Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bfpage/registering new users

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  redirect to Template:Welcome. Firstly, since the mfd template wasn't wrapped in noinclude tags, every new user's talk page that transcluded this template had a "this page is being considered for deletion" notice on it, which is less than ideal. Secondly, while consensus here is pretty clearly to delete the page, disruption will be minimized by first redirecting it to the standard welcome template, and then deleting it sometime later when those transclusions have been subst'ed by a bot. I'll try to remember to check up on the page in a few weeks to see if the transclusions have been corrected. Otherwise, feel free to tag it for speedy deletion G6 with a link to this MfD.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Bfpage/registering new users

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This poorly-conceived template seems to have been used by one user to spam every account being created for a brief period over seven years ago. It is clunky and unhelpful and we have literally a few dozen better welcome templates. Creating user is long-term inactive and apparently stopped using it after concerns were brought up on their talk page in September 2014. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Welcome then Delete once all the substitutions are done, Or just Delete outright if replacing these messages isn't felt to be worth the hastle.
 * What a terrible welcome template. About three quarters of the text of this is useless fluff thanking the newcomer for joining and talking about how they're going to make the world a better place, but then it's interspersed with a really nasty comment about how a lot of newbies are unwelcome spammers. The choice of links here is bizarre, WP:New editors is a useless sub-stub essay and it's slightly odd to direct newcomers to a specific person's talk page to ask questions. I also don't know why the teahouse is given as a transclusion rather than a link. I see no value in keeping this, we have more than enough welcome templates, most of which are much better thought out than this one. Luckily the creator has been transcluding it onto talk pages rather than substituting it, so we could redirect this to a better welcome template then delete it once the bot's done substituting them? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep . None of the nomination statement is a reason to delete a user subpage. Is there an ongoing problem?  Does the page provide reference of the problem that was solved?  If yes, why not archive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but blank, noting that it is a bad welcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are hundreds of transclusions, at least, many on accounts that never edited, and the circumspect Assume Bad Faith part may have already done damage, and we can never know.  Replacing the old transclusions with a better transclusion will paper over the wound but not solve the problem; better to leave the redlink, from which anyone curious can find this discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * keep - there needs to be a reason to delete a page in userspace beyond it not being so useful. If you feel it's actively harmful and bfpage returns and begins using it again, discuss it with her. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per IP. This is an extremely poor template that would be more likely to actively drive new editors away than recruit them. I agree with Rhodo's point regarding userspace having a high deletion threshold, but I believe this reaches it. Actively telling new editors that you suspect they might have bad motives is for good reason something we only do if they're persistently making detrimental edits -- there's a reason even the first-level user warnings are written assuming good faith. In general, the proliferation of welcome templates provides opportunity to consolidate them; actively net-negative welcome templates as this one should be the first priority for removal. Vaticidalprophet 05:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Actively telling new editors that you suspect they might have bad motives". I think the page is slightly more circumspect than that, but I agree that this circumspect ABF is undesirable in a welcome template.  I suggest blanking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would that cause all the transclusions of it to go blank as well? I think it would, but I'm not sure. I also think any talk page for a user with zero edits that contains only this notice could probably be speedy deleted as housekeeping, which would remove it almost entirely from anywhere outside of this subpage, that's my main concern is that there's bad advice floating around that may have discouraged some of these accounts rather than make them feel welcome, and even after all this time the possibility exists that they may log in and want to edit, and I don't want this to be the first thing they see. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Blanking the template would cause the talk pages to go blank. Deleting the template would leave the talk pages with a redlink. Redirecting the page to one of our normal welcome templates would replace the message on the talk page with a standard one, which would then run around substituting. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.