Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Merging userboxes

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per WP:SNOW. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging userboxes

User guide that tries to solve a non-issue (duplicate userboxes) and creates more trouble than it's worth. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Userboxes with overlapping or even identical messages are not a problem. I suggested the creator themself nominate this for speedy deletion, but they didn't respond and have now been blocked. (And in the meantime, may I urge reversal of the merges the user made.) Yngvadottir (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course. Totally unnecessary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tag {{failed}} and Userfy to User:Tbf69/Merging userboxes. I read it as a proposal, and bad proposals should be tagged as failed, and kept for the record to avoid te same ad ideas recurring. Userfy becuase it is a sole user’s work. The fact that the user is blocked should not be a factor in the decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or just delete SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices." No, it doesn't. User should stay in their lane and maybe concentrate on improving articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Userboxes are an inherently personal part of the project, having multiple minor variations of the same userbox so that editors can choose exactly how they want their userpage to look is not an issue and does not need "solving". The instructions here are useless, being a combination of common sense (e.g. "make sure the userboxes are about the same thing") some very basic wikitext editing (how to create a redirect) and some very poor advice (e.g. don't tell the people using the userbox until you've finished the merge). At best someone following these instructions is going to end up wasting a load of time making edits that are not productive and that will upset other editors, at worse they are going to end up blocked for disruptive editing. If this page had any kind of history behind it I would agree with smokeyjoe's suggestion to preserve this in userspace, but given that it was created yesterday, no one outside the creator has linked to it and the creator has been blocked for disruptive editing as a result of following the guidance here I think deletion is the better option. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It wasn't a proposal, it was a manifesto of disruptive editing, a statement of intent. We don't need a record of how aggressively redirecting "duplicate" userboxes was seen as a bad idea. It will always be easily identified as a bad idea when it pops up in the future, and there will never be a need to reference this page and say "you remember how bad of an idea this was?" That almost resembles instruction creep via reverse example. —Alalch E. 12:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being the one who in the particular ANI thread first suggested taking this to MfD, I heartily concur. This lends nothing to the project but confusion, and was plainly nothing beyond a stalking horse set up by the now-indeffed creator. Ravenswing 17:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't userfy. This isn't a failed project, it was a 48 hour disruptive whim. DNFTT. Star Mississippi 22:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a proposal, but a pseudo-guideline written by one person whose actions following his own advice got him indeffed. In short, this is clearly contrary to WP norms, and is not an essay, e.g. providing rationale for why the norms should change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one user's failed attempt to force their personal opinion into how we handle userboxes. Shouldn't have been created, and it is unacceptable to be in project space. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the creator of this page was very disruptive. This editor also moved Wikipedia:Userboxes/Bus rapid transit to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Buses, I request that an administrator undo this edit as well. There was no need to change the name of the gallery page, the new name is way to narrow. Catfurball (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I think it is snowing. I'd close it myself, but I was the one who raised the issue at ANI so I'll leave it for someone else. This is not a real process, has no chance of becoming one, and is not something that should ever really be done. No sense in keeping it around to confuse someone in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not like we have a limited number types of userboxes, and we're running out of space... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disruptive guide created unilaterally by a disruptive editor. I'm extremely skeptical that this guide was vetted by the community. The redirects should also be deleted. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a result of one editor's disruptive editing and a solution to a non-problem. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious but firm delete - As a self-admitted inclusionist, were this in userspace, I would have !voted to keep purely on historical grounds. However, as it is in Wikipedia-space, its mere presence is disruptive due to its antithetical implications (and as many pointed out, the creator was banned for faithfully executing them). Therefore, this needs to go, and with the creator now blocked, there is no point in userfying it. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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