Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFDWP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page for you. See Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § U1 for more information.

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Notes

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTOWP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	1	8	99	40	148
TfD	0	1	1	39	41
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	3	55	34	92
RfD	0	0	5	94	99
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

June 23, 2026

User:Angry Red Hammer Guy/Userboxes/LarryDisagree

Userbox promotes/references op-eds on Wikipedia policies written by an editor now banned for off-wiki canvassing, making doxing threats, and general disruptive behavior, after discussion at ANI. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angry Red Hammer Guy/Userboxes/LarryAgree

Userbox promotes/references op-eds on Wikipedia policies written by an editor now banned for off-wiki canvassing, making doxing threats, and general disruptive behavior, after discussion at ANI. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2026

Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use

I wrote this essay, and I want it to be deleted. If it were eligible for G7, I would nominate it for G7, but it isn't. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've always considered this essay (particularly the section § What not to say) to be useful for breaking down common tropes amongst users who are confronted over LLM use and explaining why each type of argument doesn't help one's case. Some of these tropes might be tricky to figure out how to incorporate into WP:AITALKSIGNS. This essay and a few of its subsections have been brought up at the AI noticeboard and on the talk pages of some LLM-using users by JTtheOG, gurkubondinn, Athanelar and nhals8, to name a few. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question: why do you want it to be deleted? ‑‑gurkubondinn 01:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because I put time and effort into writing it, and regret doing so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a good reason. Did you not see:
By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or something similar? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of this. However, this is an essay. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This essay looks good to me. Other editors have contributed to it, and I expect that additional others will do so in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't really engage with the MfD itself since I've been pinged here and I don't want to give the impression of canvassing (since my stance on AI and thus the utility of this kind of essay is no doubt well known to most in this topic area) I will say that the deletion rationale does not seem to me to be valid; GS acknowledges that the essay is not G7-eligible since other editors have contributed to the essay, so their wish as the original author to have it deleted means little, and this should probably be procedurally closed as an invalid nomination. Athanelar (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i ask gnoming to please reconsider Nd withdraw this mfd. its a good essay User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to withdraw it. I want it gone, forever. I wrote the essay, and given that the majority of editors seem to not even want AI cleanup to be done in the first place, I do not want to mislead people into doing something that is just going to get them yelled at. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this essay has use and it has been contributed to by other editors. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is wondering why this discussion is titled Wikipedia:Guide to responding to accusations of AI use when the corresponding page is currently titled Wikipedia:Help, I've been accused of AI!, it's because the essay was briefly located at the Guide title when this MfD discussion was started. I started a requested move discussion, and a few hours later, I WP:SNOW closed it based on a !vote that invoked WP:JUSTDOIT, and boldly moved it. The next day, after a couple of users expressed their dismay at the surprise move, I discovered move review and put the discussion up for that, but I later withdrew after I was told that I should go ahead and undo my bold move, which I did. I also reopened the discussion I had closed. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As nominator says, not eligible for G7. Once that horse has left the stable, the creator wanting it gone / regretting writing it in the first place no longer applies for a projectspace essay. There has to be a more fundamental reason for deleting it, and none has been specified. @Gnomingstuff, I imagine this has something to do with others' use of or edits to this being different than your thinking, or frustration at whatever moving/renaming schmozzle has been happening.Unfortunately, that is part and parcel of the wikipedia editing experience, whether in main- or project-space. Formally, it's covered by the TOU and license you (implicitly) agreed to. More importantly, for better or worse, this type of "remix" is part of the wiki philosophy. We extend the courtesy of G7 when this remix hasn't happened, but when it has, it's too late. Your best bet is to a) choose to engage in the further evolution of the page (now or later), or b) walk away, and if your thinking has evolved, put your own essay into User space, where we allow less "remixing" -- though even there, your control is not infinite. Whether you regret it now or not, thank you for the thought, time, and effort you put into it. Both your version and the remixed version are thoughtful and helpful, whether someone agrees 100% with them or not. Martinp (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ping me, I am aware of this discussion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why do you regret making this essay?

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 20:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At this point, the essay has progressed to the point where it is no longer eligible for deletion on the basis of the page creator no longer wanting it around (so one option would be to just take it off your watchlist). It does not fit with any of the policy-based reasons for deletion, and it serves a reasonable purpose in providing a particular kind of advice to editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paravostok/sandbox

Recreation, three weeks after the conclusion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paravostok/sandbox, of yet another fantasy election. They resolved the WP:CRYSTAL issue from last time by leaving it as the 2024 United Kingdom general election instead of trying to presume the results of a 2028 election, but the new result is still a counterfactual rewriting of history, which still assigns each of the three leading parties different leaders than they actually had at the time (thus violating WP:BLP by containing false information about real living people), and positing a different winner than the election really had. This kind of thing simply isn't okay in sandbox space regardless of whether you try to predict a future election or simply remix a past one. Bearcat (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The originator has removed the BLP-violating material from this sandbox after it was nominated for deletion. The nomination was correct when it was made but is now moot, so that MFD is now the wrong forum. This is a conduct issue, because the originator seems to be not here to improve the encyclopedia, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block for four weeks, to prevent repeat disruption for four weeks. Increase the block length linearly with every recurrence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Australian Economic crisis 2026 review study - Letter to all MP's

WP:NOTWEBHOST. The draft consists of a user generated essay aimed at politicians. TarnishedPath^talk 01:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST says it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is not related to Wikipedia or its broader purposes. I'd suggest that the user use Google Docs or similar to draft or workshop political correspondence. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because I don't see any actual harm done, although this does appear to be web hosting, and because I don't want to encourage reviewing of draft space other by the AFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'Actual harm' could certainly result from any attempt to publicise this 'letter' while it is hosted on Wikipedia, and/or to associate it with Wikipedia as a project. This would clearly give the impression that Wikipedia itself was taking a position regarding Australian politics. If that wasn't the intention, why create it here, and why label it a 'draft'? And on a more general point, Wikipedia's policy on disallowing webhosting is motivated in part by the need to ensure that material doesn't violate US law, isn't offensive, isn't promotional etc. In that regard, which particular space the content is hosted in isn't particularly relevant, and what matters is the content itself. We absolutely need a means for the community to assess such material, and where applicable to delete it. The monetary cost of hosting such content might be insignificant, but the risks involved in doing so without policing it aren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVOCACY. The page is not a plausible draft for mainspace content. Email the content to the author on request. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 20, 2026

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps

Not a userbox gallery, it has only one userbox relating to the linbo emulator. That1ElioFan (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing/Software already exists for userboxes on this topic, and the single userbox on this page is not a userbox template which can be added to that index. Omphalographer (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move, no good reason to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing/Software TruenoCity (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Larry Sanger/Editorial parties should be permitted on Wikipedia

This is one of LS' more recent user essays. Every editor likely has an opinion on the contents, so I will keep this PAG based, with emphasis on WP:UP.

This user essay advocates or otherwise makes exception for the following PAG violations:
WP:CANVASSING: '"This is canvassing." Yes and no. ... Simply saying that it violates the current rule against canvassing is idle. We can make an exception. Maybe we should.'
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: 'The fact of the matter is that a great deal of what goes on is determined by what is hoped to be (but often is not, considering the presence of successful sockpuppetry) a fair democratic vote.'
WP:BATTLEGROUND: 'The entrenchment objection. ... It would be weak, moreover, to argue that partisan debates will replace good-faith arguments on the merits with partisan talking points. There is no reason to think this is the case.'

I believe the third of those violates WP:UP#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit which states 'Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone (the listed behaviours) may be removed, redacted or collapsed by any user to avoid the appearance of acceptability for Wikipedia'. Active and legitimate WikiProjects, for example the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, have run into issues in the past relating to such behaviour that this user essay is suggesting would be acceptable. This AN/I thread resulted in two editors receiving TBANs from deletion related activity. The WikiProject itself was put at risk of being shut down entirely. (This was in 2021).

Larry hosts his Nine Theses essay on his website, so there really isn't any need for this essay to be on Wikipedia. This is just my opinion however.

I am aware that there are other discussions taking place on Wikipedia with things Sanger is involved in. I've nominated this as I don't believe this rhetoric is helpful, even in this form. 11WB (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems Larry is on the way out anyway. wound theology ◈ 15:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a useful opinion page on Wikipedia, and does no harm to readers. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest delete in existence obvious WP:CANVAS, WP:NOTHERE, etc. Skyshiftertalk 16:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses should be put up for deletion ASAP. Skyshiftertalk 17:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be inadvisable at this time, for obvious reasons. 9T has a certain level of prestige, thus I'm not sure it would be a successful endeavour. 11WB (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an opinionated essay on a user page that does not request changes to any specific pages. One is free to disagree on the talk page. 123957a (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:NOTDEMOCRACY explicitly says Voting is used for certain matters, which matches what Sanger says. 123957a (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he literally admits to canvassing, but the other things I'm not too sure on. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Larry Sanger/Editorial parties should be permitted on Wikipedia and that this page, this MFD, is therefore an ad hoc editorial party. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It is a very bad essay but I am not sure whether it is a disruptive essay. Given the backstory here, I think it probably is intended as a provocation and clearly it is written in a way to try to fly just inside of what is permissible. I'm not sure whether it succeeds at either of those things. Does it count as "Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors"? I don't know. It's definitely very close to the line and I can't say whether it steps over it. Either way, I agree that it has no value to the project. (It wouldn't be fair to use it as an example of what a bad idea looks like but I can't see anything else that it is good for.) If it becomes a source of disruption, or gets used as fuel for other disruption, then I'd be strongly in favour of deletion. Otherwise maybe just let it languish? (Please do not mistake this for a "week keep" !vote. If I had meant it to be that then I would have said so.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What LarrySan has done outside of this essay has no bearing on whether this essay should be deleted. The essay is proposing that these PaG be struck down for project benefit, and does not itself violate said PaG. I do not see how, as claimed, the essay advocates doing these things right now before the proposal is accepted. (Also, the listed behaviors prohibited were carefully selected as vandalism, copyright violations, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. I don't think the essay comes close to the spirit of that.) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with this, and do not find this UP to be violative of the cited (or any other) rules. That some users disagree with the suggested reforms authored by Sanger is not reason to delete the page. Bravelake (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disruptive essay. Normally I'll just frown and vote keep but I've read about the writer and I think the writer can draft their essay in that sweet spot to be provocative/ disruptive but still in technically acceptable level. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination grossly misrepresents the cited section of WP:UP, twisting it beyond recognition. The behaviors in question are Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violations, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. The essay advocates none of these things.

I am no friend of Larry Sanger, but there is no valid WP:DELREASON here. People can (and should be able to) disagree with existing policies, so long as they don't support/advocate things that violate WMF-imposed policies or laws that would put Wikipedia at a risk (e.g. Terrorism, WP:CHILDPROTECT, etc). Katzrockso (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DELREASON is not applicable, as a user essay doesn't require reliable sources or notability to be created. This is a user essay, not an article or draft. DEL5 through DEL13 do not apply. DEL14 can be applied to this nomination however, along with the already mentioned PAGs. 11WB (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DELREASON applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles - and a page doesn't need to fail all of the DELREASON to be deleted. There has to be an actual reason to delete something. Katzrockso (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was making clear that the DELREASON this user essay fulfils is DEL14. The rest are not applicable. 11WB (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspect of the WP:NOT applies here? You refer only to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY in your nomination, which manifestly doesn't serve as a WP:DELREASON, since a userpage that (purportedly) opposes this principle isn't a violation of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Katzrockso (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NOT doesn't apply directly, the user essay instead advocates for it. This, in my view, violates the specific UP clause I linked, along with DEL14 generally. 11WB (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quotemining a section of policy to advance an interpretation of policy that is completely divorced from its text and intent is just as disruptive as Sanger's actions. Katzrockso (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB, the tortured interpretation of WP:UP in the nom is incredibly poor form. Combined with the mess caused by moving the ANI discussion, I think you'd be wise to take a step back from all this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move that discussion, I only proposed it. It was boldly moved by another editor (far too early I'll add). Regarding UP, we disagree. 11WB (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The essay is advocating and supporting improper behaviors with no benefit to the project. The constant theme I see with the author of this essay, while reading through other threads such as the current ANI is, advocating for changes to policies and guidelines that are unworkable for Wikipedia in its current state of editing. For example, in this essay they are proposing a way to work around WP:CANVASSING, a core guideline. Also, he is trying to change or fudge the meaning of NOTDEMOCRACY by speaking for everyone, saying it is DEMOCRACY that all of us really want, rather than editing according to policies and guidelines. So, with the reinterpretations of CANVASSING and NOTDEMOCRACY I am seeing the potential for egregious disruptions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my ivote. This is just an opinion piece in a User space. It is not what I originally thought. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Katzrockso, it's a userspace essay, can everyone chillout. It doesn't advocate for any of the criteria listed at WP:UP#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit, and the policies listed in the nom aren't any of them! Essays that advocate against PAGs are usually userfied, this one already is. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion seems an overwrought response here. We afford considerable latitude in userspace essays, and allowing criticism of the wikipedia status quo is healthy. I see no reason to assume this page is made in bad faith, and a reasonable reader will understand this is one person's opinion on desired changes to wikipedia editing, not misleading guidance on what is (currently) acceptable. I share the opinion of some others above that these ideas and unworkable in the present editing context, and advocate changes which are unlikely to ever come to fruition. But that isn't a reason to delete a userspace essay. Martinp (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm keep. In view of Sanger's CBANning, I expect discussion will ensue what impact it should have here. My view: none. Sanger's CBAN seems to have been largely about canvassing, augmented by outing(?) concerns. While the contents of this essay are not wholly unrelated to canvassing, at its heart this in an essay about certain observed deficiences at en.wiki and a policy proposal how to address them. We should therefore decide about its suitability on its face value, not based on whether the author remains in good standing. Regardless of whether one things the observations and proposals are correct, that is an appropriate use of userspace. The page is not advocating behaviour contrary to policy, but suggesting policy change. Therefore, no foul. Martinp (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please un-bold one of your !votes. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UPYES which allows "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters" (emphasis added) to be posted in userspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and suggest some general admonishment against people constantly nominating Larry's essays at MfD on the grounds of disagreeing with them. For the record I disagree with this one, so if you are drafting any agitprop about "Larry's supporters" please omit me from it. jp×g 🗯️ 04:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I quite clearly didn't nominate this essay "on the grounds of disagreeing" with it. Just to requote my opening statement: 'Every editor likely has an opinion on the contents, so I will keep this PAG based, with emphasis on WP:UP.' At most I said 'I don't believe this rhetoric is helpful' and that it could just as easily be hosted elsewhere. You generalised by using the word "people" rather than directing this at me solely, so I won't take issue with that. (Merely, this reply is a defence against that generalisation.) 11WB (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are so many failed proposals that haven't been deleted, what's one more? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an idea that most of us disagree with. Disagreement with the content of an essay is not a reason to delete it. Whether to delete the user is another matter. (I know that users are not deleted because they are indeffed, but we know what I mean.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Project-related essay by a user in good standing. Let AN discussions on Sanger play out before bringing his subpages here. MfD is not a policy forum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you said that a minute before he was cbanned for being not here as hell lmao consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 22:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think standing has any bearing on this. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Very heavy bearing. If this page is related to a reason for banning, that makes a deletion reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

even if his standing had any bearing, it was so bad he was banned for it, so this one isn't really going to fly consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – he's not arguing that people should violate those policies and guidelines, he's arguing that they should be changed, and explaining how he thinks that those changes would be an improvement. This is a reasonable and not uncommon use of userspace. That the author has been disruptive in related areas doesn't mean that this page is disruptive. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To my own surprise, I say keep. Nothing inappropriate about having made the proposal. Reasonable use of userspace. DS (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2026

User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner

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

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

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

Keep, this seems like a noticeboard similar to others maintained by various WikiProjects, so nothing unusual in its intent. As for WP:LLM, the nutshell reads "Don't use AI writing tools such as large language models to generate or rewrite article content", which instructs activities about using AI to write and edit mainspace articles, not WikiProject subpages. I'm not a wikilawyer, but on a quick read the chart seems policy compatible, but will watch this discussion to check if I'm mistaken, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering “speedy keep” no valid reasons for deletion offered. Deletion reasons should be articulated from WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT. MfD is not resolving policy disputes. This is in userspace, where a lot of leeway is given. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending WPID discussion, at least. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A useful collection of pointers to discussions relevant to WPID's goals is not canvassing, obviously, nor should it ever be considered to be. We have every right to organize on Wikipedia in favor of various competing policy stances—and we do. See: the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and WikiProject Democracy; see also WikiProject Feminism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism, among others. It is also worth noting that there have been several Wikipedia reform projects in the past, and while they are no longer active, they were WikiProjects in good standing: WikiProject Wikipedia Reform (c. 2008), which sought to create "a comprehensive, well-organized incubator of ideas for general reform that is conducive to the type of focused effort needed to make headway in addressing complex, systemic problems on Wikipedia"; WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party (2013), which aimed to "reform the ArbCom system by selecting candidates who will run collectively based on a common candidate statement," arguing that "ArbCom has become Wikipedia's politburo and this has to be changed"; and WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia (2016), a project "to advocate for content and governance reforms that will facilitate higher-quality content and fairer, more efficient governance structures."
As to the use of Claude to build the PolicyScanner, I checked repeatedly and assiduously, and I concluded that posting the output of the LLM on this page, for this purpose, is obviously consistent with the policy. The burden is on User:Wound theology to mount an argument that it is not. As to my complaining off-wiki about problems with Wikipedia: that's also quite all right. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Also bear in mind that this page is in my user space. You are not permitted to delete it, which is a separate and stronger argument to speedy keep. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, "you are not permitted to delete it" is not an argument at all, never mind one of the conditions that WP:SK applies to. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  d*ng you beat me to the punch consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  nah, you explained it betterSarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  
  not quite, actually. any content that is, scientifically speaking, "le bad" can be deleted, regardless of what precedes its first colon. for instance, nothing prevents a draft or user page from being speedy deleted as g11, or a project page from being taken to mfd. userspace pages aren't granted special protection in that area, but neither are they given special prejudice
  
  this is only to say that "it's in userspace" isn't a metric here, be it for keeping or deleting consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also bear in mind that this page is in my user space. You are not permitted to delete it I'm sorry, Larry, but that's not how it works. You don't "own" any of your userspace pages. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Everything else aside, you're foundationally hard completely wrong on this point, and should strike what you wrote. No page in user space is exempt from community override. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CANVAS allows such a thing as part of a WikiProject. If the proposal fails, however, as it looks likely, then this page is a clear policy violation. Being in userpace wouldn't make it any less damaging, so the usual leeway doesn't apply. Tercer (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~don't delete per nom~~. not as in "don't delete", just not per nom. this project is, more than anything, an attempt to bring back some of the... let's say "less unsuccessful" of his nine theses, but just having one part of it here is a waste. if discussions on accepting it don't go through, then the whole thing is better off discussed at once (though i wouldn't be surprised to see it go down the same route as the piss lorax from before) consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The piss lorax? Sesquilinear (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the nine theses used to have a facebook-flavored meme featuring the lorax, suspiciously marked as "own work", suspiciously yellow, suspiciously pillow-shaded. ignoring the irony so obvious there's an entire movie about it, it was deleted from here for all the obvious reasons, and that's before wp:newllm. it's still available in his bird app thread about it, but i really suggest you don't look, it's what da kidz would call "cringe" consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep and don't delete Per Larry Sanger and Randy Kryn. This is a useful, important and necessary page for the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. The WP:CLANKER says: For this reason, using LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for translation and for basic copyediting of one's own work.
Well, the Wikipedia bans AI slop for editing and creating pages, not for WikiProject. The Wikimedia Commons don't bans AI Slop. I think the deletionism group in Wikipedia is absurd. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
to be unfair regarding the ai part, it's only an aside compared to the bigger issues consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a useful resource for those wanting to keep up with policy decisions being made in a wide assortment of places where some decision that ends up affecting you might be made without you even noticing it. As for the AI use, this is a userspace resource rather than main wiki content, so more leeway should be given. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is something that could be done by hand, and does no harm to readers. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, should this be moved away from userspace, delete. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is clearly a conduit for canvassing. For example, Larry has stated that part of the goals for the proposed WPID are to address what he terms as overzealous banning and on that page is listed a noticeboard discussion in which an editor was recently WP:SNOW WP:CBAN'd for being WP:NOTHERE. Notably, that editor is also listed as a member of Larry's proposed WPID. As a side note, if this discussion does arrive at a delete outcome, it needs to be mentioned that User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner itself doesn't have much content. The content itself comes from User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner output, which is transcluded onto the page. TarnishedPath^talk 01:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note that several of the keep !votes here are from WPID members. wound theology ◈ 01:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle surprise. TarnishedPath^talk 01:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly removed the banned editors from the list of project members. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete in existence obvious WP:CANVAS, WP:NOTHERE, etc. Skyshiftertalk 01:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (now Strong Delete - see below) because its construction is not transparently done and potentially reflects the known biases of the user for what is included. I wouldn't mind a page like this in the Wikipedia namespace, but we need transparent rules for inclusion as well as the process that builds it. Also I concur with WP:CANVAS and WP:NOTHERE as considerations, but really, lack of transparency and bias are the key issues with this. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't care if a robot vomited it after a few prompts or if Larry wrote each word passionately by hand, it is, quite straightforwardly even, an instrument for canvassing. Like StefenTower said above, something in that regards would be fine in the Wikipedia namespace (we do have Template:Centralized discussion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All), but it being incorporated in a WikiProject for the express purpose of directing like-minded editors to these conversations is much less ideal. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful tracking tool, actually. No different in principle than innumerable WikiProjects that have hot running lists of recent edits to project-related articles. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except we don't have transparency in how it's built or how its selections are made. If those concerns were allayed, I'd support it... in the Wikipedia namespace. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fixinathing (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixinathing You don’t say the reason for why delete VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, got distracted; adding now. Fixinathing (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons being: 1) I agree it seems like a tool easy to abuse for canvassing, and 2) I don't think LLM usage (as LLMs currently stand) for any purpose should be allowed even the smallest toehold into Wikipedia. Fixinathing (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What wikipedia really doesn't need is organised political factions whose only existence seems to be as a focus for canvassing. If this is allowed we will have a Trotskyist faction, an anarchist faction, a liberal faction, a Stalinist faction, a Christian democrat faction, an Islamist faction, a right-libertarian faction... The one thing that allows wikipedia to function as a successful encyclopaedia is the protections afforded by WP:CANVAS. And, lets be clear, we don't need to wait to see if this will cause problems with canvassing. It already is, these noticeboards ARE canvassing.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is canvassing that tries to recruit opposite-minded users to "balance out" the !votes on the listed discussions. The other proposals of WPID have merit, but canvassing is a no-no. 123957a (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've changed my mind. While this could attract those who would attempt to skew the discussions in their favor, the page itself is merely a collection of discussions sorted by various criteria akin to listings on other areas of the project (like WikiProjects). --123957a (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am suspicious of the unexplained methods of sorting that the AI used for this. 123957a (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant WP:CANVASSing in an attempt to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEground, neither of which are appropriate uses of user pages. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular page is written neutrally, and WP:LLM does not apply to userspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a page is being used as part of a campaign, the context and goals of the campaign as a whole are surely relevant. This is a page designed to attract people of a particular political persuasion to stack votes. And as the page is clearly public facing and intended to influence other users' editing behaviour, WP:LLM should apply.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is this an WP:LLM issue at all? WP:LLM says, "This page in a nutshell: Don't use AI writing tools such as large language models to generate or rewrite article content." (Emphasis added.) This page is in userspace, and is about discussions in projectspace (Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk:). Does this page even link to articlespace? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. LLM involvement is a distraction here. The issue is that we need to know how a list of such supposed consequence to the Wikipedia is built, even if that is knowing the instructions given to an LLM and which LLM was used. We deserve to have full transparency on the "code" and methodology of selection, similar to every other tool developed for the Wikipedia. This is an open-source project, and therefore everything should be subject to the light of reasonable scrutiny. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I'm aware, editors are allowed to keep a list of discussions they'd like to keep track of. The issue here is that it could be used for canvassing, but that can be resolved by simply separating it from the WPID project. While Sanger has promoted his WPID project, he hasn't (afaict) directly promoted this page. The LLM issue has been sufficiently addressed above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 10:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a list of discussions Sanger wants to keep track of himself; it's a list of discussions put forward for other people to engage in. It's explicitly a tab of and a key part of User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, to which 20+ editors have signed up. NebY (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is for canvassing, and contrary to ARandomName123's perspective above, that cannot be addressed by separating it from the WPID attempted-project, because the user has demonstrated they will canvas people off-wiki to related on wiki discussions NicheSports (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of users have weird tools in their userspace. Also, I'm not convinced that is being effectively used for canvassing. It's just as easy to read this page and its proposed wikiproject as performative, as a means to get "cancelled" which paradoxically grants greater exposure in the current podcast-saturated media environment. I'm not convinced that any of this is sincere. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NicheSports, Aquillion and others. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a tool for canvassing, nothing more or less. WPID is explicitly set up to encourage people to vote a certain way, and this "policyscanner" just exists to tell them which to go on. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proposal is by definition a disruptive, platform to funnel off-wiki activism into in-project pointmaking. Also, WP:NOFASCISTS. Zaathras (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if Sanger is sitebanned, which looks increasingly likely given WP:ANI#Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger, will that affect the outcome of this MfD? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Off-Wikipedia canvassing is an interesting question. Note that typically, non-Wikipedian meat puppet contributions tend to be self defeating, easily identified and un persuasive.

An ANI discussion is irrelevant, in my opinion, but an ANI discussion closed with a consensus-conclusion is a fact that MfD should accept at face value. I’d say it justified a relist, noting the new information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If ANI makes a firm finding against Sanger and this page, I don’t support deletion, but blanking with an explanation. Sanger on Wikipedia is complicated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like canvassing. Using the framework from WP:INAPPNOTE the scale is the same as that of any other wikiproject, it's fully transparent, we don't know who the audience is and as far as I can see there is no message (like "vote this way"). WP:LLM obviuously doesn't apply: generating article content is prohibited. Alaexis_¿question? 13:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the first page of WPID: "We want to encourage people from a very wide variety of backgrounds to converge and support those—many and varied—policy changes that will, directly or indirectly, make it easier for their ideas to be articulated neutrally. There is strength in numbers!"

It's a project specifically to canvass people on an ideological basis, with the policy scanner to highlight those where they obviously want their members to vote (and it's "without saying" to be voted a certain way). It's just an attempt to "get around the rules" because Larry isn't manually pinging specific people he knows agree with him each time but instead basically running a passive mailing list of people who will hopefully have it on their watchlist and just do it without him sending them a message. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So by your reasoning any editor that writes an essay that seeks to change a policy in some way is automatically guilty of canvassing?

Also, the sentence you highlighted is not even on the page that is proposed to be deleted. Alaexis_¿question? 19:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So by your reasoning any editor that writes an essay that seeks to change a policy in some way is automatically guilty of canvassing?

I think this strawman is a sign I shouldn't bother engaging with you further. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is transparent, I as a fellow editor should be able to see the code for how it's built and from that the methodology for the selections. Can you point to that? Whether LLM is involved is beside the point. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this should be transparent. Alaexis_¿question? 09:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is different from normal Wikiprojects because it includes "priority" and "consequentiality" filters. See Category:All Wikipedia article alert reports for what typical WikiProject article alerts look like. If it was set up like that (i.e., a list of noticeboards connected to the proposed wikiproject and their relevant discussions, then I think it would be fine... but that's not what this is. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - This is far too early for a deletion - the wikiproject hasn't formed a consensus yet, we can cross this bridge when we come to it. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 20:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for the second reason given by the nominator, that this is AI slop, and so cannot be relied on, but is likely to be relied on by people because of its superficial plausibility . Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since this is a user space page, is doing no harm, and is useful to people regardless of their policy allegiances, there is absolutely no reason to delete it. Larry Sanger (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you forgot, but you already voted. Skyshiftertalk 01:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Struck this double-vote for obvious reasons. wound theology ◈ 01:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not inherently used for canvassing. Andre🚐 00:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a genuinely useful way to discover policy discussions. I have used it before and I wholeheartedly disagree with just about everything Sanger has proposed.
There is no canvassing violation in this page - there is no commentary and it is completely compliant with WP:APPNOTE. It is not any different than WP:CENT, WP:RM, WP:RFC or other pages that collect similar discussions. Katzrockso (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then someone without a history of massive off-wiki canvassing should maintain it and host both the code and system prompts on github (or similar) so we know how it is populated NicheSports (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea of a self-appointed body of secret police/political commissars monitoring elected functionaries for adherence to the party line {"Rein in over-aggressive blocking by Administrators, holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability") raises my hackles. Not so much WP:Five pillars as WP:Fifth column. I also detest the idea that we should be able to use WP:Unreliable sources ("Broaden the range of permissible sources"). Narky Blert (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, im not sure there was a specific criteria given for deleting this. Nothing in wp:upnot User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UPNOT i meant. It could be used for canvassing but hasnt yet. I think cdjp below talks about it best User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have stated, while this could potentially be used in a CANVAS way, which is more to do with the tool's relation to WPID, the tool in and of itself is not CANVASSING. Now, on LLM, our P&Gs are about using such to write content. While LLM outputs to generate this tool may not fall into the restrictions of P&Gs, the outputs should have been checked over by an individual with the requisite knowledge to correct any mistakes. I don't know what Sangar's skills are there, so I can't comment, and my own skills for building such a tool are not at a level where I can review such, so it would be down to others to review the tool in a more technical manner. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This list presents priorities for WPID members, followers or fellow-travellers. Priority is stated to be "Composite score: consequentiality × recency × relevance. Higher = more important for WPID to monitor." Consequentiality is "Script-side consequentiality (0–40). Based on objective characteristics only"; the script is undisclosed, there is no indication of what characteristics are evaluated or how they are measured, and the claim of "objective characteristics only" is unsubstantiated. Relevance is "Topical relevance to WPID concerns (0–10)". The summaries are LLM generated to an unrevealed script and focused on the discussion's points of anticipated interest to WPID members, followers or fellow-travellers; they are selective and not entirely neutral. It's a canvassing page. NebY (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the most damning charge here, tbh. wound theology ◈ 20:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To wit, if this page/tool is kept somehow, we're going to have to have some form of discussion about opening up its code/processes. Places that come to mind are Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard and/or WP:VPT, and failing those, starting an WP:RfC. Under no circumstances are we going to allow this to be produced by closed code or processes. the Stefen 𝕋ower 22:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this LLM-assisted (if not "generated") table. Let's no longer allow this page to be used as a tool for especially Larry's goals. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this is virtually identical in form to the Signpost's discussion report winnower, which I wrote for several months in 2025. This constituted a summary of all noticeboard discussions winnowed down to the most active (by participant count, discussion size, and/or comment count). This script found the most-active discussions and eliminated the vast majority of everyday straightforward noticeboard threads (all of them were not important, but almost all important discussions are large). Anyway, while this report was quite well-received, even with the aid of the script, it involved a gigantic amount of work to read every comment of every discussion and summarize them into a readable report. A few times, I tried -- PLEASE READ THIS FULL SENTENCE BEFORE RESPONDING TO IT, NOT JUST THE FIRST FEW WORDS, PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE ALL THE WAY TO THE PERIOD -- a few times, for reports I'd already done, I tried feeding the discussions into the highest-tier GPT model while actually trying to prompt correctly, and the summaries I got from that were basically of the same quality and accuracy of what I had already written on my own. I did not see any factual errors, just that it wrote in a somewhat annoying style, and the main reason I never published it was that people would have gotten really mad. When I got too busy to write the discussion report, nobody else ever picked it up, and it hasn't been written in months. The fact of the matter is that manually reading all of the discussions to make a report of them is a task literally nobody has the time/ability/desire to do, and based on this discussion, apparently if I did it again people would find it offensive and call it for its deletion unless I gave a disclaimer beforehand that I wasn't right-wing. jp×g 🗯️ 05:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted to read others' concerns before narrowing it all down to a conclusion this is about ideology of the creator of this page? No matter the intentions behind this page, I think you as an admin know quite well we have an expectation of transparency of how these things are put together (i.e. it is unusual when we let some things be "closed source"). And that is before we look at how its creator is using it, and given the proof provided at ANI regarding his canvassing, an assumption related to that is not unreasonable. the Stefen 𝕋ower 07:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's very different from your winnower. Its second column is "Priority" and it's sorted on that by default. That's the priority for those who have "WPID concerns", and depends on "Script-side consequentiality (0–40). Based on objective characteristics only" and "Topical relevance to WPID concerns (0–10). ... LLM estimate"; the script is undisclosed, there is no indication of what characteristics are evaluated or how they are measured, and the claim of "objective characteristics only" is unsubstantiated. The summaries appear to be bringing out aspects of "relevance to WPID concerns", and we have no more idea of how the LLM's been instructed to produce them than we have of the "Script-side consequentiality" or "objective characteristics". Your winnower was neutral, making no evaluations, and everything in it could be independently verified - indeed any single item could be manually verified. This isn't neutral, includes priorities for engagement, and is unverifiable. NebY (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete taking Robert McClenon's argument about it being LLM generated as the starting point. This falls into a nasty limbo between impartial, automatically generated content (e.g. a complete list off all outstanding discussions, which I think would be fine) and manually curated content where it was clear who was curating it and what their biases might be (which would also be potentially legitimate so long as their intent was not disruptive). What we have here is something that looks, and represents itself to be, impartial but is utterly inscrutable. What is the LLM doing? We don't know. (Quite often the person using the LLM doesn't even know!) What was the LLM prompted to do? We aren't told. What do those scores even mean? We don't know and we don't know that anybody else knows. Is the page useful for its purported purpose? It seems unlikely. (A simple list would probably cover any legitimate uses this has.) Is the page useful for some other nefarious purpose? We don't know. Taking this all at face value it seems to be useless and a waste of everybody's time and attention. Sadly, that's the best case scenario for it. Even without assuming any disruptive intent this looks deletable so I won't go any further than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A closed source tool that uses LLM to assist in canvassing. I don't see how that can be permitted on the project. 11WB (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
looks like all bets are off, so delete, but still a little differently from a "per nom". the canvassing and ai worries are egregious enough that not many caveats need to be made here. that said, it would still be better to have the whole project discussed at once, unless someone thinks that'd be a train wreck so bad they'd make btd6 maps out of it consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to modify, strike or whatever your bolded qualified "don't delete" above (or this) to help the long-suffering closer? NebY (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it was a "don't delete per nom" vote. not as in "don't delete at all". better reasons to delete could've been presented at the time, and i'd still rather have the whole thing discussed, but if this is on the table, both can exist. that said, yeah, i'll just de-emphasize that part or something to avoid some clutter. wait, isn't this close enough to "per nom" that it barely matters? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a canvassing machine. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a canvassing instrument. And even if the letter of WP:NEWLLM only applies to article space, come on, man. Outside of article space, we'd collapse this much slop per WP:AITALK at a bare minimum. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm willing to give some leeway in userspace, but this is a tool that exists exclusively for reasons incompatible with building an encyclopedia. I am not going to entertain the arguments that this is no different from any other WikiProject article alerts template or a personal list of quick-links to frequently-checked pages. I am not going to play dumb and pretend this is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, or that anything else related to "WPID" is for that matter. The fact that it's a closed-source LLM-powered black-box really is not helping the case for keeping, either. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:UPNOT, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Larry's been publicly smearing Wikipedia for years now. That kind of thing can stay on ~~Twitter~~ X. Apocheir (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I move to Speedy Delete, as the page's creator has been CBAN'd per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefenTower (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criterion? G5 only applies to pages created after a ban or block. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't see anything in G5 that says it cannot be applied retroactively.~~ the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower: To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted or expired will not qualify under this criterion. (emphasis added) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to revert myself. I glossed over it too quickly. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"in violation of their ban or block" is the part that would toss a wrench into a g5 here, as larry wasn't blocked or socking while creating the project consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 23:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You can't delete this page as a creation in violation of a ban or block because Larry was not banned or blocked when he created this. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, and changed to Strong Delete per the foregone conclusion that this page was created as part of an effort that formed part of the rationale for community-banning its creator. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At this point, the calculus is different. Larry is banned. The page cannot be updated. I'm !voting keep to preserve it as a historical record of these events, not because of any opinion about the purpose of function of the page. (Although if Larry wants it deleted, in which case WP:U1 presumably still applies). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about the calculus if he was banned too. Can no-one else update Larry's page? NebY (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can edit it but they probably shouldn't. It is generally bad form to edit stuff in other people's spaces unless invited to. Exceptions are things like leaving them messages or removing vandalism. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm not going to! I just can't join Rhododendrites either, because the page might not remain a museum piece. There's so much bad form around these days. NebY (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned someone else will try to update the page, which is part of a WikiProject that's not going forward, and that (to repeat myself) formed part of the rationale for CBAN'ing its creator. As I've said before, I wouldn't mind someone creating something like this in a transparent manner, ideally in the Wikipedia namespace. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The request to create the proposed WPID has been closed with consensus against it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with you. This page serves as a valuable historical artifact, documenting the specific project and methodology that were central to the discussions leading up to the creator's community ban.

~2026-34360-03 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger is not Lincoln. We don't need a memorial to his quarter century of practically non-contribution to Wikipedia and problems he caused. the Stefen 𝕋ower 04:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower Why not? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See my reasons above, Larry. the Stefen 𝕋ower 22:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Delete: I like the concept of a noticeboard-style list of policy discussions because it allows users to quickly see all the discussions that they may be interested in (something similar like jpxg mentioned). However, since Larry has been indefed and cannot edit this, it may be prone to abuse by others and get outdated, so it will serve no purpose. Another outcome that can work is setting it as historical and permanently protecting it. EvanTech10 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but mark deprecated. As evidence. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2026

Portal:Journalism/News

List of pages

Related special cases: Portal:Serbia/News/Footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subpage of prior deleted); Portal:Tropical cyclones/Tropical cyclone news/Seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subpage of prior deleted); Portal talk:Current events/Wikinews/Today (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (talk page of prior deleted); Template:Wikinews table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Wikinews table/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Wikinewstable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above)

– (View MfD)

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

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

Comment for User:SmokeyJoe - This appears to be a reasoned statement in favor of deleting Portal:Journalism. But this MFD isn't about deleting a portal. It is, or at least appears to be, about deleting a large number of subpages of portals that previously had news provided by a semi-robotic process. Are you voting to delete a portal, or to delete a large number of subpages with news. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete the whole Portal, not just the worst of it.

The Portal is abandoned. The Portal talk page is abandoned (33 pageviews in the last 90 days; nearly no meaningful edits for years, no meaningful posts ever). The Portal is dead, failed, before it ever started. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the files in the collapsed list. I have spot-checked them, and none of them have any actual news. The files that I have checked are all useless in a few different ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Portal:Journalism isn't nominated for deletion. A large number of subpages of various portals have been nominated for deletion. I am not nominating Portal:Journalism for deletion. It is in better condition than many portals, which is not saying much. It was created in 2006 by an editor who lasted edited in 2007, but it was substantially reworked in May 2020 and October 2021 by Northamerica1000, and now has a transclusion architecture rather than the obsolete architecture with subpages. (In my opinion, all portals with the obsolete architecture with subpages should be deleted because the subpages are redundant forks and become out-of-date, but we are not discussing a portal with the obsolete architecture.) I have questions both about the utility and the accuracy of the metrics provided by User:SmokeyJoe, who says that the portal talk page is abandoned, with 33 pageviews in the last 90 days. The views of and posts to a WikiProject talk page are a measure of activity of a WikiProject, which does its work on its talk page. A portal is not a WikiProject, and does not do its work on its talk page. The portal talk page has had 43 pageviews in the past 90 days and 33 pageviews in the past 60 days, but that is irrelevant. The activity of a portal is judged by the pageviews of the portal itself. The portal has had an average of 31 daily pageviews in calendar 2025, while the lead article had 289 pageviews. In calendar 2024, the portal had an average of 35 daily pageviews, and the lead article had 463 pageviews. Those are daily pageview rates, not cumulative. The lack of activity on a portal talk page does not mean that a portal is abandoned, although the lack of activity on a WikiProject talk page means that the project is abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A portal is not a WikiProject. True. What is a portal? It’s a failed concept, failed due to the discovery and success of internet search engines. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessary to educate me about the utility, lack of utility, or mystical value of portals. But this is not an MFD about any portals, because no portals have been nominated. Also, if a portal is nominated for deletion, it is a good idea to use applicable metrics and accurate metrics, rather than an incorrect report of the number of portal talk page views, when talk page views are not a meaningful metric for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page views are a meaningful metric. They reflect the level of interaction of editors in improving the page. No meaningful talk posts means the page is likely a thing in isolation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above statements as Wikinews was shutdown. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Albert Eisenstein/List of things I hate

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

Weak keep. This new-ish user seems to be having a challenging time productively engaging at en.wiki. Hopefully they will find their way. In the meanwhile, in the spirit of AGF I would let them harmlessly vent in their own user space. While not exactly civil discourse, I'm not sure writing "I [expletive] hate [list of about 24 groups]" really qualifies as a personal attack. As a member of at least 4 of those groups, I certainly don't feel personally attacked. To be clear: I wouldn't love to see pages like this proliferate in userspace, but feel this user will either find their way, become less frustrated, and hopefully tone down their stridency with time on their own; or will flame out and we can then either ignore this or delete it as some sort of administrative clean-up of abandoned userpages (if we ever do that, if not, doesn't matter). Martinp (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a textbook WP:POLEMIC violation, though? It attacks several groups of people. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it goes against WP:POLEMIC. It is not desirable userspace content. But sometimes when someone is struggling, the best thing is to let them find their way, or leave if they prove unable/unwilling to, not to jump for the maximum possibly justifiable corrective action. Besides, I'm not convinced "I hate [group]" qualifies as an attack. Martinp (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per reasoning above. Not really a good thing to have in userspace, but it's not the worst. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found a furry, guys! Albert Eisenstein (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How nice. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hate them?

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 21:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 21:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's on their list of things they hate, so... I would assume, yes. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how come they know that you’re a furry? I didn’t see that userbox on your page.

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 21:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 21:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blank, and inform the user that there are limits to the type of content they can host in userspace (namely the statements about hating people; there's no reason they shouldn't be able to have a page about their other dislikes). Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 00:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as divisive and having no positive value and a slight negative value for the encyclopedia project. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, very clearly not what Wikipedia is for, WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA applies. Skyshiftertalk 17:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:POLEMIC --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Why can't I just have a space to express my feelings? Albert Eisenstein (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above explain. WP:POLEMIC. toby ^(t)(rw) 05:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can create your own blog or something. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Skyshiftertalk 00:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. In solidarity, 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLEMIC. Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2026

Portal:Slovakia/Slovakia news

List of pages

No news for 21 years (2005): Portal:Ancient Egypt/Ancient Egypt news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Hungary/Hungary news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news)
No news for 20 years (2006): Portal:Ancient Greece/Ancient Greece news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Bible/Bible news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Biology/Biology news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Earth sciences/Earth sciences news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Fashion/Current Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Fish/news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Maps/Atlas news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Maps/Current event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Atlas/Current event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Marine life/Marine life news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Morocco/Morocco news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked); Portal:Nepal/news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Outer space/News/Launches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Taiwan/Taiwan news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Radio/Radio news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Western Sahara/Western Sahara news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 19 years (2007): Portal:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Bosnian News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Croatia/Croatia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Current events/Turkey/News Highlights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:East Sussex/East Sussex news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Ireland/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Kent/Kent news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Latin America/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Malta/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Michigan/Michigan news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Nicaragua/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Nicaragua/Nicaragua news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Piracy/Piracy news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Portugal/Portugal news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Punjab/Punjab news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Slovakia/Slovakia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Visual arts/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:West Sussex/West Sussex news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news)
No news for 18 years (2008): Portal:Beer/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Children's literature/Children's literature news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Children's and young adult literature/Children and Young Adult Literature news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Children's literature/Children and Young Adult Literature news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature/Children and Young Adult Literature news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Gibraltar/Gibraltar news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Greater Manchester/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Hong Kong/Hong Kong news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Jazz/Jazz news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Latvia/Latvia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:New South Wales/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Numismatics/news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Rock music/Current Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Rock and roll/Current Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Science/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Somerset/Somerset news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:South Australia/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Thailand/Thailand news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Tokyo/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked); Portal:Toys/Toys news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news)
No news for 17 years (2009): Portal:Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Cambodia/Cambodia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:College football/College football news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Dominican Republic/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Dungeons & Dragons/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Guatemala/Guatemala news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Oceania/Oceania news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Pakistan/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Primates/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Roads/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Western Australia/Western Australia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 16 years (2010): Portal:Ancient Japan/Current events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked); Portal:Ancient Japan/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Caribbean/Caribbean news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Colombia/Colombia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Colorado/Colorado News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:European Union/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Singapore/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Virginia/Virginia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Wine/Wine news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 15 years (2011): Portal:Chemistry/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Chile/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked); Portal:Housing/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Home/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Paraguay/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Peru/Peru news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Philosophy/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Psychiatry/Current events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Psychiatry/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Puerto Rico/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Tajikistan/Tajikistan news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 14 years (2012): Portal:Andorra/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:BBC/BBC news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Bahrain/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Books/in the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Comics/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Comics/Comics news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Nudity/Nudity news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Speculative fiction/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Sport of athletics/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 13 years (2013): Portal:Bengaluru/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Bangalore/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Physics/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Queensland/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:The Simpsons/The Simpsons news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Volcanoes/Volcanoes news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Volcanoes/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above)
No news for 12 years (2014): Portal:Animation/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Animation/Animation news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Cetaceans/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Electronics/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Nudity/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Scouting/Scouting news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 11 years (2015): Portal:Czech Republic/Current events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Hyderabad/Hyderabad, India, news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Hyderabad, India/Hyderabad, India news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Hyderabad/Hyderabad, India news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Jamaica/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Mountains/Current news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Uganda/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Zambia/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 10 years (2016): Portal:Classical music/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Mexico/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Oklahoma/Oklahoma news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Renewable energy/Renewable energy news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Spaceflight/Spaceflight news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Trees/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Uruguay/Uruguay news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 9 years (2017): Portal:Architecture/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Current events/Video gaming/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Czech Republic/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Energy/Energy news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Kuwait/Kuwait news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Latin America/Latin America news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 8 years (2018): Portal:Ancient Egypt/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Egyptology/Ancient Egypt news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Cars/Cars news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Constructed languages/Current events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:Tennis/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 7 years (2019): Portal:Abkhazia/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Egypt/Egypt news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked); Portal:Gastropods/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Haiti/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Mexico/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently marked as historical); Portal:Mexico/Mexico news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above)
No news for 6 years (2020): Portal:Geophysics/Current events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Judaism/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:United Kingdom/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Water/Water news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 5 years (2021): Portal:Cheshire/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Malaysia/Malaysia news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Scottish islands/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:U.S. roads/U.S. Roads news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:U.S. Roads/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:U.S. Roads/U.S. Roads news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:North American Roads/North American Roads news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:North American Roads/U.S. Roads news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:Viruses/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 4 years (2022): Portal:Doctor Who/Current events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Iceland/Iceland news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:London transport/London transport news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (currently blanked of news); Portal:London transport/London Transport news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:London Transport/London Transport news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:London transport/Tube news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above); Portal:London Transport/Tube news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above)
No news for 3 years (2023): Portal:Literature/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No news for 2 years (2024): Portal:Alps/Current News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Mountains of the Alps/Current News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect's to above)
Other: Portal:Cricket/In the news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (one set of updates in 2025, and before that from 2022. Sporadically updated; likely to become very outdated); Portal:Outer space/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (only two non-redlinks are also in nom); Portal:Outer space/News/Astronomical events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (forever broken)

– (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]

Delete all These are unmaintainable, misleading, and violate WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unmaintained and could mislead users due to presenting out of date news. Better to just clean them up. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per above. Keeping these subpages would be actively misleading to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfernoHues (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I support this nomination in principle, it looks like some or many of the nominated pages have not been tagged with {{mfd}} yet. Portal:Ancient Egypt/Ancient Egypt news isn't tagged, Portal:Hungary/Hungary news isn't, Portal:Ancient Greece/Ancient Greece news isn't, and so on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: The subpages have not been maintained for many years, some decades. The thought process was that 1. there are no active editors who care about maintaining these subpages, especially since an automated template of the same purpose has replaced it, and 2. these subpages were never meant to be viewed directly/non-transcluded. While not the most ideal, the time it'd take to tag these would be significant, and because the MfDs of past subpage group noms, like those in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Journalism/News/Wikinews, were still successful without the tagging of each individual subpage as well. Johnson524 15:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think that {{mfd}} tagging is optional. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you see a problem, the wiki way is to fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - The alternatives are to implement a functionality that will publish news to these pages, or to tag these pages as historical. The first is not going to happen, and is why we are here. The approximate same amount of work would be involved in tagging as in deleting, and there is no particular benefit to retention and tagging, so delete them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are not talking about deleting the portals. I know that some editors would like to see the portals deleted, and some will defend the existence of portals, because the defenders of portals see a value, possibly mystical, to them that they are unable to communicate to non-believers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Portal:U.S. Roads/News. As far as I can tell, these pages are not even being used on the portals they are supposed to serve. I have tagged all the pages in the nomination with {{mfd}} (except for the redirects, which would be eligible for speedy deletion if their targets are deleted). (I made an exception for Portal:U.S. Roads/News because it does not redirect to Portal:U.S. roads/U.S. Roads news as stated in the nom, but rather to Portal:U.S. roads/U.S. Roads news/Archive.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including Portal:U.S. Roads/News and the archive Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

keep news updated within the last 5 years. Delete the redirects within the last 5 years and re-link them to the redirect target. keep anything that has gotten new news since the deletion nomination to it's closure. Delete news older than 5 years.

let's name one example. Iceland is a nation with less than half a million inhabitants so not much happens. If news where updated for during the last few years then we would have an update with the same volcano erupting and subsiding six times. Then another page update would happen with another 6 eruptions from the same volcano as last time. That is very much stale. Nice having demands, but they have to be realistic, and they are not. Also do not like that the notification does not have an marked date.--Snævar (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 23:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC) ended today on 23 June 2026. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

June 11, 2026

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ManualEditBot

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

Is there any compelling reason to delete this page rather than simply closing the request as denied? (The bot user should probably be blocked as well, since it was never approved and no longer has an operator.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the same way we don’t delete bad XfDs, I would imagine. No real reason for deletion. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 8, 2026

Wikipedia:Source assessment/DoorDash Girl controversy

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

I made a change to the description at the top. The story is still developing, there are more sources now than there were when the article was deleted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how this is a BLP violation. It doesn't make any claims about the subject, it is only a list of reliable and unreliable sources that were present on the now deleted article and an assessment of them. TruenoCity (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at GNews shows sustained coverage for this. It's reasonable to keep this somewhere to reconstruct a new article even though the AfD was clear, since it's not unreasonable for an article on this topic to exist in the future. Definitely should not be kept in article space yet, but the subject was recently indicted, suggesting an actual criminal case rather than something that blew over after one news cycle. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was news to me that we have Wikipedia:Source assessment, and that we keep around sources for (some) deleted articles in Wikipedia space just in case. Given that we do, this page seems OK. The claim this is a BLP violation seems stretched (per above). And while we did decide to delete at AFD 6+- months ago, I don't see it as having been particularly "firm" and a number of !delete votes were focused on question of lasting significance. Recording the appearance of multiple new sources 6 months later is at least credibly related to that, and so there is a plausible narrative how keeping this serves the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Now I don't think we have reached "lasting significance" yet, and I rather hope this type of event never will, but I don't feel comfortable conclusorily stating we are (never) going to host this article. And so source assessment is not impossible to defend. Martinp (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:HOST; Wikipedia is not a web host for material that's otherwise not suitable. The underlying page was deleted so there's no point in keeping a compendium of sources for an article that no longer exists. WP:AVOIDVICTIM also comes into play. As I understand, the victim in this case has not come forward, so hosting -- and debating -- various sources & interpretations of events (i.e. here) could lead to further victimization. I don't see how this advances the goals of the encyclopedia, so it's a delete for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying page was deleted so there's no point in keeping a compendium of sources for an article that no longer exists.

If that were the case, Wikipedia:Source assessment/Mr. Beat could've been deleted after the article about Mr. Beat was deleted last year following a premature move from draftspace. That would've forced editors to re-assess all of the sources that were used so far (or search for all of the sources again if the draft hadn't been restored), but hardly anyone can be bothered to build that type of table to begin with, let alone rebuild one. Your other points against this source assessment page are stronger though. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Mr. Beat situation is quite different, and perhaps more representative of a typical source assessment use case. There, notability/SIGCOV was the only issue, or at least the primary one, and there were no major BLP concerns. There were a lot of online sources but most were local, routine, interviews, or were otherwise found not to contribute to notability, so highlighting the few that count and identifying the problems with the others was a valuable exercise for the next time. Here, there are significant BLP concerns and other problems that are not addressed despite multiple national outlets covering the story. Lack of SIGOV was not the reason for deleting the article and there would not necessarily be any need to re-create the source assessment if there is an attempt to re-create the article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman, my first inclination was like yours, but I read at Wikipedia:Source assessment that This is a place to collect sources and assess the notability of subjects that do not (yet) have an article on Wikipedia, or whose article was deleted, which is exactly the situation here. Martinp (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional considerations at play here, as I noted in my comment, i.e. WP:AVOIDVICTIM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom and with K.e.coffman. Any potential useful purpose is overshadowed by the BLP concerns and the facts of the controversy and prior AfD. The AfD had good participation and resulted in deletion despite the source assessment at the time purporting to show SIGCOV. Thus the deletion did not hinge on the source assessment and keeping it does raise BLP and HOST concerns. Additionally, the ample coverage online shows that it is trivial to find sources in the event that something changes and this story meets our inclusion criteria, in which case the article itself would need to be written from scratch, anyway. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think BLP policy prohibits a page which collects published news articles (and which does not provide any commentary beyond a basic statement of the facts of the case) from being maintained outside of mainspace. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous comment, I don't think this would be a BLP violation, it is merely a collection of sources. Looking at the AFD, it seems the consensus was that the subject was well sourced and meets WP:GNG, but lacked lasting significance, so it isn't really firm that we won't have a page on the subject; the subject can be notable again if there is lasting significance in the future, so keeping this source assessment isn't really unnecessary either. TruenoCity (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why is this even a question? How is this at all an attack page? It's literally just a collection of sources you can easily find online.

"BLPs have to adhere under strict notability guidelines"
"Okay, here's the page that shows the subject's notability via sources"
"Delete that, it's a BLP violation"

Like what? The page doesn't even show up outside the project namespace, which the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users don't visit. This isn't personality protection, it's just unreasonable paranoia. You're not protecting anyone by deleting this, you're just making it more inconvinient for other editors.

"an article we are not going to host", you're not going to host it YET. Notability can change. Consensus can change. A draft is currently in development that will hopefully fix these BLP issues. So this list of sources is still encyclopedic and valid.

Sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but this source assessment page shouldn't even be a concern. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

[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.

[a]