User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldNoReligion

User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldNoReligion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:UBCR... "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive"; and this user box is obviously trying to be inflammatory. I could definitely see some of our many religious editors taking offense to this userbox. We can't just have Userboxes that basically say "THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT (insert genre of person)!!!" -Samoht27 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

this has come up before it seems... But it didn't go anywhere and featured zero community input and was withdrawn almost immediately for vaguely explained reasons. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. There is a significant difference between "The world would be a better place without (concept)" and "The world would be a better place without people who believe in/agree with (concept)". The former is a plausible indication of an editor's philosophical beliefs, potentially relevant to noting biases in their editing, within the usual bounds of sandboxen, and not explicitly critical of individuals who might have a different belief. The latter would be an attack on individuals due to their beliefs, and be unacceptable. This userbox is linked to by 15 pages and transcluded by over 200, and while we can't see into others' minds, it seems unrealistic all those uses would be intended to be inflammatory. Martinp (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Martinp. Not substantially divisive. Also, please wrap the deletion notice in noinclude tags for userboxes, especially frequently-used ones. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - I try to avoid userbox MFDs, but will make an exception in this case. I disagree with the userbox, but it is not divisive. What is divisive is people who try to impose their religion or their lack of religion on other people. This userbox does not do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. A users declaration of their bias, their opinion, and a pretty common opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

User:MetalBreaksAndBends/Userboxes/doug

User:MetalBreaksAndBends/Userboxes/doug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

per WP:UBCR etc, this box serves no encyclopedic purpose JayCubby 21:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, this differs from most fandom adjacent userboxes primarily because it uses negative, antagonistic language that falls user WP:UBDIVISIVE. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I can see why the nominator might think this is genuine, but this isn't actually meant to disparage a living person. See r/wehatedougdoug: Our "hate" is a joke. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayCubby and Samoht27, the userbox has been edited since it was nominated. Do you two still think it should be deleted? Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I was unaware that this was some community-injoke and I apologize for not considering that as a possibility, either way I change my vote to Keep -Samoht27 (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Chess enjoyer, I wouldn't object to this being closed as withdrawn. I was unaware it was a joke. Thank you @Organhaver for the noinclude reminder. JayCubby 22:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Another editor has !voted to delete it, so closing as withdrawn isn't an option. I guess a snow close is possible. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• It's a common injoke in his community. Regardless, I have changed the userbox, such that an uninformed viewer would be confused, rather than thinking that I actually hate him. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep, userbox has been changed and was pretty obviously a joke before anyways.

JayCubby, I would like to mention that you should wrap deletion notices for userboxes with noinclude tags in the future, so the deletion tag itself doesn't transclude. I've added the tags myself for this one. Twinkle has an option for this, as well. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

MetalBreaksAndBends, what are... you doing? Kind of weird choice, I guess. Just saying, if this closes, please remove the deletion categories. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent events have made me realize I have insufficiently convinced others that I'm an insane person. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

On a serious note, I'll make sure to remove the cats after. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - If the user thinks that it is necessary to change the userbox during the MFD, we are probably better off without it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm going to have to disagree with you. The MFD notice literally says You are welcome to edit this page. Why is editing a userbox to fix a perceived issue a reason to delete it? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I mean if he is able to edit it to resolve the issue then it seems like we have effectively done our job and reached an amicable solution. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I changed it, not because I thought it violated policy, but because I don't want to have to deal with this. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Close. User:MetalBreaksAndBends Is responding. Talk to him before coming to MfD. Hate speech is generally deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Kelege

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

All of this editor's activity for the past few years has been dedicated to producing tables for a RuPaul's Drag Race Fantasy League; WP:NOTWEBHOST. No substantial page history besides this (most extensive version), user has not responded to talk page notices regarding this. Whonting (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and block indef as NOTHERE. The user has no mainspace or draftspace edits whatsoever since 2017. BusterD (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Probably bring to WP:ANI if indef is wanted, maybe? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm already an uninvolved admin. I don't need permission. Instead, I'm polling (in a non-standard way, I'll grant) to determine if my initial take is supported by others just looking at the userpage. Here are their userstats, which show I overreacted/overstated. BusterD (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, whoops. Sure. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Blatant misuse of the main userpage in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, over recent years by someone who hasn’t contributed for several years. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:U7, this isn't a draft and it is being used by a non-contributor. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

U7 only applies to subpages, not the main userpage. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I was under the impression it was for all userpages. Either way its a misuse per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as made up. For some reason, articles about unreal contests of Ru Paul's Drag Race are periodic visitors to MFD along with alternate history. One reason may be that some editors like to play with wiki features that provide neat-looking displays such as galleries of Presidents and scoreboards of reality or unreality contests. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Warn the originator that when the MFD notice says do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, it means, among other things, not to blank the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Your article title

Draft:Your article title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Original content was a plot-only draft about ARC Raiders, which was later overwritten by a different user with an exact duplicate of Draft:Muhammad Rabnawaz. Should be salted if deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Another failure on the part of AFC to do anything to shepherd clueless newbies, I see. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary copy of an existing draft, and salt TruenoCity (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Blank - I don't see the case for salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think this should be salted to discourage creation of untitled drafts by clueless newbies if they entered such a title. I don’t see any reason to leave the title up for someone else in the future to use either. TruenoCity (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Blank draft, speedy delete as G6 and salt per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:DONTSALT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Salting this title seems to fall pretty squarely under the "keeping honest people honest" exception. A draft with this title is clearly an error, not a serious attempt to create a draft called "your article title" - by protecting the page, we can alert inexperienced users of their error and guide them to correct it. Omphalographer (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

As can a talk page post.

A talk page post, even if posted today, is a human interaction that a newcomer can understand.

Making a title mistake and seeing a SALT notice is impersonal. Newcomers should meet persons, not automation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete and Salt, if for some reason something does come up that would need this title, we can always unsalt it. In the status quo it's basically just a trap for new editors. Of course we always don't want to bite the newbz, but I would say that letting them mess up in an easily avoidable way is similarly against the idea of community stewardship. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete and prevent recreation per TruenoCity. I actually think G6 applies, but since other editors above clearly don't agree, it would now not be appropriate to just invoke a speedy criterion. However: it does seem this page is a magnet for misplaced, untitled drafts and we, including our new editors, are better served by removing it and stopping others from falling into the trap by preventing recreation. I don't think WP:DONTSALT applies, since that is focused on the suitability of salting to prevent deliberate disruption, while here we have accidental disruption. However, I don't know what kind of fence will least confusingly for new users prevent accidental creation of drafts at this title (salting? a protected stub page at the title saying this is not the right home? something else), so no opinion on whtehr to salt or something else. Martinp (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I strongly object to G6 being used on a page with a nontrivial history. G6 misuse is not ok.

DONTSALT applies. Using page protection to whack a mole in the place where junk is meant to be tolerated, because it keeps junk out of mainspace, is a terrible misuse of admin volunteer time. In draftspace, few silly things need response. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with you on not overpolicing draftspace, and also agree that this is not a case for a speedy since it is clearly controversial. However, I do believe that we should prevent theapparenly repeated failure mode where drafts are incorrectly and accidentally generated at this name. And that whatever action does that should be considered routine housekeeping. Is that blanking followed by an explanatory and cautionary note (which don't require using admin buttons and don't nuke current history), plus protection to help users not make the same error again? Is it a page move followed by salting this title? Is it delete and salt? I'm agnostic about that. But we have a repeated, unexpected failure mode by new editors which is avoidable, so we should help avoid it. Martinp (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

User:1Iqzx/sandbox

User:1Iqzx/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Excessively edited unrelated non-draft subpage by non-contributor/WP:WEBHOST. in German and obviously unsuitable for dewiki/completely unsourced WP:OR content. Icodense (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not useful for any language Wikipedia... 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It's a sandbox. Useless stuff is often found in sandboxen. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Not actively disruptive. Could it be a WP:WEBHOST issue? Maybe. But it could equally well be a good faith attempt to dump in material which will be reworked, and selectively used (in English, and with sourcing I assume) in our articles. Or learning the mechanics of editing safely out of the way. If this were sitting there for months, untouched; or was being worked on for months with no apparent interest to apply to en.wp articles, then I could get behind a WP:WEBHOST deletion. But it's a 3 week old sandbox by a new user, and WP:AGF and WP:BITE prevails. Martinp (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Martinp: Please correct your false claims. It is not three weeks old, it's two years old with over 2500 edits... --Icodense (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You are correct, misread the dates. Unfortunately, that makes me switch to Weak delete, since with that type of history, WP:NOTWEBHOST seems to be more applicable. That said, it's a sandbox, and not very disruptive, so I don't propose spending any more time discussing it. Martinp (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per @Martinp. The account i two years old.R u here to build an encyclopedia? NDG (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Spravato/Why Operation Cherry Cola belongs on wikipedia

User:Spravato/Why Operation Cherry Cola belongs on wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Petty essay created to tell people off for a previous MfD relating to a controversial subpage by the same user. I would argue this violates our policy on civility. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. At this point, it's really straying away from anything helpful to improve Wikipedia. Also agree with nom. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Comments like "others cried "NOT ADVOCACY!!!!" are clearly beyond the pale of what is acceptable. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per evidence her and at the other MfD. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 23:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - This is an overly long !vote in the MFD and does not belong in project space as a separate essay. It could be merged into the MFD, except that that isn't practical and is too complicated. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. A project-related user’s opinion in their userspace has very large leeway. It is not POLEMIC. It does not name individuals (not that I saw). Censoring opinion in userspace does far more harm than allowing users to express disgruntled opinions in creative ways. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does not name individuals; but factually it does link to a discussion and is implied to be talking about every individual who participated in that discussion. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It is fair comment, given the location of the comment, and is sufficiently restrained by not naming others. “Sufficiently” as in “barely”, which is sufficient. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It isn't restrained in any capacity because it literally links the involved discussion which has every single person's name directly on it and includes references to a group who cannot be construed to be anyone else but the people involved in that very discussion. It's not sufficient because the restraint is simply not present. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Bringing User:Spravato to MfD with allegation of incivility is an escalation by you. “Petty” is a word choice for belittling your opponent, and is not a reason for deletion of a usersubpage. It’s your opening word!

I advise ignoring implied incivility by others in their usersubpages, and not using mfd as a forum for grievance resolution. Real issues of incivility belong at WP:ANI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all: I don't see this person as my "opponent" because this is Wikipedia and not some polemic battleground of ideas.

Secondly: I am not intending to say "petty" to belittle this person; simply to describe factually why this was created. I also object to you seeing this as some form of grievance resolution, I have no grievances with Spravato, they seem nice enough from what I've seen and as I do with ALL members of this community I respect them as a colleague on equal footing and rapport to me; or anyone else for that matter. That is exactly why I haven't taken this matter to WP:ANI because I don't believe that this person was randomly taking actions out of malice.

Third: I also refuse to see how exactly I have "escalated" the situation, the other party has not responded to me, and I assure you my intent was not to target some person who is new to Wikipedia. If I was rude or mean to this person then I am deeply sorry, and that wasn't my intent with nominating this sub-page.

Fourth and Finally: The advice to "ignore implied incivility" is not what I seek to uphold. The fact of the matter is user sub-pages are public, and no matter where you are on Wikipedia you should be handling your interactions with other people with the upmost respect and civility. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of you opinion, you and User:Spravato are opponents over his Userpage.

Regardless of your declared intentions, “petty” is serving to belittle.

This MfD is a proxy action for the enforcement of perceived infringement of civility standards. It it is a formal process with high visibility, and is precedent setting. Creating the MfD is most definitely an escalation. MfD is often used for this purpose, for pseudo battles between users. The standard for deletion of userpages is infringement of something listed at WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT.

”utmost respect and civility” is an extreme standard. Enforcing extreme standards has negative consequences, and is contrary to tolerance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The way this user has been approaching this topic of their personal interest is incompatible with en.wp's philosophy. They are at a crossroads: whether they take the community's feedback on board, or if they continue fighting and end up facing topic restrictions or sanctions based on conduct (that's not a threat, it's just crystal ball gazing). A heat-of-the-moment user subpage that is somewhere between an "overly long MFD !vote" and a vent, but avoids personal attacks, is not disruptive. It is within the realms of tolerance for user subpages. Forcing its deletion needlessly escalates an unnecessary conflict, and sets a precedent towards "censoring disagreement" that might prove unhelpful in other situations. At the very least, from a point of view of procedural fairness, let's not delete it while the user's other subpages related to this topic are under discussion elsewhere, since they could plausibly and productively use this page as a sandbox from which to extract more succinct responses. Martinp (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AIN

Wikipedia:AIN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary DAB that a hatnote can fix. The other item is just a misspelling of ANI. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget and add a Hatnote to Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. I see the noticeboard as being the primary topic; but can also see someone making this simple misspelling of WP:ANI. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes are much worse than DAB pages. Hatnotes spoil the prime real estate for the majority. Only the confused end up at the DAB page, and for the confused the DAB page serves excellently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What real estate is being spoiled? I'm not sure many people would be put off by at most a couple line-breaks worth of blank space. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Above the fold

The term can be used more generally to refer to anything that is prominently displayed or of highest priority. Above the fold is sometimes used in web development to refer the portions of a webpage that are visible without further scrolling or clicking. In contrast, portions available via clickthrough are sometimes described as "after the jump".

Hatnotes go in the most prominent space on the page, and they go there for the readers who don’t want to have arrived there. They are a poor solution to a problem. “A hatnote can fix” is a sign of a recognition of the problem and a denial of that problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to AI noticeboard and add note directing users to ANI, as per Samoht27. It's more likely they're looking for the former. --signed, TheAuroraBorealis 20:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget as per two previous editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Universal Studios Delhi

Draft:Universal Studios Delhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Universal Studios Delhi ISN'T happening. A massive amusement park can never be built in 2 years. Can we all stop giving any credence to this slop? The only ones that reported on this are a bunch of Indian newspapers. Universal Destinations & Experiences never made an official announcement for this park. The Media Expert (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as WP:G3, while this seems like it wouldn't be a blatant hoax (covered in The Times of India) it's worth noting that even major news outlets can be wrong. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep WP:LUDA. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. This wouldn’t be WP:G3 (blatant hoax) as there are some sources, although there is no consensus on the reliability of Times of India TruenoCity (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Not Voting at this time because I haven't seen the evidence that this is or is not a hoax. If not a hoax, it should be kept as a useless draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep, per WP:NDRAFT and because sources indicate that it was to be happening, in 2027. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The bar for deleting drafts is high. In particular, we don't delete them purely for notability or sourcing issues, absent being actively disruptive. In this case, we have 2 non-absurd sources given, so this draft itself is not a hoax and so WP:G3 does not apply. No opinion on whether the announcement is/was credible or might even in good faith be perpetuating something which may have been so unrealistic it might even have been a hoax. But that's the sort of nuanced discussion which only makes sense if and only if this draft would be brought to mainspace, not while in draftspace. See WP:LUDA. Martinp (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Kingfisher-Sapphire

User:Kingfisher-Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This page violates WP:UPNOT by explicitly demanding users not to edit it. While its creator demands others to "use the talk page instead", they have also tried to remake their talk page so that only creation scientists will edit. Although it doesn't fall under any other explicit categories in UPNOT, the page exists only to promote a fringe belief, and should be deleted. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I have changed that. And also, I changed my talk page some days ago some everyone can edit it. It does not promote a fringe belief. Kingfisher-Sapphire (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Page is an exercise in original research, attempting to co-mingle modern birds with long extinct species, apparently motivated by a rejection of evolution. This diff tells you everything you need to know. This project is unrelated to Wikipedia's mission (maybe even opposed to Wikipedia's mission) and could not ever be the basis for an article or updates to Wikipedia articles. MrOllie (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete but not because of the above. I would say because of WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia isn't a webhost to put random tests or projects that do not improve the encyclopedia. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: This is wholly counter to the purposes of Wikipedia. High WP:OR content. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for people to host their own ideas with no sources Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 19:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• delete per WP:WEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST for original research or pseudoscience TruenoCity (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - The current version of this page is very different from the page that was originally nominated, and that makes it difficult to know what we are voting on deleting, but that is another reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – let's see now... 1) OR, 2) UPNOT, 3) FRINGE/HOAX, 4) WEBHOST, 5) I don't think we need a 5th. Looks like SNOWing. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The reasons for deletion individually are not compelling, but there are so many of them, and now the user is checkuser blocked, which again is not alone a reason to delete, but it counters AGF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Snow Delete per above. I would argue it also could be an example of someone using Wikipedia to propagandize a specific viewpoint. It's not like I'm arguing that he shouldn't be able to edit because he's a creationist, but he shouldn't use Wikipedia as a place to push his pseudoscientific beliefs. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The broader issue here is that this contributor is using multiple usernames and disruptively pushing an OR reclassification agenda through edit-warring (see their edits at and . While I don't doubt good intensions and passionately held beliefs, there is an OR, advocacy, and editing competence issue; even personal attacks (the userspace edits). If those problems weren't present, I'd be inclined to AGF keep, merely moving this page to a harmless userspace subpage (since it doesn't belong as a top-level userpage in any case). However, since it is part of an editing pattern that is fundamentally disruptive, out it goes. Martinp (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Spravato/Operation Cherry Cola

User:Spravato/Operation Cherry Cola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Spravato/Userboxes/OCC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Spravato/OCC topicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As some of you might already know, Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison back in 2022 for her role in assisting Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking scheme. As a result, this page, which proposes to spread the perspective of Ghislaine Maxwell, is obviously non-neutral, and so I suggest deletion per WP:POLEMIC. Duckmather (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to users from the RfD earlier today: @I2Overcome, Deacon Vorbis, and Godsy. Duckmather (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, but per WP:NOTADVOCACY. I do not believe WP:POLEMIC qualifies here since it is about Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing, and neutrality in userspace is irrelevant. Nevertheless, whatever this is is still absolutely inappropriate and should be gotten rid of. I would like to strongly encourage @Spravato to carefully read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, because of this specific page but also of what I see on their user page. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 15:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep This does comply with Wikipedia policy. This is simply a project abt removing bias. It is absolutely dumb to have so much content abt a person without their POV. Even my page itself says that this isn’t a pro-Ghislaine operation. 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 20:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As a project about removing bias, I think that this project page could clarify that better. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

You're gonna have to be more specific than just vaguely citing compliance with "Wikipedia policy", especially since this is self-evidently a contentious topic and contentious POV to defend. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok.

according to user page guidelines there is nothing abt advocating a specific way of editing. Ok.

and this actually supports WP:NPOV. “ all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”. And that includes the accused. Kay? Kay! 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 20:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't anything against advocating "a specific way of editing", but it can be and looks like it's being disruptive.

For your other point, that is not inherent at all. "Significant views ... published by reliable sources on a topic" do not always include the accused. Especially since they seem to be all interviews, correct me if I'm wrong. See WP:INTERVIEW, maybe.

Might've gotten some points wrong, apologies if anything is incorrect. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 02:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, Organ. There aren't really that many sources that explore Maxwell's point of view, so this could be in the realm of undue weight. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that your project is an actual campaign or are you trying to hide the obvious truth about this? By previous evidence I'm assuming the latter (Trying not to bludgeon it here) | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 23:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's assume this has positive intent, it doesn't help anyone to be accusatory. 🙂 -Samoht27 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, I don't think this project is necessary and the wording on the subpage strongly suggests this is advocating for Maxwell. If the user involved wants to edit some specific subject matter to be more neutral, nothing is stopping them from doing that without the advocacy-leaning subpage. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This is not about removing bias. The aim is simple: Make sure that the perspective of Ghislaine Maxwell is spread on as many articles as possible. That sounds like a POV-pushing operation. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I2, here's the thing... it's not POV pushing. If I wanted to delete the prosecution's case. then that would be against the rules. But thats not what it is! As the page says " We aren’t asking for removal of anything, we just want the perspective of all people involved, even if they allegedly did something terrible" 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 02:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I made an essay abt the topic. User:Spravato/Why Operation Cherry Cola belongs on wikipedia

Does not break any policy. So you guys should probably keep. Also, I will be on a short wiki break tommorrow, as I have an exam I need to lock in for. 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 10:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This page is not going to have the effect you want. It's not going to make people understand your stance better and therefore rally them to your side; instead, it's confirming that you have a pretty poor grasp of our policies and guidelines and that you are more interested in digging your heels in rather than listening to feedback. My question at this point is, is it a hill you're actually willing to die on? Because you might have to confront this question relatively soon with such behavior. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 12:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Having read this essay I think you misunderstand why people have problems with this subpage. The point isn't that we necessarily dislike you or even disagree with you about certain perspectives being not fully represented; it's more so that you have framed it as some perspective needing to be "spread" (aka propagated) across the encyclopedia. I view this very similarly to problems we had with Wikiproject Conservatism's former goal of advocating for conservative perspectives on Wikipedia. If you want to provide neutral documentation of Maxwell, by all means! But this subpage does not suggest you are seeking to do that. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

PS: I have nominated this essay for deletion; as it's wording teeters on the edge of being a uncivil attack page; while I pride myself on assuming good faith, depicting critics as whining "others crying 'NOT ADVOCACY!!!'" displays an unwillingness to engage with us on a serious level as equals. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete, combining all of the delete votes above, this perceived lack of Ghislaine Maxwell editorializing is not an issue, and this page is a launch pad for disruptive undue editing. Personally, the framing that she has only "[...] been accused of heinous crimes" is grossly incorrect and reads as a defense. This 'project', its quickly multiplying subpages, and spiteful essay are best kept deleted. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete All - The key policy is neutral point of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. It is neither necessary nor useful to present Maxwell's point of view, which is probably either that she is innocent or that she has been unjustly punished for some other reason, unless the articles are already known to present a non-neutral point of view. If the originator thinks that our articles are non-neutral, they may present their case at the neutral point of view noticeboard (or they may discuss on the article talk page). We are not presenting Maxwell's point of view, or the government point of view, but a neutral point of view. We don't need to introduce bias by presenting Maxwell's point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete All per WP:NPOV, and per everyone else besides the campaigner. Can I please ask you, @Spravato, what were you thinking here? A project to "Make sure that the perspective of Ghislaine Maxwell is spread on as many articles as possible" is worded exactly as the opposite of a neutrality campaign. If it IS a neutrality campaign, it should have been said differently. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 23:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTADVOCACY. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list

Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

bunch of unsourced text WP:V Polygnotus (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@PK2: Are you still using this thing, after all those years? If so we can put it in userspace. Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Userfy if PK2, the last active contributor, responds that they are still using it, delete otherwise per nom TruenoCity (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Userfy or Delete as per Truenocity. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• In other words, y'all are saying we're not here to collaborate and find sources to make this project better. I already knew that, but thanks for confirming. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I’ve just notified User:PK2 on their talk page, so let’s wait a bit before closure.

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 10:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 10:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Not BLPs, historical, frequently hard to verify information. Remove each name only after searching for verification, or if a reason is found to think that the original addition was not based on anything likely to be correct. There is no time limit for this job. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Nightscream moved all the unsourced entries on the main 'list of suicides' article to the talk page 16 years ago and Mahanga created this subpage and moved that information there two months later as per this archived discussion, "Citations Needed" and "Unsourced material in need of sourcing", which took place mainly in January and February 2010. PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep If these are actual suicides, then editors should find reliable sources for them, and add them to the article. This workshop page is precisely the sort that editors need to be able to work on additions to articles and improve them. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do not do pointless comment-free relists. Shuffling the MfD order is disruptive. Shuffling old MfDs back into the fresh reduces new views as the backlog attracts attention.

Only relist of your are a suitable closer and you can see that there is a path to a consensus and a reason people are not getting there, and you can make a usefully refocus relist statement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Night scream and Smokeyjoe. -Samoht27 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band/Unreferenced BLPs

Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band/Unreferenced BLPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Page created by a deactivated bot. It has been used once. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Watch your implied timeline.

Maybe it wasn’t then deactivated.

Maybe it malfunctioned.

Archive. Ancient scraps should not require an MfD deletion discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Archive what? It's listed one article in a decade and it does not currently work. There is nothing about it worth keeping. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Archive by redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band/Unreferenced BLPsto Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band.

This is a low cost action. It doesn’t require that you have examined every possible consequence. If new information reveals that it shouldn’t have been done, the edit can be reverted at little cost. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Mark Historical - This appears to have been useless for a long time and to have provided no service, but what is the benefit of deleting it? That is, what is the harm of keeping it and marking it historical? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  Because it shows up in categories and clutters up the place. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Question - SmokeyJoe sometimes says Archive. My concept of 'Archive' is movement to a storage facility, such as the archiving of talk pages and project pages. Am I correct that SmokeyJoe's definition of 'Archive' includes marking a page {{historical}}? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  “Archive” can mean several non-deletion options that make it clear to future passers-by that the page is no longer active. Tagging historical is one option but is not the definition. Archiving is the default on Wikipedia because the history is always kept, unless deleted.

  In this case I recommend archiving by redirecting Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band/Unreferenced BLPs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect/mark historical, no need to make the page history inaccessible to non-admins. The bot that edited this page, DASHBot, last edited in 2013, and there are plenty of those where that came from at Category:WikiProject UBLP lists. Graham87 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  The page history of... three items. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Mark as Historical per those above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations

User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This article went through an AfD earlier which resulted in a unilateral redirect into userspace, in violation of WP:EDITATAFD.

However, this does not change the locus of the problem: the BLP issues, which I have listed on the talk page.

Summing it up, sources such as blogs and Seth Abramson's book that are questionably reliable are used to make assertions against a BLP. There are serious concerns about WP:SYNTH and violations of WP:OR. The theme throughout the article is to take nuclei from news sources, and then to pile opinion piece after opinion piece on top in order to build a case. See Bodyguard's claims questioned and Analyses of Trump's denials and credibility as examples.

I note that this draft has gone through a MfD earlier, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32, and I encourage all participants to give it a second look. It is striking that no one in the previous discussion appears to have looked deeper into the content and the sourcing. Stikkyy (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, what a pleasant notification to wake up to! Sorry about violating WP:EDITATAFD. That was not my intention. I was just following good advice to userfy it.

As you and others have admitted, the topic is obviously very notable, so any issues just need to be ironed out, and that is best done in user space.

I would like to keep working on it, and to avoid drawing attention to it, I could rename the draft to something totally innocuous and unrelated to the topic, and then keep it "buried" when I'm not working on it by not leaving the content visible. I can do that by deleting the main content so it's only in the history. I can then "revive" it and work on it, and then repeat that procedure.

That way only obsessive people who absolutely must harass others will be digging there. Such actions are bad faith moves. Editors should be allowed to use their user space to create articles without unnecessary disturbance. That is one of the main functions of user space. It is important to not discourage the creation of articles on such notable topics. That can be seen as censorship and whitewashing, and we don't want any of that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Valjean above, and previous AfD's and MfD's - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 16:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• The problem, Valjean, is that I'm not sure that you get why I'm so concerned about this article. My concern certainly isn't assuaged when you write that Seth is one of the RS that connects the golden showers incident in Las Vegas with the alleged one in Moscow. (emphasis added). I note that you're autopatrolled–if you hadn't nominated it to DYK, I would have never seen it, and it would be sitting in articlespace, being picked up by the search engines for god knows how long. Stikkyy (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep user space draft, and don't need to WP:CRYBLP for a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Andre🚐 18:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Unsure. I !voted “keep” in 2024.

I am displeased to read Anyone who judges this by what they see here is a low-life ragpicking fool.

I approve of the blanking while not actively editing, as good practice for sensitive drafts.

It may be wiser to move this draft offline for a few years. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Stikkyy:, I wrote that in reply to you, not in the article, because you asserted that Seth was the one who talked about it, as if he was the ONLY one. No, he is just "one of" those who connect the two incidents, one proven and one alleged.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also expressed concern, including about this Las Vegas incident, about the Agalarov/Russian intelligence nexus working close to Trump to create and record possible kompromat, and the Russians observed what Cohen called Trump's "delighted" reaction, from his front row seat for several hours, as he watched a golden showers show and other debauched displays of gross sexuality that was so bad a judged shut down the venue. That happened in a city where "anything goes"!

Then the Agalarovs controlled everything about Trump's Moscow visit. He was surrounded constantly by Russians who were either agents or reported to them. His personal bodyguard was sidelined by hired Russian bodyguards, and he didn't even get to do a security check of his hotel room. Everything was controlled, and the room was reserved and prepared from a couple days before he even arrived in Moscow. It was a setup. They offered him prostitutes, and an oligarch says they brought them to Trump's room. Schiller's claim they turned down the offer when it was made in the morning has been questioned as that was totally out of character for him and Trump. And even if the offer was turned down, they were still brought to the room. He was also seen with hookers in the hotel lobby and an elevator. This is not surprising behavior for Trump.

You seem intent on hiding this from search engines. That is not normally our concern, but, just to reassure you, content in user space is automatically hidden from search engines. I even go one step further with all my drafts by blocking search engines. At the top of the draft you will see that notification and the words "This page has been removed from search engines' indexes." So I do it in my own way. I am careful.

My suggestion above even keeps prying eyes from noticing it. Only editors who know how to do it would even know the draft is there, and then have to take extra steps to actually see the content. After taking that extra effort, any attempts to cause problems would be bad faith intimidation and harassment. So I am showing my good faith by making sure that search engines AND prying eyes won't be needlessly exposed to it. (I am inviting you to make comments on the draft's talk page, so I won't consider you a bad actor.)

You may not know me, but I've been here since 2003, just passed the 100,000 contributions mark, all manually with no automation, and I helped create our BLP and NPOV policies. I am not a newbie, and I am accustomed to dealing with controversial topics and edge cases where even generally unreliable sources can be used if done properly. Opinions can differ, and I am always willing to discuss things and change my opinions. I'm always learning, and I do apologize when I goof up. We are a team, so let's keep our focus on GNG and how to get coverage of this topic improved so it can go public again. Anything less would be very unwikipedian and partisan.

Hiding it will only create a Streisand effect where mainstream journalists (I know some who are watching this occurring) end up writing about it, naming names, and embarrassing Wikipedia because some editors might appear to be enablers of yet another Trump coverup, one that is proven and self-admitted by the participants! Your efforts can backfire big time. So instead of accusing me and finding horrible evidence of my malfeasance, how about AGF and just ask me "why" I have written certain wordings, "how" can I justify using certain borderline sources (I examine each instance in a case-by-case manner), etc. I'll happily explain, and may well follow your suggestions for improvement. The essence of WP:PRESERVE is "fix" rather than "delete". Fixing is better than AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per MfD. I do not believe a user space placement is appropriate per the sourcing. Buffs (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  "My suggestion above even keeps prying eyes from noticing it" is a bit concerning. The whole point of a user space article is that it is being curated for later publication. If you're wanting to hide it, you're running up against policy. Buffs (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's because I'm gunshy from previous hounding and harassment by bad faith editors who tried to control what I was doing with my drafts. That should not be necessary, but some editors invade one's personal space when it's not normally necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  There are many who disagree with you, but that hardly makes them "bad faith editors". The fact that you're trying to hide it is unseemly, if not foolhearty. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't want to do that. It's just an offer, since the very title has seen at least one objection. In the draft stage, it can be titled anything. If this MfD doesn't go against me, I will probably just change the URL to something anonymous and not bother with my suggestion. It would be too much bother, and since all content is properly sourced and attributed, BLP, especially for a public figure, is fully satisfied. No one has yet provided an example that violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

When I wrote "bad faith editors", I wasn't referring to just disagreement. I was referring to real harassment that extended outside of Wikipedia. Even innocuous essay preparation was ridiculed. It was really nasty. User space is designed for essay and article creation. Editors should generally be left alone while creating essays and articles and not have to suffer from undue interference, incivility, outing, and ridicule, barring serious policy violations. There were no policy violations, so the harassment was really unjustified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: No one has yet provided an example that violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE.–Lets pick apart a quote then. From the lead: Trump made false statements "repeatedly and to multiple people"[12] about his weekend trip to Moscow, including claiming he did not stay overnight even once despite clear evidence to the contrary,[13][14] during the only period when calculations indicate the alleged incident most likely could have occurred.[n 8][15] 12 has "Editors' Blog" on the top-left corner. 13 and 14 are OK, but as CNN notes, There is no indication that such a tape exists–something which the totality of the article appears to be pushing back against. 15 is WP:SALON–not of the highest-quality for BLPs, and as I quote WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Looking at the note, 50 is opinion from the Political Animal Blog. 41 is OK, but does not support the only period when calculations indicate the alleged incident most likely could have occurred. 39 is OK, but does not mention the supposed pee tape at all, and as I've noted in the talk page, Goldstone is being quoted without context. 52 is OK, but Dilanian and Allen are simply conveying what Schiller has to say–this still does not support the only period when calculations indicate the alleged incident most likely could have occurred. 20 is from the Center for American Progress, a progressive think-tank. 8 is Slate, which might be marginally OK. It still does not support the only period when calculations indicate the alleged incident most likely could have occurred.

So, the only period when calculations indicate the alleged incident most likely could have occurred fails verification, and I can only conclude that it is derived from some slurry of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I note that [n 8] is cited eight times throughout the article–and while I have not checked the other instances, I am very concerned that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP at play. My assessment here is that the rot is deep. Stikkyy (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Your comments make me think of some points that I'd like to add to what I said below. As a matter of editing content, I'd like to make it clear that I pretty much agree with you, and with other criticisms that have been raised. Setting aside the emotional valence of saying that "the rot is deep", I would respond that the relevant issue here is not how deep the rot is, but whether or not it is so deep that it cannot be fixed. I tend to think of WP:TNT in terms of whether or not there is an underlying aspect of the page subject that essentially goes against what Wikipedia is about. That's not the case here. We have a notable topic, and after removing what I think are a lot of poor sources, we will still have a sufficient number of appropriate ones. It is reasonable to expect that, after some very significant fixing up, the current version of the userspace page can be made into something keep-able in mainspace. Should we depend upon Valjean, working alone, to make all the needed fixes? Probably not, although I intend no disrespect to Valjean when I say that. But Wikipedia does not rely on having articles edited only by one person, after all. So let's say that I go and make a series of edits, removing many of the problems that I can find. (I'll stipulate that I might miss some things – but nothing would prevent other editors from finding and fixing those.) So would there be anything that would prevent me from making those edits? There's certainly nothing in the Wikimedia software that would prevent me from removing or revising content. Would Valjean edit war against me, preventing my edits from sticking? I very much doubt it, but we have well-worn ways to deal with edit warring, should it occur. So no matter how deep the so-called rot might be, it can be rooted out. Deletion is not the solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy, that can be altered, broken up, attribution be used more, etc. It can be fixed. I have made an offer to Tryptofish below to work radically on this. There is nothing that can't be fixed here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I still do not trust Valjean to take the concerns seriously enough. On the talk page, he argues that Seth's book is considered a RS. He may get flowery, but much of what he writes is still good stuff. This is, or should be, attributed. To that, I note:

• The Atlantic: Abramson’s arguments not only denied political realities and delegate math as the race wore on; they often denied basic human logic.
• The Washington Post: Abramson’s tweets link copiously to sources, but they range in quality from investigative news articles to off-the-wall Facebook posts and tweets from Tom Arnold. The New Republic and Atlantic have both dismissed the professor as a conspiracy theorist.
• The New Republic: “The Mayflower Speech,” Abramson concludes, “should get the most attention in Congress.” The entire thesis is founded on the simple fact of a hotel booking; in the conspiracy mind-set, even the most mundane logistical details reveal a deeper, preordained plot.

Stikkyy (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you naming specific things that are wrong. I'm receptive to correcting them, and the more you tell us about, the more guidance I will have in fixing what is wrong. (Of course, if you don't trust me either, there's not much I can say to that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. While perhaps a notable topic, it is so full of original research and conjecture, and so utterly over detailed - it is 18,000 words long, not counting the dozens of quotes, about the piss tape, if this were ever submitted it would need to be cut more than half - that nothing in this draft is salvageable. The notes section, for instance, has some of the most egregious original research I have ever seen on wiki, not to mention the massive BLP and sourcing issues. Many sources used don't even mention the article subject. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. My reasoning is essentially the same as in the previous MfD, and nothing that is actually relevant to deletion has changed since then. As I see it, the arguments for deletion come down to (1) we should not allow a draft-in-progress to exist outside of mainspace if there are significant problems with it, even if those problems can be fixed (and they can be fixed, contra the comment just above, with which I edit conflicted), and (2) the nom does not trust Valjean to take the concerns seriously enough. Neither of these lines of reasoning holds up to scrutiny. The nom actually said correctly at the AfD that the topic appears to be notable. Valjean has copied a detailed list of all of the nom's stated content concerns to the user page talk page, and appears to be making a good-faith effort to address all of them. If Valjean misses something, the solution is to point that out during the revision process, not to assume bad faith. There is a lot that I think needs to be changed in the current draft, but the solution is to fix those things. It was my idea at the recent AfD to move this back to userspace, and Valjean was simply following my advice, and I also made sure that the user page was coded as "no index". If the nom is disappointed that the AfD didn't run until its conclusion, well, you can blame me, but it's not a reason to put other things ahead of the priority of improving content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Tryptofish, would you like to have free hands, in my user space, to take a radical stab at improving what's here? I know I can trust you. In the process, I'd appreciate it if you ask for explanations before deleting too much that may seem weird. There may be a good explanation. Let's work together on this. It's a worthy cause. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, with two conditions: (1) this is subject to WP:There is no deadline, and (2) you agree not to return it to mainspace without my prior approval (and also noting that other editors are free to make good-faith edits without your approval). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I don't intend to allow you to hold it hostage by not doing anything with it. I want us to work together on it, but no rush. We can take time. It's a huge topic.
      • Your unnumbered third condition (about other editors) is problematic, as not everyone performs due diligence. Their criticisms show gross ignorance of the topic, MAGA tendencies, and evidence they have not examined the sources. So I would want to know them first.
      • Otherwise, "yes" to the first two conditions. This is still my user space, so I want to maintain some semblance of control, and I'd like to retain the right to approve who gets to make changes. There are many editors whom I can trust, so I don't think this will be a problem.
      • Later, after we think it's about ready for "publication", we can open it up for more editors so fresh eyes can catch anything we've missed. We just need to avoid any dumb AfDs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator is wrong in one point — the article was not redirected in violation of EDITATAFD. It was simply moved to this location; otherwise it would just be a redirect with history, and RFD would be the right venue, not MFD. Moving articles at AFD isn't rare, and userfying them to their creators' userspaces isn't a problem per se. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, I'm not too up to date with all the nooks and crannies of AFD. I've struck that point. Stikkyy (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• No worries 🙂 Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Tryptofish above. Miniapolis 22:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Have people actually read this draft? It reads like a Conservapedia article if you flipped the POV. I was going to quote all the weasel words and unchecked allegations in the lede, but then realized I'd just be quoting the entire lede. The topic is probably notable and splittable, but this partisan hatchet job is utterly unsalvageable and unpublishable in this form or any derivative form shy of blowing it up and starting over again. At which point, what we're talking about is indefinitely hosting a bunch of speculation about a living person in userspace with no realistic chance of it ever benefiting the encyclopedia. Delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Stikkyy and Tamzin. I have read through the entire draft (and trust me, it wasn't easy), and this is an Infowars-style conspiracy theory tract about Russian spies, moles, and useful idiots controlling the U.S. federal government through "pee tapes" and kompromot (which the author always italicizes for effect), backed by sources that are either not reliable or that largely fail verification, yet one more example of "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", and seriously contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It also raises genuine questions about the competence of the draft's sole author, Valjean, to edit in these highly sensitive AP2 and WP:BLP topic areas, if he genuinely believes that this draft (or anything close to it) would ever be suitable for publication (and DYK!). Two other points:

• 1. Valjean will try to argue that the Steele dossier is not the only source for the "pee tape" rumor (and his evidence for this is far from overwhelming or incontrovertible, but let's just humor him for the sake of argument): Even if this is true, from the perspective of WP:Notability, it is obvious that the "pee tape" rumor is not notable separately and independently from the Steele dossier and the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)/Mueller special counsel investigation, making Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations a WP:POVFORK of the primary topic.
• 2. This is just one example of source misrepresentation, but I found it particularly egregious: Valjean cites Ashley Feinberg's "The Pee Tape Is Real, but It's Fake," a 2019 article for Slate discussing a grainy video of the purported incident that began circulating online in the years following the publication of the Steele dossier, a total of eight (8) times in his current draft.

• Unlike other journalists, who may have refused to report on an unverified video with unclear provenance, Feinberg carefully analyzed the 25-second clip in an attempt to find signs of inauthenticity. Feinberg discusses how, initially, she was unable to find evidence of inauthenticity, in that the presidential suite of The Ritz-Carlton, Moscow, as depicted in the video, neatly matches with footage of the room taken during Stephen Colbert's July 2017 visit. However, on further review, Feinberg was able to confirm that the video "is fake," as the presidential suite was renovated in 2015, with new paneling, significant changes to the lighting, and the bed's headboard being shifted from the back wall to the left wall. Feinberg concludes: "The video does show an overwhelmingly accurate, and possibly perfect, depiction of the suite—but not the suite as it would have appeared on the night of Nov. 9, 2013. That's because, between then and now, the room was entirely redone. ... The room we see in the video, then, did not exist in that form when the video would supposedly have taken place. We also know that that it couldn't have been some other portion of the multiroom suite. According to the pre-renovation floor plan currently on the Ritz-Carlton website, there is only one master bedroom and only one large bed."

• However, Valjean never includes the core findings from Feinberg 2019. Instead, he selectively quotes Feinberg only to support the authenticity of the "pee tape" and to cast doubt on the denials of Keith Schiller, Trump's longtime bodyguard (and a living person who is not a public figure). Valjean even includes a lengthy quote from Feinberg's intro, which makes it sound like she proved the clip to be authentic and real, surgically cutting off right before she says the exact opposite: "There are a number of reasons to believe that this pee tape would be real, and there are also a number of reasons to believe it is not. One reason to believe it is real is that it does exist—an extremely lifelike, extremely grainy video clip depicting Trump in the presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, while two nude or near-nude women cavort in front of him—and you can watch it right now. The more I tried to prove to myself it wasn't real, the less confident I became in my own skepticism."

• The fact that Valjean cited Feinberg 2019 not once, not twice, not thrice, but eight (8) separate times and each time only for snippets that could read as evidence for the authenticity of the "pee tape" (or for tangential background details) but never once even alluded to the core finding from Feinberg 2019 that the tape "is fake" is tantamount to lying with sources to perpetuate a WP:HOAX, which does actually cross the line into a conduct—not competence—issue for the editor in question, especially given the sensitive nature of the BLP topic area. In any case, while I do not currently plan on reporting Valjean to WP:AE or another drama board, given the amount of time that it would take for our volunteer editors—none of whom likely have as much time as Valjean does to devote to this topic—to go through and fix this and every other source misrepresentation in the draft, it is eminently reasonable to invoke WP:TNT here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• • @TheTimesAreAChanging: Your opening is rather bizarre. I don't recognize it. Did you read a different article? "Moles"? "Controlling" the government? Conspiracy theories? Check each time the word "conspiracy" is used and you'll see an appropriate use that is nothing like your claim. So WTF? Be more careful.
  • BTW, kompromat is normally italicized as a foreign word. That is not "for effect", so stop with the bad-mouthing smear campaign. If you don't like it, take it up with the writers of the kompromat article, where it is always italicized. You also need to be careful with throwing around accusations of incompetence. That's a serious personal attack. I know I would be blocked if I did it.
  • Michael Cohen testified that he and Trump learned of the rumor about three years before the Steele dossier was written. A group of people around Trump, who treated the rumor as likely true, also knew about it. This comes from legal testimony, so you are mistaken. You are confusing the origins of the rumor right after Trump left Moscow in Nov. 2013 with the first publicized mention in Jan. 2017, which was the Steele dossier. This rumor predates the dossier by a long time, so it must be treated that way. Trump, Cohen, and many others knew of it long before the dossier. The Senate Intelligence Committee also said it predated the dossier, and reports of it came from sources other than the dossier before the dossier was written. Your claimed "reading" of this article leaves something to be desired. You should have AGF and not assumed you understood what you were reading. You should have asked me what I meant. I would have clarified it for you, and maybe reworded it better so it couldn't have been misunderstood. That's what colleagues do. Be fair.
  • Feinberg writes about an apparently fake "piss tape" video that was notable enough that it was also discussed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The thing is, that fake "piss tape" is not the main topic of this article, so I only briefly mention it. I use the parts of her article that are relevant to this topic, as is proper. Most of what you write above about Feinberg is off-topic.
  • You also say I cut off at a bad spot. That one quote in the note stops at the end of a paragraph. (I'd like know what followed that cut-off point that was so critical and relevant for this article.)
  • Two of the spots I use her as a ref are to document that RS use the term "pee tape", and one other place I use her to document "piss tape", which also must be sourced. That's all. When there are several different terms used, as there are for this rumor, I have listed them, with the sources that use each one. Such things must be sourced, so Feinberg is used for "pee tape". Big deal.
  • Other uses are innocuous and perfectly legitimate ways to use a source. Obviously they can be discussed and we actually do modify, tweak, and even remove things that are questioned. I work that way. Don't you? This can be fixed. I am a collaborative editor, so try AGF.
  • As I wrote above, I'd like know what followed that cut off point that was critical. I can't fix it if you won't tell me, so be fair. Your largely misleading and off-topic wall of text poisons the well and may have fooled others who just believe you. @David Fuchs: -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @TheTimesAreAChanging: you write that I "never once even alluded to the core finding from Feinberg 2019 that the tape "is fake" is tantamount to lying with sources to perpetuate a WP:HOAX,.. That is not true!
  • You haven't responded to my request for clarification, but I fear you have missed or misunderstood something. OTOH, maybe I have misunderstood you. In either case, we need clarification, because your accusation is very serious and false.
  • To ensure that your point of contention is met and resolved, I have edited the draft and repeated the fact that the "piss tape" Feinberg and the Senate Intelligence Committee mention is "fake". The mention that has been there all along is in the blockquote from the Senate Committee: "The Committee is aware of a realistic and well-resourced, but fake, video of someone who looks like Trump..." "...but fake" seems pretty clear.
  • See the addition of the second mention. Now it's mentioned twice. I don't know how you missed the first mention. Your false accusation seriously poisons the well against me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this is the clearest TNT situation I think I've seen. Valjean simply should not be touching this topic at all, given how the entire thing reads like a fever dream of innuendo and poor sourcing to the degree that it feels much more likely to be intentional than incompetence. Tamzin hits the nail on the head. If this were a case of just fixing it, it would have been fixed. Instead it's been years of no improvement. There's nothing to save here, nothing that isn't covered, properly or otherwise, in the giant pile of Trump articles around this subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Statement of intent:

I suggest that everyone reread Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32. That MfD ended in "no consensus". Some highly respected editors and admins expressed a lot of wisdom there.

My last comment above was to a huge criticism section. Although my reply was much smaller, it was still a large and far from complete answer, and that is not ideal. I don't want to bludgeon the process here, so I'll try to keep future answers smaller. This one explains my intentions, so they need to be understood. I'll then slow down.

I promise not to "go live" with this ever again without seeking review, advice, and approval from several other experienced editors who agree it's good enough for publication. I made a mistake this time by failing to do that, as it was so long since I had talked with anyone about it. I simply forgot and got careless. That will not happen again. Those who know me are aware that I'm a very collaborative editor who takes advice seriously.

I recognize that there are NPOV issues unrelated to BLP, but they can be fixed.

I also recognize there are potential BLP issues. BLP is a subset of NPOV, and not all NPOV violations are serious, and not all are BLP violations, but danger always exists. BLP is the thing I am most careful about. I try to frame, attribute, and source everything properly. My problem is my aspie-lite tendency to be pedantic and far too detailed. I like to understand everything about a topic! That means the draft needs to be pared down a whole lot.

No one can question that I haven't done a serious and careful effort in this regard, even if imperfectly. As a number of very experienced editors and admins noted in the previous MfD linked above, no evidence of clear BLP violations were found, especially since Trump is about the most notable WP:PUBLICFIGURE there is, so BLP offers him little protection here.

As long as the draft article has no "unsourced negative information", there is no BLP violation that requires deletion of the draft, even if there could be various forms of NPOV issues, such as due weight, sourcing, framing, etc. These are things that can all be fixed.

I will move forward seeking outside help and will take all criticism and suggestions very seriously, as I have already shown. That's how I work.

This is clearly notable enough to easily pass GNG, so some form of article should be allowed. Otherwise, we are exercising a form of censorship and whitewashing that violates our PAG and purpose, and ironically, to the best of my knowledge, it would be the only exception in Wikipedia's history, and done for Trump's benefit!

As an uncensored project, there is no imaginable subject, including about public figure BLPs, that, if mentioned in multiple RS, does not deserve some form of mention here, whether in a sentence, stub article, or full article. This topic has received far more than passing or trivial mention. It is THE showcase example of "notability".

It has been covered by every major and most minor RS, and major ones have given it serious coverage because of its potential national security implications. It is the subject of deep-going analysis and scholarly writing. There are books about it. It has been the main subject in lawsuits. It has been the subject of Congressional investigations.

Therefore, there should be no doubt that it's notable enough to be a "stand-alone article", because, according to WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It certainly has.

There is far too much serious content written about it for it to end up as just a small subsection in some existing article. The rumor started independently from the Steele dossier, which only brought it to the non-Russian public's attention three years after Trump first became aware of it and started an effort to find and suppress it. It was already a public secret in Russia, and Trump and a small circle around him have known about it for about three years before Steele wrote his dossier, and during the writing of the dossier, that circle's efforts to suppress the rumor finally succeeded, unlike some other Trump coverups and payoffs that occurred right before the election. Several were exposed. Trump really got pissed off at Steele. Their suppression efforts had finally "stopped" the tapes (and Trump's people did not write "alleged" before that claim) at the last moment, and here Steele wrote about what had been a secret that Trump thought he had just buried. No wonder he cannot drop the subject.

Much RS evidence and analysis and official investigating of the topic has come forward since the initial flurry of attention the dossier received, so it has gotten little attention. At that time, no one knew of Trump's prior knowledge, the attempted and successful coverup, that Trump lied repeatedly to multiple people, that his fake alibi was soundly debunked, etc. Much of this is not mentioned at Wikipedia, and it should be.

Again, this WILL NOT go public without prior approval from other experienced editors. Like with most of my drafts, it will continue to be blocked from search engines. I do not want public attention here. That should wait until the draft is approved for publication. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Valjean, please let me suggest that you cut back on replying to other editors here (WP:BLUDGEON). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what I addressed above: "I don't want to bludgeon the process here, so I'll try to keep future answers smaller. This one explains my intentions, so they need to be understood. I'll then slow down." I just needed to make one last reassurance. Thanks for the reminder. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand the rationales for deletion - what policy-based rationale for the deletion has been proposed here? The closest one I can think of would be WP:UP#GOALS#4 (Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example, in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)), but this is manifestly not pure original research (I agree there is WP:OR in this draft) and I disagree that the material has "virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community or an encyclopedia article". Even if you totally disagree with its contents, its collection of sources is directly relevant. Draftspace has a much lower bar for quality than the mainspace and userspace drafts an even lower standard. WP:TNT is not a policy-based resolution to problems with editing, as WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD-E all prevail. Katzrockso (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Katzrockso: The rationale is our BLP policy, which, as it makes quite clear, applies to userspace. Stikkyy (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    • The problem is that no one has provided a specific and clear BLP violation in the sense of "unsourced negative information", and certainly not one that can't be fixed very easily. We are dealing with the most notable WP:PUBLICFIGURE around, and that BLP application provides him little protection at Wikipedia. So we try to avoid the basic BLP danger of "unsourced negative information". All content here is framed, sourced, and attributed. No "negative information" of any consequence is unsourced. Can we discuss whether every spot is ideally done? Of course, and any difficulties can be dealt with through normal editing. There is nothing that must be immediately removed.
    • We need other eyes here, not taking this away from where those eyes can improve the draft. A deletion of the draft is not the answer. It is better that multiple editors can work on this in userspace or draftspace, than this clearly GNG notable topic is not presented properly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• There's no deadline, but I think the weighing of PUBLICFIGURE versus BLPPRIMARY or BLPOPINION can be done in userspace. Andre🚐 05:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [ WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPGOSSIP Andre🚐 17:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)]

• Delete per Tamzin and TheTimesAreAChanging. Whatever exists here is not a salvageable encyclopaedia article in any shape or form. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Tamzin. Fails WP:UPAGE, as it's not a viable userpage draft. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per !votes above. The draft has a potentially notable core, but in its current form it raises significant policy concerns: it violates WP:BLP by giving undue prominence and detail to unverified, sensational allegations about a living person; it shows WP:NPOV issues through accusatory or suggestive tone and section framing that imply conclusions rather than neutrally describing them; it breaches WP:NOR/SYNTH by combining disparate sourced facts into an overarching narrative that is not explicitly supported by those sources; it selectively WP:CHERRYPICKs from sources in pursuit of a narrative; and it gives WP:UNDUE/COATRACK weight to broader Trump–Russia speculation (e.g., "asset", "Manchurian candidate", psychological profiling) that extends well beyond the specific rumour.
  Overall, the article reads less like a balanced encyclopaedic summary and more like an argumentative compilation. It would need substantial trimming, tighter attribution, much higher-quality sourcing, and far more neutral structure to comply with core Wikipedia policies.
  There has been ample opportunity for the issues raised over the history of this draft (including the Archive32 incarnation) to be addressed by the author. They have not been addressed. The extensive work required to bring the current version into alignment with policy is far greater than the work required to write a new article from scratch; ergo WP:TNT. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Rotary Engine: You point out some important things, and I agree with many of them. I have tried to comprehensively cover too much territory in one article, even though RS do intimately connect the alleged pee tape, kompromat (the reason the topic is at all important), and national security concerns. There is literally enough here for three articles. That's apparently too much for one article, but not too much for my own head.
  • So starting over from scratch is what I'd like to see happen, and with the help of multiple editors, not me working completely alone. I am totally open to working with others, and as I have assured above, this version will not see the light of day as an article, and any new version must first be approved by other experienced editors. You need not fear. I can be trusted. Only a totally reworked version that is approved will end up as an approved article, and it would be much smaller.
  • Unfortunately, if this draft is deleted, it will be extremely difficult to start from scratch and create a new and better article. All the sources to use are included here. Why can't the draft be kept as a background reservoir of sources? Deletion of the draft is pretty radical and unnecessary as no BLP violation has been found in the sense of "unsourced negative information". This can be fixed without deletion. Starting over from scratch is the best option, while keeping the draft as a repository of existing sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

    The draft contains unsourced negative information about living persons. Taking a paragraphs at random, it took only a few moments to find negative information about living persons in the first few paragraphs that I looked at, and to confirm that the information is not directly supported by the referenced sources. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting. The last MfD was closed, not just without anyone producing such a thing, but with an explicit statement that there were no such cases. What is the situation here? Can it be fixed by simple editing? Please provide the problem, with exact words, at User talk:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations. Let's work on it. As you know, an accusation without evidence is really bad form in any Afd, MfD, or RfC, and it doesn't help improve the draft. Remember that WP:PRESERVE still applies. Our first impulse should always be to fix rather than delete. I'd love to see you there with more examples of problems to fix. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  The closing statement at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32 is: The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It's clear the community is closely divided at this time about the appropriateness of this user page and further discussion is unlikely to lead to consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC). I don't see an explicit statement on unsourced negative information. Was there another MfD? Rotary Engine ^talk 01:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I will have to track that down. I read it a couple days ago. I will do that and return here with the exact quote. It was not in the close. In the meantime, you can provide the example of the BLP violation that you already have at your fingertips. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Here is one statement that is similar to what I'm looking for

  Leaning keep. “BLP violations” are not substantiated. Although there’s a lot there, it’s within reasonable leeway for 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years. The content is reliably sourced. It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think there was another one that was even stronger, so I'll keep looking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Here's another, but still not the best one:

  I've explained above why it's not a BLP violation (albeit a violation of NPOV), and no one has refuted what I said. Editors continuing to cite BLP are simply doing so ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'll keep looking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Here it is, and I'll bold it:

  Second, the page is NOT. BLP violation. Noting the language quoted just above, on a strict interpretation, the page is NOT an NPOV violation, because NPOV is never black and white, and it’s not being NPOV enough for mainspace does not amount to it being an NPOV violation, and also, NPOV issues are not fixed by deletion, but by editing, and better use of better sources.... —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's two strong statments in one quote. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine how well that aligns with The last MfD was closed, not just without anyone producing such a thing, but with an explicit statement that there were no such cases. I'd say most reading that would expect the explicit statement to be in the close, not in the !votes. Rotary Engine ^talk 04:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Good catch. That was a poorly written and convoluted statement. That MfD, like this one, was opened with claims of gross BLP violations. My statement should read "At the time of closure, no one had produced an example of "unsourced negative information", and some respected editors had stated there was no violation of BLP." An accusation without evidence invalidates the accusation and should require withdrawal of the accusation. Even if an example is found, just fix it. That is a situation where other editors are allowed to edit another editor's userspace. Anywhere at Wikipedia, if we find a gross violation of BLP, it should be removed or fixed immediately. Bring it to my attention and I'll be happy to fix and improve the problem. Vague and unspecific accusations are unhelpful.

  It is very clear that a draft is not expected to be complete or reliable. The official template at the top of the page says: "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." (bold added). It should not be treated as something set in stone that cannot be improved. It obviously can be improved, and I invite other editors to help with that process. That's why problematic articles are often userfied, not deleted. In draft or user space the problems can be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• This is only one example. I could go to any paragraph of the draft and have a very high probability of finding something similar. It's also taken 750+ words and more than an hour's work to explain how these sources have been synthesised to form a compound claim which is not directly supported by any of them. For one claim in one sentence. It is not reasonable to expect the community to have to expend the effort required to do this across the whole 25,000+ words of this draft. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Another pass: Pecker and Howard of the National Enquirer are known to have performed "catch and kill" operations for Trump, including knowing of hush money payments to help Trump cover up his affairs with Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, and possibly others.[92][93][94]}–at the end: and possibly others is not supported by either 92, 93, or 94, and thus fails verification, existing as unsourced negative information.

Cohen, who knew "Trump's penchant for lying",[19] did not take him at his word and acted as if the tapes could be real–penchant for lying appears to be being attributed to Cohen, when it comes from Rubin's opinion piece.

the only period when calculations indicate the alleged incident most likely could have occurred, as pointed up above, failed verification. The WaPo's article on Goldstone does not mention the pee tape.

It is true that Trump is the epitome of a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but that sword cuts both ways -- I refuse to believe that we cannot have adequate coverage of the pee tape allegations, using the highest-quality sources, without having to stoop down to opinion pieces, primary documents, and blog posts. Stikkyy (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

To understand my pessimism about the draft, I challenge the reader to find a section in the article that isn't riddled with opinion pieces, primary documents, and blog posts. If, as Valjean proposes, it is preserved as a background reservoir of sources, will it be of use to the encylopedia? Stikkyy (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding that subsection Other potentially compromising incidents that weekend contains assertions that are not directly supported by the referenced sources. There is significant synthesis of sources and significant escalation of language that is not aligned with the language used in the sources. And also interpretation which should be attributed in text, not in Wikipedia's own voice. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• History about TTAC's criticism of me that's worth looking at. @TheTimesAreAChanging: and I have history over this topic, and some of it in my archives is worth looking at. TTAC didn't start the thread, but is in there in an important way worth looking at. It's here: So I don't misrepresent you... (about the pee tape) The next item on that archive page is also about the alleged pee tape and worth reading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as a draft it does not have to satisfy criteria for articles. Contradicting some of the above statements, there is a possibility that this could become an article. I agree that most of the content should be removed before it could become an article, as there could be OR. The offending statements do appear to be attributed to sources and not stated as facts, so BLP issue is reduced. I do agree that the page should not have been moved, and the AFD should have ignored the move, and concluded whether to delete, or if userfication was a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not voting at this time - After considering this nomination from time to time in the last six days, I am not satisfied to vote either a Weak Keep or a Weak Delete, because I am annoyed at the behavior of Valjean, as I will explain, but I don't see clear evidence of BLP violations that would warrant deletion. Why on earth would an experienced editor repeatedly blank approximately 370,000 bytes and then restore the same 370,000 bytes, over and over again? He complains about bad faith editors, but it is hard to reconcile this pattern with assuming good faith by the author of this draft/article/user page? MFD is a content forum, and I don't see a specific reason to delete this thing, whatever it is, from user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think he was doing that because he didn't want people to hassle him and claim he was trying to write a "fake article" for search engines to poison the well and not have to follow the process. Which I think is manifestly not the case although he is responding to this MFD too often and should step away for a bit. Andre🚐 04:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The opening sentence of the lead says, "The Donald Trump Moscow tape and kompromat allegations refer to an unverified rumor...." WP:BLP says, "Avoid repeating gossip". So much speculation and hearsay is unhealthy for BLP material. It's unfortunate to ask an editor who's put a lot of work into this to let it go, but this can be a learning moment to pick projects carefully before starting. Valjean has been working on this article a loooong time. Here's what it looked like in August 2024. At that time, I made the same BLP objection to him that I'm making today.At about the same time (in August 2024), User:Tryptofish recommended that Valjean change the word "rumor" to "controversy" in the opening sentence, and that would have been a good move if the content could have been revised accordingly, but the opening sentence still says "rumor" because the content couldn't be improved to the point where it was anything more than that. If that hasn't been accomplished in the last two years, it's very unlikely to be accomplished ever. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - The originator of this page was in a hole, and bludgeoning when you are in a hole is a form of digging the hole. See First law of holes. After reading the Deletes and the Keeps a third time, I see the Delete arguments as stronger, and I note that the guideline to assume good faith does note that there may be situations in which good faith is exhausted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I share the concerns that Tamzin mentioned above. That TNT might be the only option for the conspiracy theory nonsense. I will also note that it looks like the author has squirreled away a copy of the sources and most of the article in case this gets deleted. The reboot should probably be deleted as well since it is a blatant attempt to bypass this process. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Before anyone takes that pejorative framing on face value, please note that Valjean has said here that the intended purpose is to keep a copy of the sources for use in some substantially different page, not for recreation of the page nominated here. "The original draft will never be used as an article, period." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I said there is a source page and a page that is recreating this article. Then I went on to say only the recreation should be deleted. I specifically did not say the sources should be deleted. PackMecEng (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  He said that he does not intend to reboot a page based on the draft being discussed in this MfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have pinged and left a clarification for @PackMecEng: here: User talk:Valjean/Sandbox/TapeTimeline#Observations for PME, but she has not responded yet. I want her to enlighten me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Still no response from PME. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)