Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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 this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files 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
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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
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.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 1 | 36 | 19 | 56 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 10 | 34 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 48 |
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.
March 16, 2021
Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday
- Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
It's a trap for newbies, as per WP:HATC. Adminship is not a trophy to aspire for. Firestar464 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support, as this template is pretty much a trap. As an aside, I think I recall Barkeep49 saying he did a review of people with this template when RfA-hunting, so he might have some thoughts on the nomination's merits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Just for the record this template has been nominated 3 times in the past:
- - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - as nothing in the nominator's rationale is different from the discussion in 2020. Can someone point me towards any evidence that having this template implies the editor is just looking to gain Adminship for a "trophy"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a misrepresentation to describe the last discussion as a clean/uncontroversial keep, particularly considering that towards the end there was discussion forming about deprecating it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, not harmful enough to warrant deletion. — csc-1 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a problematic one. It does on occasion have value -- I've seen Barkeep and others discuss it in more optimistic terms -- but it's been a meme for years for good reason. Considering that keep arguments in prior discussions have included "this userbox lets us screen out the people who should never be admins", it seems...perhaps a little cruel to have, honestly. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
March 15, 2021
Draft:Karl Lillrud
There are at least four draft BLPs of this businessman that appear to be UPE:
- Draft:Karl Lillrud ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Karl Lillurd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Afirawaheed/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:AfiraMirza/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note that the second copy in draft space has intentionally misspelled the subject's name in the draft title, but not in the body of the article, in order to game the system. This is a blatant case of gaming the system.
A sockpuppet investigation has also been filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all SPI is like a duck quacking through a PA system. However, the subject of the draft fails WP:GNG and no attempt that is worthwile has been made to assert not veryify his notability Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all as obvious sockpuppetry and gaming. — csc-1 01:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Firefly/Userbox Archive/User 911truth
This userbox is offensive and supports a disproved conspiracy theory. By allowing this userbox to remain we are telling users that it is okay to believe this. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 21:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I had no idea this still existed, it was from a mass move of userboxes out of Template/Project space over ten years ago. Agreed it should go, I’ll CSD U1 it now. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedurally, I don't think that U1 is appropriate, since Firefly is not the creator of this page. I have removed the CSD template, following the criterion that
Pages which have previously been moved are only eligible if all previous titles were in the user's userspace.
I have no opinion about whether it should be deleted; if it is, however, we should probably consider a mass nomination of many of the templates in Category:Religion and belief user templates on similar grounds. I also note that this template is transcluded in about 35 user pages. Should those editors be notified? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- Whoops - you’re quite right, I hadn’t realised, what with it being so long ago. I’d probably say subst and delete in that case. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that the users probably should be notified along with a message saying that disproven ideas like that are not allowed on Wikipedia. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Procedurally, I don't think that U1 is appropriate, since Firefly is not the creator of this page. I have removed the CSD template, following the criterion that
Adopt-a-user wizard
- Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/wizard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/wizard/End ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedia Adopt-a-user wizard templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedia Adopt-a-user wizard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Adopt-a-user Barnstar/Wizard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Adopt-a-User wizard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Adopt-a-User wizard/box ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned/no development since 2011. Was never used. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
March 14, 2021
User:Marcocapelle/sandbox
Seems rather in poor taste to have a virtual "hitlist" of categories user is planning on nominating for deletion, which includes ones that I've populated before, perhaps at the border of WP:POLEMIC. I've spoken to an admin who describes these actions as "passive aggressive." For days ago I asked Marcocapelle to remove this portion from the sandbox but I've gotten no reply yet. Prisencolin (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Every user is entitled to a sandbox, and I am simply using it as a to-do list. Nothing wrong with that. It is certainly not meant as "passive aggressive" since I would not expect that other editors would ever watch the sandbox. By the way, please provide a link to the request to remove some portion from the sandbox, because I do not recall having seen it. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Found the request, it is here: User talk:Marcocapelle/sandbox. I have never looked there, please use User talk:Marcocapelle from now on. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies I thought it would notify you of changes to userspace talk pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- You hopefully you see that publicly posturing that you will a delete pages that someone else works on is considered in bad taste. also its expected that other users will occasionally check your contributions, especially since I noticed you intend to delete categories I work on.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really see this as public. Technically it is public, of course, but who on earth would ever be interested in my sandbox content? If for any reason you take offense (while there is no reason to) then just stop watching my sandbox, that solves the problem immediately. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- If you're planning deletions that concern pages I work on, it's natural that I'll be paying attention to it. Nonetheless I still ask that you not work on it on any sort of wiki space. There are plenty of other ways of testing wikitext off of the website. I will withdraw this nomination if you agree to do this.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really see this as public. Technically it is public, of course, but who on earth would ever be interested in my sandbox content? If for any reason you take offense (while there is no reason to) then just stop watching my sandbox, that solves the problem immediately. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- You hopefully you see that publicly posturing that you will a delete pages that someone else works on is considered in bad taste. also its expected that other users will occasionally check your contributions, especially since I noticed you intend to delete categories I work on.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I completely fail to see how this is polemic or passive-agressive. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep — I suppose some of this could be considered bad taste, but I fail to see how it makes the jump to being polemic. — csc-1 00:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - this appears to be a to-do list. It does not say "these categories are stupid" or attack the creator in some way from what I can see, it lists what the user intends to do in terms of nominating them for discussion. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, reasonable to-do list. Unlike Prisencolin above, I think it is preferable if users plan their Wikipedia activities on Wikipedia, not in some text file on their computer. I fail to see how planning category changes openly is worse than doing so in secret. No evidence of any commentary about editors or other WP:POLEMIC material has been presented. —Kusma (t·c) 10:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a to do list of tasks to be done on Wikipedia and clearly within scope of what is allowed in user space. I see no evidence that this a "hitlist" as stated in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Categories are not living persons (even if the articles in them are BLPs) and are not entitled to special consideration about hurt feelings. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep making a list of appropriate actions a user intends to take is not an inappropriate use of a sandbox. Deleting pages isn't an "attack". Elli (talk | contribs) 19:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Can User talk:Marcocapelle/sandbox be deleted please (so the talk page with the sandbox, not the actual sandbox)? The sandbox talk page has been created by User:Prisencolin in my own user space and I seem not to have the rights to tag it with {{Db-self}}. Having a second talk page is just very confusing to me. Also WP:TROUT to User:Prisencolin for creating a new and unnecessary page in someone else's userspace. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, just redirect it to your main talk page. That way, when someone wants to talk about it again (for whatever reason), they do so in the right place. —Kusma (t·c) 10:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I wish I could. I just can't edit the page as a whole, I can only edit the discussions that have been added as a section. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle has removed the notice now. So should an admin close it? -Cupper52Discuss! 18:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:User WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan
Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan * Pppery * it has begun... 01:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:User WP Islamabad
Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#WikiProject Islamabad * Pppery * it has begun... 01:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:User WikiProject Lahore
- Template:User WikiProject Lahore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Lahore articles by quality log ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Lahore articles by quality log was not tagged since it's a bot-maintained page and the bot would revert my tagging. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Template:WikiProject Lahore Invitation and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#WikiProject Lahore * Pppery * it has begun... 01:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. If the WikiProject was deleted, meaning it should never have existed, then there is no case for its associated userboxes. I think they could be speedied G8? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete (G8) — csc-1 00:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
March 9, 2021
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
a page already exists at Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. I have merged the refs from this draft and improved the main article. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
|
User:Busse1095
Wikipedia is not the place to ask for help with technical issues. User pages are for talking about yourself as a user. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 16:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don’t know how the nominator came across this seeing as Busse1095 has made no other edits, but this isn’t harmful enough to be deleted. SK2242 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @SK2242:, I don't understand what you mean by "isn't harmful enough to be deleted". This takes up unnecessary server space (albeit very little). It does not fit what a user page should be used for at all. Like I said in the nomination, user pages are for talking about yourself as a user, and other limited things. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 20:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- The closest I can see it going against on WP:UPNOT is "communications unrelated to Wikipedia", and it’s a stretch. Nominating this isn’t worth our time. It isn’t really problematic. No one will ever come across at this (or at least wouldn’t have until this MfD started). SK2242 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bop34 deleting pages doesn't free up any server space. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Elli yeah the keep below said that
- @SK2242:, I don't understand what you mean by "isn't harmful enough to be deleted". This takes up unnecessary server space (albeit very little). It does not fit what a user page should be used for at all. Like I said in the nomination, user pages are for talking about yourself as a user, and other limited things. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 20:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - When you delete a page, it doesn't "free up server space". It's still there, ready to be undeleted at any time and still visible to admins. What you have done is create an additional page (this one) which takes up even more server space in addition to the one you've nominated, and created new versions of the user page that take up significantly more space than this basic line of text the user put there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak Keep and tell the user that Reference Desk Computing or Reference Desk Entertainment might be able to advise them (depending on what they have their speakers attached to). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)- @Robert McClenon: The question is from ten years ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Tag with {{db-u5}}. Not worth a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - The speakers are probably obsolete now. But that is sarcastic humor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, content is wholly unrelated to Wikipedia and outdated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — Certainly not worth the time it takes sending it to MfD, however that doesn't mean it should be kept. — csc-1 00:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete but this is a waste of time to nominate. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Old business
March 4, 2021
User:Isento/Inspirational verses
I warned Isento that an earlier version of this page with full song lyrics was a copyright violation and needed to be deleted. That was a week ago. Although the amount of lyrics has been reduced, it still seems excessive. I'm not sure that a collection of lyrics on a user page would be considered fair use. In any case, the versions of the page with full lyrics need to be deleted. Mo Billings (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- There never were any versions with a song's full lyrics. And contrary to your claim at my talk page, I did address this by asking @Jo-Jo Eumerus: a week ago to delete the revisions you deemed excessive (User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus#Rev_deletion). Which they did. isento (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the history had been revision deleted. I think it's still worth hearing other opinions on fair use. Mo Billings (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I do not claim to be an expert on the law of fair use, but as a matter of common sense, the page appears to be fair use of multiple works. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is fair use. A collage of different works is not fair use. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, a collage of different works (especially using small parts of those works for noncommercial purposes) is very often fair use. Still he question is whether it's a problem for our non-free content rules. Of that, I'm not so sure. We don't typically allow non-free content in userspace, but I suspect there are an awful lot of user pages with song lyrics... BTW Isento might be interested in our sister project, Wikiquote, which does indeed include small bits of song lyrics and other copyrighted works under fair use. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Those had a strong personal resonance with me, reflecting parts of my bio in particular. Now that I've done my own research, I see that WP:COPYQUOTE says: "A special case is the use of quotations purely for interest or decorative purposes on user pages. By consensus such quotations are acceptable as long as they are limited in extent, particularly if they comment on the attitudes of the user in question." Elsewhere, it says "the copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted". By the powers of deductive reasoning, I assume that quoting a short verse or two from each of those songs does not qualify as a problem. In none of those songs quoted is more than a quarter of the whole quoted; in most cases much less; in some cases they are public domain. isento (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- The weakness, the failing, in the fair use claim is that there is insufficient use relative to the amount of fair-use-claimed quoting. To improve the claim, add to the page some commentary connecting the quotes to some theme/meaning. How do they resonate? By doing this, demonstrate that the collage is not just a random collection. You have to add your own creative addition, and it has to be clear enough that a visitor can recognize which parts are used, and what your new contribution is. You must add your own original research / synthesis to make a "use" that can be judged "fair use". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that there is no connection between the inspirational verses and the bio page, or that it is "random". My approach was to be somewhat impressionistic – there are themes progressing and pinging from one text to the next – and not to overwhelm a potential reader with personal details. Anyway, the guideline says "particularly", not "necessarily". I respect your argument, but I don't agree with it applying to this case. isento (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- No no no. Obviously there is, but you haven't written it. Crude tests may be applied, namely the fraction of the work being quoted, the quote lengths, and the ratio of the amount quoted and what you have written about the quotes. I don't what that ratio needs to be, or that it is well defined, but I think you need to at least mention each quote. Obviously you page collection is not random, but to think in terms of how it would be summarised and scored crudely in terms of justification of fair use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- The concept of "inspirational verses" itself is from Christgau who's referenced in the bio. This isn't that big a deal though. It was just a nice little artsy thing I started a while ago. Kinda resigning myself to the idea that no one cares about my story or ideas anyway. But it still is a nice thing for myself to see, like the way normal people look at their Instagram lol. isento (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- I feel sure that you could easily add a paragraph introduction to say that these verses inspire you, and a little bit why and how. If it is too personal to explain, say "for personal reasons". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that there is no connection between the inspirational verses and the bio page, or that it is "random". My approach was to be somewhat impressionistic – there are themes progressing and pinging from one text to the next – and not to overwhelm a potential reader with personal details. Anyway, the guideline says "particularly", not "necessarily". I respect your argument, but I don't agree with it applying to this case. isento (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- The weakness, the failing, in the fair use claim is that there is insufficient use relative to the amount of fair-use-claimed quoting. To improve the claim, add to the page some commentary connecting the quotes to some theme/meaning. How do they resonate? By doing this, demonstrate that the collage is not just a random collection. You have to add your own creative addition, and it has to be clear enough that a visitor can recognize which parts are used, and what your new contribution is. You must add your own original research / synthesis to make a "use" that can be judged "fair use". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Those had a strong personal resonance with me, reflecting parts of my bio in particular. Now that I've done my own research, I see that WP:COPYQUOTE says: "A special case is the use of quotations purely for interest or decorative purposes on user pages. By consensus such quotations are acceptable as long as they are limited in extent, particularly if they comment on the attitudes of the user in question." Elsewhere, it says "the copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted". By the powers of deductive reasoning, I assume that quoting a short verse or two from each of those songs does not qualify as a problem. In none of those songs quoted is more than a quarter of the whole quoted; in most cases much less; in some cases they are public domain. isento (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, a collage of different works (especially using small parts of those works for noncommercial purposes) is very often fair use. Still he question is whether it's a problem for our non-free content rules. Of that, I'm not so sure. We don't typically allow non-free content in userspace, but I suspect there are an awful lot of user pages with song lyrics... BTW Isento might be interested in our sister project, Wikiquote, which does indeed include small bits of song lyrics and other copyrighted works under fair use. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is fair use. A collage of different works is not fair use. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the level of quotation appears to be appropriate to not constitute copyright infringement. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Are we just about done here? isento (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems fine to me if the version with full song lyrics has been revdelled. jp×g 23:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The quotes are all well with in the realm of fair use, and all the images are free images (mostly) from Commons, so no reason to delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
February 9, 2021
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/ Brazillian Integralist
- User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/ Brazillian Integralist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unused userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NONAZIS. See other previous discussions about such userboxes. — csc-1 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Similar to my reasoning on Falangism. Brazilian Integralists explicitly distanced themselves from Nazis. A horrible philosophy, yes. One deserving of editors being banned from expressing their support of it, no. Zoozaz1 talk 03:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and per the keep comment of Zoozaz1 above, similar to the other MfD for a similar userbox. Yes, if a userbox is fascist (and Brazilian Integralism is by, definition, fascist), absolutely, that does mean that it should be deleted. WP:NONAZIS, please. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)