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

WP: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. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines
v t e

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with ((db-userreq)) or ((db-u1)). If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `((subst:Uw-userpage)) ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using ((db-userreq)). Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the ((subst:welcome)) or ((subst:welcomeg)) template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as ((historical)) or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as ((WikiProject status\|inactive)), redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as ((historical)); reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using ((db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move)). Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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[edit]

Shortcut

WP: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.

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))

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

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

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

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Total
CfD	29	29
TfD	13	13
MfD	2	2
FfD	0	0
RfD	30	30
AfD	0	0

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

July 3, 2024

July 2, 2024

Template:User Generation Alpha

Our article defines the oldest members of Gen Alpha as having been born in 2010 (or arguably later). Given our Oversight policy against such age disclosures, this userbox should not exist as it just invites people to disclose information about themselves they shouldn't. When the older range of gen Alpha matures into being of an age where self disclosure is not seen as so harmful this teimplate could obviously be re-created. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I made the article a few years, I never considered this, a huge oversight on my part. I guess I was eager to contribute something to this site, however short-sighted I was. I suppose it is too early for the infobox to exist. I am ok with whatever outcome comes of this discussion. -Shift674-🌀^contribs 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barkeep misrepresents policy. There is nothing wrong with minors disclosing that they are minors. The fact of being a minor is not identifying information. The suppression of clear identification of being a minor is a net negative, because it prevents most people from noticing that minors are minors, allowing predators of minors, who tune into more subtle cues, to act with reduced visibility. Children are safest open to widespread public view. Children are not safest when hidden away. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is established practice for the Oversight team to suppress disclosures of personal information and to suppress disclosures of age by minors. It is a reason in the drop-down menu and of the last 1,000 suppression entries, age-related suppressions take up around 19%. That practice started before my tenure on the Oversight team and will probably continue after my departure. Given the risks faced by minors on the internet and current Oversight team practice, I do not see how it would be responsible to let more people notice that someone is a minor and do not see how retention of this template would work. (Note that this issue came to my attention in my capacity as an Oversighter). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the children? Erring on the side of overnighting minors’ ill-considered releases of personal data makes sense. Forbidding minors from self identifying as minors does not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure about Joe's idea that this userbox is a child safety tool in the face of predators who can notice children expertly, but it doesn't apparently violate any policy, and anyone is allowed to disclose their age on Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have said, it is long-established that we suppress personal details (that's what this is, it's personal information about the age of a user) where users may not realise that such information is public or don't fully understand the potential consequences of making such a disclosure (for example, minors). This is done in policy under OSPOL#1. A template like this which (currently) can only serve to identify individuals as minors should be deleted since it misleads minors (and clearly others too) into thinking that disclosure of personal information like this is acceptable, and is useless anyway since every single transclusion of this template will be suppressed by the Oversight team when we become aware of it. Keeping it around is at best making more work for others, and at worst exposing personal details potentially forever opening them up to identity theft, stalking, harassment, etc in later life. stwalkerster (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User access level changes

Single-page content with no template parameters. Copy into that page for ease of maintenance, then delete this template. [Note: It looks like this was put in MFD by Twinkle automatically instead of TFD. It's fine to discuss it here, since it's really page content for the Wikipedia space, not a real template.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep pending an explanation that I understand of why it should be deleted. If the issue is that it has no template parameters and is not used as a template, why not Move it to Wikipedia space, which will preserve history? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:User access levels/User access level changes and let it be transcluded on the primary page. This could just as easily have been a talk page discussion or even a unilateral move, and no one would have cared. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samrajaugustin

Copy of WP:PAGEHIST. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a stupid copy with all of the formatting, which is less stupid than the usual stupid copy, but still stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't that just make it a copy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have written an essay, WP:Stupid copies, because these keep being found and nominated for deletion. Other editors are welcome to cite the essay, which summarizes the policy reasons why the stupid copies are stupid, and to expand the essay if that is thought appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork.

User:Kassandra Fernandez

Copy of an old version of Glaiza de Castro. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 1, 2024

June 30, 2024

June 29, 2024

June 24, 2024

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 22:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 3 July 2024. 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 23, 2024

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT[edit]

The page is in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. The user is clearly using Wikipedia to host their dissertation for self-promotion purposes. When challenged on this at ANI their response here is that it is what to share their professional background with other editors. Having 166kb of the entirety of their dissertation goes well beyond that. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have AGF'd on "self promotion". I don't know whether that's the case or not. But motivation is irrelavant: it's still a blatant case of using WP as a web hosting. DeCausa (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can the material be moved to Wikisource? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep without opposition to transferring to Wikisource. A big "meh" from me. We generally afford wide latitude to users, once they've demonstrated they're WP:HERE, to include a variety of information about themselves in userspace. All the more if it's relevant to their editing areas of interest -- which seems to be the case here. "Here's my dissertation" seems a lot more relevant to Wikipedia than a pile of "this user is really into anime" userboxes, which are typically uncontroversial even for extreme collections. What self-promotion is this accomplishing? User pages aren't even indexed. And what would be the difference if it were hosted on Wikisource in terms of promotionalism? 168kb will not be freed up on the Wikipedia servers if this is deleted -- a new revision will simply be added to the space it occupies. It's a lot more autobiography than I'd choose to include on Wikipedia, certainly, and I find it in slightly poor taste, but thankfully I don't have to read it if I don't want to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "autobiography"? There's no aurobiography. It's purely using Wikipedia as a hosting platform for a work. Nothing more, nothing less. It couldn't get more on point for WP:NOTWEBHOST if it tried. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also "User pages aren't even indexed". He's added the Index markup at the top of the page so he's gone out of his way to make sure it is indexed. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. That policy says that posting a résumé is not acceptable in userspace, and this is way beyond that. Hosting a raw text dump of a PhD thesis isn't providing a foundation for effective collaboration. It doesn't provide anything, really. Discussions on Wikipedia aren't arguments from authority; if I posted my PhD thesis here and tried to win an argument by pointing to it and saying that I'm a physicist so I must be right, that would be silly. A PhD thesis isn't even a type of source that is of use to us. All of the legitimate reasons to know the educational background and credentials of an editor are satisfied by a statement like "I graduated from X University with a doctorate in Y". I don't really care whether the page was intended to be self-promotional or not (though it does contain the __INDEX__ override and does appear in Google results for, e.g., "drbogdan" site:en.wikipedia.org). I'm willing to believe that it was posted without intent to self-glorify, but it's not a valid use case for userspace. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. We cite PhD theses all the time, but they have to be used carefully, and there's no proscription against using them here. Also, in recent years, many dissertations are falling behind paywalls, so Wikisource should be used to host them as much as possible. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikisource. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:

1. Seems the "_index_" code was entirely unintentional - and originally part of a template I may have used (via copy-paste) at the time - should this be removed? - are there other similar codes to be removed or adjusted on the page? - or other such pages?

2. Should the page be moved to WP:Wikisource (or some other subpage - or elsewhere on Wikipedia)? - if so, how can this be done - this is all new to me at the moment.

- Drbogdan (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Blatant violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Within standard leeway for a 17 years editor with over 60,000 mainspace contributions. This recent issue is under discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Drbogdan,_persistent_low-quality_editing,_and_WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK_issues, let it play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "standard leeway" for policy violations. Nor is this a "recent issue", as the examples I provided in the linked discussion already indicate. Nor does that discussion need to conclude before we can come to a judgment about this particular item. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s *possible* that he believes that dumping his scholarly thesis on his Userpage is for the benefit of the project, and in time he’ll clean it up to make its purpose clearer. I don’t accept that it is a slam dunk NOTWEBHOST violation, as opposed to an odd thing to do. The behavioural and persistence aspects are appropriately being discussed at ANI, and I think this MfD should wait for the ANI thread to conclude. 17 years and 60000 mainspace contributions gets him some leeway, and he should not be persecuted on two fronts simultaneously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of what he believes. Either NOTWEBHOST applies or it doesn't. Also, although this user page was highlighted at ANI, the place to determine whether it should be deleted can only b here not ANI. The ANI thread is dealing with other issues and MfD is outside its remit.DeCausa (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of his beliefs lies in NOTWEBHOSTING being a behavioural violation, “hosting” being a verb that requires intent for it to be used for non-project purposes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange interpretation. It doesn't say that at all. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WEBHOSTING, note “ING”, implies evidence should include unusual pageviews or external links to it. I don’t think this is WEBHOSTING, it’s just a bad use of a userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a web host, a journal, or Linkedin. Just not what an encyclopedia is for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my professional dissertation was presented to provide a basis to evaluate my professional background - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice post. I'm ambivalent. Yeah at times it might be nice to know someone's subject area expertise. OTOH, we are so laser focused on reliable sources there might be times it's distracting. Rather judge someone based on the framing of their arguments along with their knowledge and use of reliable sources, which will become apparent if they are an expert and reasonably unbiased, rather than their CV. I tend to avoid articles in my own subject areas. Best, O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, put it on a subpage, and give an explanation for its purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: (and others) - Thanks for your suggestion re putting this on a subpage - but isn't it already on a subpage at User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT ( see => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ADrbogdan%2F&namespace=0 ) ? - seems it's already in user space - as a subpage? - sorry but I'm somewhat new to some of this - iac - Thanks for any help with this - Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re somewhat new to this?? You’ve been here for 17 years. You should have some idea of what is the purpose of a userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - seems I've been mostly busy in other Wikipedia areas (articles,templates,Wiktionary,WikiSpecies,WikiQuote,Simple,etc) over the years - seems the notion of a "subpage" may have been overlooked somehow - my first thought very recently is that a "subpage" and a "sandbox page" may be the same thing but guess I may be wrong about this - Thanks in any case for your comment - Drbogdan (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting:
- - There are conduct issues about the originator, pending at WP:ANI, and content issues, about this page and another page in user space. Only the keeping or deleting of the user pages is within scope at MFD, and only this page is within the scope of this discussion.
  - I am willing to assume good faith and assume that the originator thinks that posting or hosting this is in the interest of the encyclopedia. However, an editor's opinion that web hosting is in the interests of the encyclopedia is not dispositive. The community should decide what is in the interests of the encyclopedia, and should decide that the user is mistaken in good faith.
  - I respectfully disagree with the idea that "standard leeway" is given to established users for policy violations, even if unintentional.
  - No objection to cross-wikifying.
  - The editor should be allowed to provide an external link from his user page to his dissertation on an external host, or a cross-wiki link from his user page to Wikisource.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites and SmokeyJoe. There is a plausible-enough argument that having this content in his userspace will benefit other editors. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting. --wound theology ◈ 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're don't host blog entries or news stories, I don't see this any different than other WEBHOST issues. Beyond that, using it as a claim of professional expertise (when there's an open AN thread demonstrating that their expertise is not stopping them from being a disruptive influence) feels like an attempt to appeal to authority rather than the strength of arguments. There's nothing stopping someone from linking to their dissertation or relevant materials; we don't need to have it on-wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki: Any research that is released into CC/PD should be moved over to Wikisource. I concur that this is likely inappropriate for WP, but straight deletion is far too hasty. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I clarify what you mean by that? As far as I know, moving to Wikisource is not an outcome that can be determined at Wikipedia. It's a separate wiki and we have no jurisdiction over what happens there. Someone needs to take the initiative to post it at Wikisource - and that's not something that can be determined here. It's an independent and parallel outcome to what happens here at MfD/Wikipedia. All that can be decided here is that it should be removed from WP. Does anyone think that's not the case? DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I agree - moving to WikiSource is *entirely* ok with me - is this something I (or some other) could/should do? If so, is there some process/procedure to do this? - WikiSource is very new to me at the moment - thanks for any help with this - Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably the creator gets it hosted over there prior to close and then we can either delete or soft redirect this sandbox. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, if it can be done, otherwise delete. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an abuse of Wikipedia: not in the least serving the purpose ow Wikipedia, just wasting its space. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates