Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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.

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: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
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

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.
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

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: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	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	2	2
TfD	1	2	2	5
MfD	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	4	17	21
RfD	0	0	36	36
AfD	0	0	0	0

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.

May 21, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:M1rrorCr0ss/sandbox

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: Deleted. By TheAnome per WP:G3: AI-generated garbage. (non-admin closure) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:M1rrorCr0ss/sandbox

This appears to be a duplicate of the recently deleted article at 1st West Bengal Legislature. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st West Bengal Legislature and WP:AN/I. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 19, 2025

Template:User Wiktionary/Administrator/fr

Can use the following instead: {{User Wiktionary/Administrator|French Wiktionary}} (No design differences) YeBoy371 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this time pending possible explanation - Why does it matter if an editor is using a different userbox for another WMF system than the nominator is proposing be used instead? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other languages can use userboxes by entering parameters, but I don't understand why they made one for French only! YeBoy371 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are or were an admin on the French Wiktionary! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the userbox design is different, there is a way to input parameters, so creating a separate userbox seems inappropriate. YeBoy371 (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 18, 2025

User:Ea-Nasir/sandbox2

Is a copy of a page in userspace for a long time, contra WP:COPIES policy. The original page was ru:Черкесия, I think. The user has been indefinitely blocked, the draft (?) was never translated to English or otherwise improved by the creator after it was copied in 2020, and this situation won't be resolved until the article is deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may not exactly meet any one criterion for deletion, but we should Use Common Sense and delete it for a variety of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to keep stuff like this in userspace indefinitely, especially not when the creator is indefinitely blocked. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 17, 2025

User:Whalestate/copy of article on the Epic of Gilgamesh

According to a ten-year-old edit summary, this was created in case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh was successful, which is an improper way to work around consensus, loses article attribution, and the user who copied it has been indefinitely blocked and won't likely be doing anything with this copy in any event. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is useless and works around consensus. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator doesn't mention that the result of the AFD was Delete (but you can see that from the AFD). This is therefore a copy of a deleted article. If the article had been kept, this could be a copy of a mainspace article, so this is a run around deletion, and so is also G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidwr/Success Academy Charter Schools version 555262670

Can't be a userspace draft for over a decade, has copied content from Success Academy Charter Schools and the user is indefinitely blocked. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that the creator is not only indefinitely blocked but banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, this userspace fork indeed appears to have absolutely no potential for usefulness of any sort to even its creator. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an improper copy of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to keep stuff like this in userspace indefinitely, especially not when the creator is indefinitely blocked. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ea-Nasir/sandbox6

Is a copy of Circassian Revolution that can't be left in userspace indefinitely, and the user who created it is indefinitely blocked. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We need U6 to deal with these copies of articles in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to keep stuff like this in userspace indefinitely, especially not when the creator is indefinitely blocked. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ea-Nasir/sandbox3

Is a copy of Jembulat Boletoqo that can't be left in userspace indefinitely, and the user who created it is indefinitely blocked. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a copy of an article in user space. These are not permitted. We need U6 to deal with these. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to keep stuff like this in userspace indefinitely, especially not when the creator is indefinitely blocked. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 16, 2025

Draft:Seal of Gorkhaland

This draft, as it stands, seems to be an AI-generated hoax. Nothing of the content of this draft is verifiable or matches up with whatever little has been written on this topic - five of the six references in this page return 404 errors, except ref 4, which links to a non-existent website. The general tone of the draft is also reminiscent (to me) of AI-generated writeups. Bringing this to MfD as this isn't a 100% clear-cut case which would qualify for WP:G3 speedy deletion. Java Hurricane 19:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certainly a hoax, nothing on the web comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reference 4 is just a different type of fabricated URL than the other five. In reference 4, the artificial insanity invented the web site rather than inventing the URL at an existing web site. That is a distinction without much of a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fabrication of references indicates a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per others. Looks like WP:BOLLOCKS. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The seal does exist, see Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, but when all the sources provided are made up and the draft is likely AI generated it's better to start from scratch. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic likely doesn’t warrant its own article regardless. Maybe just make Seal of Gorkhaland a redirect to Gorkhaland Territorial Administration ApexParagon (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: strongly agree with nominator rationale. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all of the references in the article turned out to be fictitious. This is pure junk. ApexParagon (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: almost certainly a hoax TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:World of T-Shirts

Would fail GNG, seems to be almost entirely negative in tone (or at least created with the intent to disparage the subject - note the user who asked for this article to be undeleted is a VOA, with a disruptive/offensive username, and with a suspicious editing pattern), photo appears to be a copyvio, I could go on. Furthermore, there is a subreddit dedicated to this individual where commentators write disparaging messages and make reference to this page, so there is a risk of potential canvassing. Patient Zero^talk 02:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The account who asked for undeletion is a vandalism-only account so there is no chance of this being improved, on top of that the article is fairly negative about a clearly non-notable individual and there is no point of keeping this around. Sohom (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Per nom. Given the significant potential for this draft article to be used as a vector for harassment against a non-notable living person, it seems advisable to salt. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack page. I disagree with the decline of the G10, but here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to get some reassurance on that. I wasn’t sure if G10 applied where the topic is a BLP and there are sources within the article? Patient Zero^talk 04:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Failing GNG is not a reason to delete a draft, but either G10 or other BLP violations are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think that it's an attack page, but it still has too many BLP violations. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to come across as trying to change your view (because you’re more than entitled to it!), attack pages can absolutely be subtle in tone. This doesn’t have the hallmarks of a clear-cut attack page, for sure, but my personal belief is that the intent behind this draft article is to disparage. See lolcow for a further definition, but that is effectively what this subject is, in modern parlance. Patient Zero^talk 04:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, for obvious reasons. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely attack page and BLP violations. Weak oppose salting for now given this title hasn't been deleted before and it would just encourage recreation at spelling/capitalization variations. Skynxnex (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 17:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC) ended today on 21 May 2025. 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.

May 12, 2025

Wikipedia:Culture of disrespect

This essay claims there is a "community consensus" based on an admittedly small sample, and fosters an attitude that is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy (See WP:CIVIL). Attempts to characterize it as a "humorous essay" have been removed, as the author has stated that they are "serious" (see diff). Even if it is claimed to be expressed "ironically," it contributes to a toxic atmosphere for newcomers to Wikipedia, especially given its presence in the Wikipedia namespace. Newcomers would generally not understand the distinction between a policy and an essay, and would be likely to get the impression that a cabal of "experienced editors" feel that policies do not apply to them, to the point that they see no problem with telling someone editing in good faith to "go fuck yourself." I fail to see what value this essay adds to Wikipedia, but I can definitely see how it could easily be misinterpreted and do damage to the project. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd nomination. CIVIL does not mean one can't voice opinions about serious systemic problems in the editing environment. We are not required to have what you consider good attitudes, or to remain silent with what you consider bad ones. Stop trying to suppress dissenting essays—that's what would "do damage to the project". Yes, the essay is anything but humorous. By the way, it existed on my user page for quite awhile until a different, quite experienced editor saw it and made it an essay in the WP space. Thank you for advertising this essay, I've always felt it needed more attention. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to express your views in a civil manner. Nobody is disputing that. I agree with commentators below that the essay in question is inflammatory. If it were userspace content, I would find it distasteful but acceptable in that context. If it is going to be in the Wikipedia namespace, there needs to be a higher bar. Wikipedia has a reputation (unfortunately) for being a rather inflammatory and unwelcoming environment. This is a tragedy, and we need to do more to promote a positive atmosphere for those who would wish to dedicate any amount of their time to its improvement. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or alternatively, userfy without leaving a redirect). It seems here that Mandruss is seeking to get away with having an unpopular and inflammatory opinion and claim immunity to criticism by saying it is "ironic", which is inappropriate and disruptive. Sarcasm and irony fall under the banner of humor, and Mandruss's conduct surrounding this essay violates the spirit and goal of the longstanding consensus reflected at WP:HREQ. I'd strongly prefer to delete this essay because I similarly see no project value in it, but if consensus for deletion is not attained, then it should be userfied, without leaving behind any Wikipedia space redirect to it to lessen the possibility that new editors stumble upon it. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping the editor who created the essay, as his subversive, conspiratorial activities apparently need correction. He's less active these days, but he might receive the ping in time to comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping, Mandruss. FWIW I did not create this essay, I only made one edit right after it was published. Galobtter created it, apparently based on something you wrote elsewhere. I don't care one way or the other about deleting this essay, as you mentioned I have been mostly inactive for several years now. Got tired of the unending discussions about wording issues, bias, sourcing, sealioning and pervasive bickering. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 02:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit, but rewrite it to be serious, not ironic. Keep, because it is a multi-authored project-related opinion, and a quite serious one at that. Rewrite to be serious because the humour/irony is not very good and can confuse too easily. It’s also an effort to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
Delete - That is, delete the current version of the essay as not humorous or ironic and as divisive and inflammatory. Deletion will not salt the title, so that it can be rewritten to be serious. An editor who wants to start with the current version can copy it to their computer before this MFD is closed. Edit or Rewrite are not workable closes, but are reasonable actions that can be taken by an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Rewrite entirely. This one is tricky. On one hand, there is no problem with an essay about either the reality of people being rude online, times where being rude might still be "okay" despite civility rules, or both. On the other hand, it's absolutely not this rambling wreck of an essay. If people are okay with it, I could take a shot at rewriting it, but I don't think there's much lost from just userfying it either. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reminded myself that I semi-retired some time after this essay was created. One of the tenets of my semi-retirement is that I avoid trying to help improve the larger problems in the editing environment; inertia is too strong a force. At en-wiki, apathy is beneficial to one's mental well-being, and my motto is now DGAF.
So I now regret commenting here at all. Delete, userfy, suppress constructive discourse in whatever way you deem appropriate, rewrite because you don't like my choice of rhetorical style for this case, or leave it alone; I DGAF. Semi-retirement is remarkably freeing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, this sounds like the snarky opinion of a single editor rather than an actual community consensus. Not appropriate for project space ApexParagon (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom and SilviaASH. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates