement of support for a political position which many prominent commentators on the issue also suppport - its Wikipedia article lists Tony Judt, Gideon Levy, Edward Said, John Mearsheimer, and several others - Jewish Currents editor Peter Beinart could be added to the list as well. While this userbox could be considered divisive, but there are many other political userboxes which would deserve the same label, and it strikes me as unfair to attempt to get rid of one which expresses a certain point of view rather than deleting them in a more systemic matter. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an express argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and I'd ask you to assume good faith as to the nomination rationale -- I nominated this one because I came across it on a user's page; I did not go out of my way looking for it nor am I going to go out of my way looking for others. If you're admitting that you think it could be considered divisive, then it's unclear why you're voting "Keep" to something that goes against content guidelines? Can't say I follow the logic there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, I do assume good faith; my intent was to comment on the potential results of this nomination rather than your motivation for making it. Second, I do not think this userbox violates UBCR, which says that userboxes must not be substantially divisive. I said the nominated userbox could be considered divisive because that's a truism which could apply to just about any of the many userboxes about political issues which the community has collectively tolerated, and since guidelines are supposed to be a reflection of community practices, I believe this userbox should be kept. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2farleft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Userbox in violation of WP:UBDIVISIVE and seems to indicate a WP:BATTLEGROUNDish mentality. Likely also violates WP:POLEMIC. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Usesbox expresses an opinion about Wikipedia. It does not express ill-intent or any form of threat, nor does the userbox establish the aspiration for a battle ground. Jerium (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Please elabarate as to why your reasoning for this userbox would violate the above-policies and guidelines you've referenced, thank you? Jerium (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UBDIVISIVE is explictly violated. Avoid verbs (often followed by the word "that") which may be used to suggest negative comparison and would thus be potentially divisive, such as: believes. WP:POLEMIC is the weakest, it's true, but: Very divisive...material not related to encyclopedia editing. WP:BATTLEGROUND follows - users who express this kind of belief tend to edit in a very specific manner that is not conducive with WP:NPOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: But that kind of thought is an WP:AOBF assumption, anything can happen, even to those that disagree with the message of the userbox. Jerium (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an extremely relevant, important, and sensitive concern or perception, and Wikipedia must not be perceive-able as censoring it.

Preferably, these concerns should be written up as user-essays, or project-essays if multi-authored. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly per above. Dw31415 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SmokeyJoe. SK2242 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:UBDIVISIVE is dead letter, a silly provision. WP:BATTLEGROUND is a behavior pattern and offers no insight into deleting a userbox, and WP:POLEMIC is about "very divisive" material, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities ..." etc., and this is not at that level.—Alalch E. 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Calling WP:UBDIVISIVE a "dead letter" presumes the conclusion. It's true if and only if we act as though it's true. I see no fundamental reason why we should do that. The only function of this user box is "civil" POV pushing. (And yes, I'd say the same thing about a userbox saying that Wikipedia has gone too far to the right, or that it's too reflexively centrist.) People who want to claim that Wikipedia is "censored" will do so regardless of whether this userbox exists or not. Keeping this userbox on those grounds would be indulging the sealions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maintaining an opinion on one’s Userpage is not sealioning. It would be sealioning if they kepted posting the opinion on other pages.

  Wikipedia is left-leaning by many measures. The degree is a subjective opinion, and it is ok for editors to express opinions on their Userpage.

  Deletion of others’ opinions is censorship. Especially if it is motivated by dislike of the opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and while I commend all efforts, the first approximately half of UBDIVISIVE is legitimate "who comes up with this stuff" material and has got to be the worst Wikipedia guideline. It says to avoid "believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes" as "potentially divisive" :)) —Alalch E. 03:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously violates both the letter and the spirit of WP:UBDIVISIVE and WP:POLEMIC; implicitly declaring an intent to push Wikipedia in a particular direction also violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TEND, and WP:CIVILPOV. The "free speech" defenses are baffling; the purpose of a user page isn't personal expression, and Wikipedia is not a debate forum. The purpose of a userpage is to support writing an encyclopedia, not self-expression; userboxes that interfere with that have to go. And broadsides against the entire encyclopedia (as well as, implicitly, huge swaths of its editors) certainly violate that principle. Raising narrow, specific issues is reasonable, because it contributes to actual improvements; "the entire encyclopedia needs to be moved more in this ideological direction" is not - it is drawing a line in the sand and engaging it ideological chest-beating. --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:UBDIVISIVE discourages hostility, not personal perspectives. WP:POLEMIC applies to attacks, which this is not. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 12:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. we have a few of these self tags that let us know why some are not doing well here.Moxy🍁 07:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The userbox does not attack other editors, promote bad-faith editing, or call for action against Wikipedia. It merely states a perception—one that should be open to discussion rather than silenced. Manuductive (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This userbox simply expresses a personal belief about Wikipedia’s ideological shift—it does not attack editors, promote bad-faith editing, or call for action. WP:UBDIVISIVE discourages hostility, not personal perspectives. WP:POLEMIC applies to attacks, which this is not. Many userboxes express opinions about Wikipedia, and selectively removing this one would suggest censorship of dissenting views. Maintaining open discussion means allowing differing perspectives, even critical ones. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, as I do fully understand why this can be seen as a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue, but ultimately the editing patterns of any given editor will be enough to indicate if they're attempting to WP:RGW or running afoul of policy, with or without this userbox. If some editors view Wikipedia as being skewed a certain way, much like we have various editors with views on Wikipedia, so be it. It's substantive policy breaches that cause the issue here, rather than opinionated userboxen. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per ser generally, although I agree with the deletion rationale to an extent and might even be convinced to change my vote.

Unlike others, I do "strongly believe" that this toes the line of both WP:UBDIVISIVE and WP:POLEMIC:

-there is nothing in the aforementioned about "hostility" specifically, meaning that at the very best we might only justify this as an exception to that guideline, with the "avoid" being a generalistic idea rather than a hard rule;

-and as for the latter it pretty much definitionally is polemical, not to mention implicitly targeting a specific group of other editors for their personal views, as opposed to examining the content they might contribute (although that part can be critiqued, as I detail below).

However, I also feel like the mere expression that "X as a whole is too left-wing or right-wing" falls juuust short enough of displaying battleground behavior to truly run afoul of the spirit of these guidelines, as it's more of a generalistic assessment rather than a focused "call-out", and it could just as much be argued to examine the content itself, rather than the editors.

Ultimately, merely declaring one's political opinions, as long as they don't carry clear statements of intent to action or outright hate speech, does not seem particularly harmful to me, especially since I also think it's generally pretty valuable to allow and even encourage criticisms of Wikipedia.

I do feel this userbox might be better phrased as something like "this editor strongly aligns with right-wing (or centrist, or slightly less far-left) ideals", or perhaps "this editor strongly believes right-wing discourse should have better representation on Wikipedia", to align more closely with UBDIVISIVE and head off accusations of both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW; but at the end of the day, this is not that much different from someone proclaiming the above. And as ser says, if that opinion does come with a BATTLEGROUND or RGW attitude, then it will become clear through their editing, and will (hopefully) result in sanctions. And to add to that point, the presence of this particular userbox may well be useful to support the existence of such an attitude. NewBorders (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expresses an idea on Wikipedia. Maybe it could be worded better, but deletion isn't what's needed here. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Userfy by SilviaASH. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but Userfy. I don't personally agree with this sentiment, but the creator is entitled to their opinion. However, this strikes me as something that ought to be hosted in their userspace rather than the template namespace, so as to make clear to anyone stumbling across it that this is an individual editor's fringe opinion, and not, as far as I can see, a popular belief held among editors. (Only eight people, including the creator, have this userbox transcluded on their userpages, so it seems safe to say it's not a widely held opinion.) silviaASH (inquire within) 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is not divisive or polemic or battleground(ish). We have an article on Ideological bias on Wikipedia, so it's not shocking and/or surprising to find a userbox that expresses that opinion. And you can find dozens of news articles talking about a perceived political bias on Wikipedia as well. But in my view, editors who display this userbox should be aware that it may make your contributions to the project a target for scrutiny. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually my thought, that editors posting this userbox might face some backlash like when there were userboxes opposing same sex marriage. But it's an individual choice whether to post these userboxes on one's User page so it's up to the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Snehasish Sarkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Stale failed attempt at autobiography Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either ignore and leave for AfC processes, or explain why WP:G11 applies. Do not bring promotional autobiographies from draftspace to MfD, that is contrary to the purpose of draftspace in containing the junk.

This draft was just today undeleted as a G13 REFUND by its author. There is no rush. Give the editor time to read the comments and tags on the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Spider-Man 4: Fan Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft on a non-notable topic with no sources given and none to be found with a WP:BEFORE. Previously existed, was repeatedly resubmitted and eventually rejected. The creator left a deletion request (link to deleted revision) on this draft yesterday after it was rejected, and it was deleted under G7, but not before they copied it to their userspace and ultimately recreated it today. Creator has received many warnings on their talk page about removing AfC templates, disruptively resubmitting their draft in ignorance of feedback, and other conduct issues, and has ignored all of them while persisting in their behavior and blanking the talk page. At this point their intent to tendentiously resubmit the draft while trying to keep its previous declines and rejection under the WP:RADAR is clear.

• Also delete: User:Chance997/Spider-Man 4: Fan Film, creator's userspace fork of this draft silviaASH (inquire within) 00:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Before I Rejected the draft for some reason they blanked it then submitted it again. Anyway delete due to tendentious resubmittion, attempts to remove records of declines and content forking of a topic that has no indication of notability. SK2242 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt both: I was going to request deletion upon seeing the draft recreated. It appears this user just wanted to erase the history of the draft's submission rejections for a pseudo clean slate. It does not appear to be a notable topic for this encyclopedia, and attempts to game the system like this are a waste of other editor's time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I requested the draft to be deleted in the first place is because I made an error in copying the source material and apprehended the fan film and Kickstarter. I should have focused on them instead of, but I'm now focusing my intending on recreating the draft and making it better this time. Chance997 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case, can you supply us with reliable sources with which you intend to improve your draft? silviaASH (inquire within) 01:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Chance997 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chance, that production vlog from the film's creators that you just added is a primary, user-generated source- it isn't gonna be good enough for Wikipedia. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources that give the topic significant coverage (as opposed to trivial mentions). I'm not trying to be mean, but you really don't seem to be understanding what we've all been telling you the whole time that you've been working on this draft. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that the only non-first-party ref presently in the draft, a GeekTyrant article, is mostly a blog-esque/low-tier source consisting of a volunteer team with minimal editorial oversight, which raises a few eyebrows for me in terms of reliability. Counting the others, which are strictly YouTube user-generated refs, there are no reliable sources to justify an article, and this does not even reach WP:GNG. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Creator resubmitted the draft shortly after this MfD began, almost certainly to yet another incoming rejection. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have Rejected the draft as an unreleased film that is not notable under future film guidelines, which state that unreleased films are seldom notable, only when production itself has been notable, which it has not been in this case. I do not reject a draft for notability reasons unless it has previously been submitted and declined. The history shows that this title was rejected, and then deleted on user request and recreated by the user. I cannot construct a good-faith explanation for requesting the deletion of a rejected draft and then recreating the draft. The bad-faith explanation is to remove the record of the rejection. I have rejected this draft as a previously rejected draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All due to tendentious resubmission and gaming the system, as explained above. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Salt in draft space, because that is likely to result in gaming the title to avoid the salting. Consider use of the Title Blacklist to prevent creation with this title or variants of the title in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with the title blacklist, considering the nature of this situation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The tendentious resubmission is a conduct issue calling for conduct action, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mentioning their conduct as part of the justification for the MfD nomination was unavoidable. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that the creation of the MfD in itself would be a wake-up call for them to stop this, but that doesn't seem to have happened. If they attempt to submit the draft again, considering all their ongoing conduct issues, I would say taking their case to ANI is probably justified. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The new formatting of the user rights log entries is better than the old formatting. So, this page should be deleted so that the log entries automatically adding "extended confirmed" rights follow the new formatting instead of the old one. GTrang (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, this could likely have been better handled with an edit request. See the new text here. I prefer defaults, the original override was in response to feedback that EC grants shouldn't have been viewed as a "promotion". Both the mass change, and the nature of extended confirmed has changed over time. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "DartsWeatherRoyaltyFan automatically changed their group membership: got extended confirmed user"—is that what it's going to be like?—Alalch E. 14:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, it will look like this when defaulted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Yeah, that does seem a little better. Delete. —Alalch E. 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the passive voice ("was automatically updated") better reflects how EC works than the active voice ("user automatically changed their group membership"). No objections to wordsmithing the text, but I do prefer something other than the default. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Srinivasan Narasimhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is not about biographic notability, although I don't think he is. A CFO for a red linked company where the draft solely talks about the scandal the firm was involved in. Speedy declined, with which I have no issue - it was borderline and with BLP I err on delete side of borderline. Article is summed up as "As of the latest available information, legal proceedings related to the alleged financial misconduct are ongoing. The case has drawn attention due to its complexity and the significant sums involved, highlighting the challenges of corporate governance and financial oversight in multinational organizations. " So we don't know if there's a confirmed scandal, nor Narasimhan's involvement. IMO, this should neither be an article nor a six month draft. Star Mississippi 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is not a draft biography of a living person but a rehashing of negative reports about a living person. This is close enough to being a attack page that it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bad BLP content.—Alalch E. 12:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User kwi-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The creator is a troll, so it is likely this is vandalism. Also delete:

• Template:User kwi-2
• Template:User kwi-3
• Template:User kwi-4
• Template:User kwi-5
• Template:User kwi-0
• Template:User kwi-N
• Category:User kwi-2
• Category:User kwi-4

-- Janhrach (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Unlike this contributors other work, this appears to be part of an actual language, i'm not a speaker of Awa Pit, so I cannot verify if this is actually how the language is used, but I can't just delete this as a complete hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As Samoht27 notes, cannot verify if this is actually how the language is used (referring to the content of the userbox), and knowing that the creator is a troll, and as the userbox is unused, it's better to delete.—Alalch E. 09:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ten years ago, a troll complete changed the meaning of this userbox, so its usefullness is questionable. Janhrach (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vandalism, or send to Mercury, or encase in liquid Mercury. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's obviously meant to be humorous (and humorous userboxes are allowed), it does not insult anyone, nor will it deceive anyone. There's no harm in keeping it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and replace transclusions as needed following my general reasoning in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Jupiter.—Alalch E. 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ten years ago, a troll complete changed the meaning of this userbox, so its usefullness is questionable. Janhrach (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I assume the nominator is referring to this edit by User:Spc10K in February 2015, which changed the wording from "This user is a member of Taskforce Jupiter" to "This user is from Jupiter". SK2242 (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No need to restore to original usage before vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As the one with Mercury, it's just an humorous userbox that does not make any harm. Cambalachero (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This userbox was hijacked to cause it to become a member of the "User [celestial body]" series userboxes, alongside the preexisting Template:User Venus. (Template:User TF Jupiter was subsequently created by copying the original version of the userbox to fill its role.) The hijacker also expanded the series with templates such as Template:User Titan. Most transcluders actually use it in this sense; about them:
  • @User:Carnival200 (active): Hello! You have this userbox on your user page. You probably want to say that you are from Jupiter, correct?
  • User:Ashing430 (inactive): It is obvious that they want to say that they are from Jupiter, in the context of their userpage, which also says that they are from Mercury, etc.
  • User:Epiccomg (inactive): It is obvious that she wants to say that she is from Jupiter, in the context of her userpage, which also says that she is "currently not on Planet Earth", etc.
  • User:Lylahearts (inactive): It is not entirely obvious that she wants to say that she is from Jupiter, in the context of her userpage, which is more serious in what is being stated, and she also says that she is interested in astronomy; however, there are more templates from the "User [celestial body]" series. It is much more likely that the user is saying that she is from Jupiter, Titan, etc.
  • @User:Awesomewiki64 (semi-active): Hello! You have this userbox on your user page. You probably want to say that you are from Jupiter, correct?
  • User:Ninney (inactive): It is obvious that he wants to say that he participates in the Taskforce Jupiter, from the context of his pretty serious user page, which states that he is a member of the Mars task force, etc.
  • User:Markerqueen (inactive): From the totality of the circumstances, it is 100% certain that this user wanted to state that she participates in the Taskforce Jupiter
  • User:Thor Dockweiler (inactive): It is obvious that he wants to say that he participates in the Taskforce Jupiter, from the context of his pretty serious user page, which states that he is a member the Astronomy WikiProject, participant in the Constellations task force, etc.
  • @User:37ophiuchi (active): Hello! You have this userbox on your user page. You probably want to say that you participate in the Taskforce Jupiter, correct?
• Keep and replace it with {{User TF Jupiter}} on the userpages of Ninney, Markerqueen, and Thor Dockweiler. Awesomewiki64 and 37ophiuchi probably do not need other editors changing their page, and they have been alerted.—Alalch E. 13:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ang-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The creator is a troll, so unless this template is not confirmed to be valid (use correct grammar, etc.), it should be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't know whether the originator is a troll, but the user is clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Actual language, the template can be confirmed if an old English speaker is found. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spc10K/Omega with diaeresis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Hoax, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:User templates Iruc and all subcategories. Janhrach (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This seems to have been a hoax eight years ago and still seems to be a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Iruc-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Troll UBX, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:User templates Iruc and all subcategories. Janhrach (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete:

• Template:User ir-4
• Template:User ir-3
• Template:User ir-2
• Template:User ir-1
• Template:User ir-0
• Template:User ir

Janhrach (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to be an elaborate hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Probable hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The creator seems to be a troll, and it is very probable that this is a troll userbox. Janhrach (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - More stuff by the same user who is playing around, which is a way of being not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User oca-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The creator seems to be a troll, and it is very probable that this is a troll userbox. Janhrach (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete:

• Template:User_oca-5
• Template:User_oca-3
• Template:User_oca-2
• Template:User_oca-1
• Template:User_oca-0

Janhrach (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also Template:User oca-∞. Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These seem to have been made up and may be about another fictional language. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not a real language Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Almost certain hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ir-∞ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:User templates Iruc and all subcategories. Janhrach (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is not only made up, but breaks the rules for language userboxes with an infinity. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hoax -Samoht27 (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ir-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:User templates Iruc and all subcategories. Janhrach (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Based on the history, this is about a constructed language and appears to have been made up. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mohammad Moghiseh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Mohammad Moghiseh is already a redirect to 2025 assassination of Sharia judges in Iran ansd this draft is going nowhere. Flat Out (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2025 assassination of Iranian Supreme Court judges and lock redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alireza Jadidi (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Repeatedly resubmitted with no effort made to address concerns, including one post-rejection submission. Draft also seems to be the focus of a sockfarm (master: Vikworker8 (talk · contribs)); practically all non-review-related edits are by presumed or confirmed sockpuppets after the initial edits by Vikworker. Note that the edit from 2023 is the draft acceptance for the unrelated volleyball player and should not be considered the start date of this particular draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Draft:Alireza—Jadidi and Draft:Alireza-Jadidi. qcne (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only reason that this isn't G5 is that the puppeteer was blocked after the draft was created. Tendentiously resubmitted, and being a nuisance about the resubmission. I have reported the last submitter as a mallard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion:

• Draft:Alireza—Jadidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Alireza-Jadidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Jamal190009 (talk · contribs) moved the draft into mainspace while this discussion was ongoing. I've moved it back, with assistance from Writ Keeper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry for this mistake and I apologize to all the editors Jamal190009 (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrotherEarth967/Turned P (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Same topic as Turned P. Both articles started as translations from w:fr:P culbuté, indepently by two different users, this one a year earlier. Paradoctor (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Turned P. Not problematic. Redirection to mainspace seems like the common sense option in the absence of a guideline that is on the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user's only contribution, last edited 2017, delete per WP:STALEDRAFT #6. Blanking per #3 would require "some potential". This production has had less than 300 views over the past decade, no hope of ever becoming notable. Paradoctor (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per the stale draft guidelines, #2. Not problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Under the aforementioned guideline on stale drafts, content needs to be problematic, not non-problematic. Non-notable =/= problematic. Issues of wiki-notability are usually unrelated to the problematicness of content.—Alalch E. 18:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robert McClenon and Alalch E. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates