Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	6	7
RfD	0	12	12
AfD	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

January 2, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox (6th nomination)

January 1, 2025

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islamic manuscripts

This was never a real project. One member (the creator) with only two edits days to the main page of the project and that's it. Zero talk page activity or anything else. Gonnym (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, there was never any collaboration involved in this supposed WikiProject. The work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page, but there has been no activity on the talk page. The originator is blocked, and so is unlikely to restart this supposed project. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wanted to start collaboration in this area then they'd do better to try and start a taskforce at WikiProject Islam.-- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article

This is utterly ridiculous. This is a clear attack against Donald Trump and the Republican Party. This violates the Neutral Point of View Wikipedia aims to reach on it site. It directly mocks Donald Trump and tells editors they shouldn't make articles about him. I do not understand how this was approved when clearly it was a personal bias against Trump. There are no such articles for Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or any other politician. SSCG (talk) 3:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - The nominator made an article on something minor but heavily related to Donald Trump that perfectly demonstrates this essay's efficacy just a few hours before this nomination. It's not an NPOV violation in my view, but to that point maybe a line somewhere in the essay implying that this also applies to Biden / Harris / even Elon Musk would ward off those allegations. Departure– (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to the end that Wikipedia is discouraging writing about Trump, check out Template:Donald Trump All of those articles might want to object. I also don't see any attacks against Trump in the essay, outside of the intro which are definitely moreso logic points by both pro- and anti-Trump editors rushing to make articles on the man. Departure– (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure– I can assure you that the nomination of the Trump Tower fire has nothing to do with this. I do not have a COI. I saw WP:NTRUMP and was insulted at the language they were using. It was clearly mocking him in my opinion and definetly not neutral. A more neutral way would be like "Please don't post wikipedia articles on Donald Trump about everything he does." not "Just because he did something stupid or owned the libs is not an excuse to post about him.". If I were to write that about Kamala Harris my article would be nominated for speedy deletion under violating NPOV. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close - Funny enough, I find this to be one of the most accurate Wikipedia essays ever written. I mean, Donald Trump and handshakes? Seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom. I would oppose a "biden also does this" hatnote, as people don't go rush to make articles about things Biden-related. E_F⁵ 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Project-related multi-author essay. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a pretty common style WP:notability essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "This is a clear attack against Donald Trump and the Republican Party.": the lede at the moment does indeed appear to be somewhat insulting toward Donald Trump and that could be toned down in my opinion; Wikipedia isn't Reddit, after all. However, I can't find any insults directed toward the Republican Party on that page. "This violates the Neutral Point of View": while essays obviously shouldn't be libelous, they are not required to, as far as I'm aware, be neutral. That expectation is for articles. Essays are expected to contain the "opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." "tells editors they shouldn't make articles about him.": from what I understand, the essay tries to explain why it is not wise to create articles on insignificant, random topics relating to Donald Trump, some perhaps even more insignificant than the topic of Donald Trump's hair. "I do not understand how this was approved": essays do not go through an approval process prior to being published. After they are published, they can go through the deletion process, which is the correct way to get a problematic essay deleted. "There are no such articles for Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or any other politician.": I don't think this phenomenon exists with other politicians. For instance, I can't imagine an article titled Joe Biden's hair or Kamala Harris and handshakes. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is describing a specific case of WP:NOTNEWS, it's not suggesting anything new. Seems pretty sensible. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 01:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very valid point to make and justifiable as an essay on WP:NOTINHERITED. However, my keep !vote is strongly contingent on that lede being rewritten because at the moment it seems a little WP:POV to me. I mean, just a simple lede of something like "Just because Donald Trump has done something, that doesn't mean its notable enough for an article" would be fine. There really is no need for the "esteemed" or any other sort of implication or commentary. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 30, 2024

Draft:François Rappo

This draft page is an unreferenced biography of a living person. Unreferenced biographies of living persons are an exception to the rule that drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity, because they are checked for BLP compliance. The originator has been blocked, but that is not the reason for this nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as an unreferenced BLP. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 29, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Iamsteve69420/Milton-b

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: speedy delete. Author request. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamsteve69420/Milton-b

This appears to be a page that contains only fictional information on a fictional planet. Perhaps it's used for a personal project, but it seems like it's a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation at present. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User twice attempted to blank page, but was stopped by filter 174. Perhaps they no longer want the page? Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I think that the filter logs would indicate, yes. There are some other subpages of this user that might also be worth taking a look at, though I'm having trouble figuring out how to bundle MfD nominations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have no idea how to do that either. I'm too unfocused to look up how, I usually copy code from other places. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fiction, not comparable with the purpose of Wikipedia.
User talk:Iamsteve69420#What is your purpose on Wikipedia? Was a good question and remains unanswered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Tatooine, Hoth is a fictional planet Iamsteve69420 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iamsteve69420, read WP:WAF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as U5 - See Wikipedia is not for things made up and ~~Wikipedia is not a web host~~ Wikipedia is not for web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i surrender go delete it Iamsteve69420 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to save on the web.archive.com but the host has ben saved for 10000 times, try tommorow Iamsteve69420 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is wikpedia not a web host? Iamsteve69420 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia web servers are privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for the purpose of developing encyclopedias and otherwise making knowledge available to the public. They are to be used for the web hosting of the encyclopedia, and their use for other web hosting is a misuse of privately owned servers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Roblox

WikiProject created disruptively by an editor who has subsequently been banned for disruptive creation of unsourced or copyvio articles. Progress bars don't pertain to Roblox. I submit that this is an unwanted WikiProject and can safely be deleted. I did earlier nominate for speediy deletion under WP:G6 but then reconsidered that it did not fit into the category of a technial, uncontroversial deletion, so reverted and brought it here instead. SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good idea bringing it here. I'd have declined a G6, but I do agree with the assessment above. Starting WP:WikiProject I am Napoleon! says something about any pagecreator. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The originator did not go through any of the proposal and discussion steps for new WikiProjects. It appears that the creation of new WikiProjects is on hold pending review (in which case there are no appropriate steps). This project would be a candidate for deletion even if the originator had not been blocked. Also, this page is essentially a test edit by an editor who has been blocked mostly for disruptive test edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lagomorpha

An abandoned portal about narrow topic (Portal:Animals would be enough) linked only in 5 articles in main space. Not supported by any Wikiproject. Page views in the past 30 days, 240, against 17,882 views of main article. Created in 2010, it has received recent editions, but they have maintained the portal's obsolete structure. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmaintained, little-used portal with an obsolete architecture. The portal was established in 2010 by a user who last maintained it in 2014. It had drive-by maintenance between 2018 and 2020 by two editors who have liked to do drive-by maintenance on portals because they like portals. Maybe they think that portals have some mystical value, because they have not explained what portals do that cannot be done with categories and links. The portal had an average of 7 daily pageviews in calendar 2023, as contrasted with 752 for the article Lagomorpha, and had 8 average daily pageviews in calendar 2022, as contrasted with 652 for the article. The portal was renamed in 2019, having previously been Portal: Rabbits and hares. This portal has the old architecture with subpages that are partial copies of the 16 selected articles. This means that if the selected articles are updated, the portal displays the old text of the article. This means that an extinct hare subspecies may be displayed as a critically endangered hare subspecies, or a deceased zoologist may be displayed as a living zoologist. Portals with this obsolete architecture should either be deleted or re-engineered. In view of the lack of maintenance and the lack of viewing, this portal should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 28, 2024

Wikipedia:Article creation

This article should be merged and redirected into Help:Your first article. Far fewer pages link here and it is very short; any material not found to be duplicative could be moved into that page. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there a bot that can re-thread the links? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, what do you mean by re-thread? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Help:Your first article, per nom. In the future, you can be bold and just WP:BLAR :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Help:Your first article: It's unclear what the purpose of this page is. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 10:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Plastic Man (film)

No news for this film in four years and the DCEU is officially over with the start of the DCU, therefore this is unlikely to ever be a viable article as per WP:NMFD. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I normally would lean no on deleting a draft, this one is almost surely not going to become a viable article in the near future. I'm surprised to see this was even revived, and it has not received any major edits outside of an IP since it was restored in August (the restoration nom has not edited it despite said request saying their intentions to do so). As a draft that was last deleted back in 2021, I support deletion because nothing new has come from this and is unlikely to in the near future, and this would likely just wind up back at G13 in six months anyway as a result. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, leave for G13, there is no rush. This draft has no copyright or BLP concerns, which were the reasons to worry about drafts lingering indefinitely. Someone wants to keep this alive, let them, either something will come of it, or it will be delete via G13 later. The biggest negative here is the use of MfD to curate worthless drafts, busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator and the other Delete voter have given excellent arguments why this draft should be Rejected if submitted, rather than merely declined. Drafts on future films are normally declined based on future film notability guidelines. The movie that this draft is about appears to be in some sort of development limbo. Drafts on this film were twice deleted as the work of sockpuppets. This draft has been restored at the request of a good-standing editor who is responsible for its content. If we were to decide to delete this draft, we would either have to develop guidelines for when drafts are deleted (other than by the calendar), or we would randomly delete drafts. In either case, some of them would end up being re-reviewed at DRV. There is no harm in allowing a good-standing editor to have this draft in draft space, and there would be harm in setting a precedent that drafts are sometimes deleted for lack of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we're here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Robert McClenon. Bduke (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 27, 2024

User:TCU9999/Planet Plus

The page User:TCU9999/Planet Plus is inappropriate for user space because it resembles a fully-formed Wikipedia article. It includes elements such as an infobox, headings, references, and formatting that are typical of mainspace articles. While it may be intended as a draft, user pages are not the proper place for article drafts per WP:USERPAGE & WP:FAKEARTICLE. Drafts belong in either the Draft namespace or a user sandbox.

On top of that, there are serious concerns in regards to the subject’s notability and self-advertising:

The company, Planet Plus, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Almost all of the references are primary sources (the company's website, commercial catalogs from the company site, etc.) and complete lack independent, reliable coverage. Since the subject is not notable at all and the userpage is being used to make excessive references back to the same company site and their catalog, there is no need to retain this content in any namespace at all, see WP:NOTPROMO. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but promotional content Codonified (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It’s an acceptable draft. Nominator is wrong to state “Drafts belong in either the Draft namespace or a user sandbox”. Userspace Drafts should be subpages with meaningful titles. Drafts are not required to have a foreseeable pathway to notability and mainspace. The references can be said to be a directory of primary links to porn. If the user wasn’t active, I’d support blanking or soft deletion. I suggest to the user that they blank the draft during long periods of not working on it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmokeyJoe and thank you for your input on this. You do raise reasonable points and I understand your perspective about the acceptability of userspace drafts, and appreciate the clarification that they are not required to have a foreseeable pathway to notability or mainspace. I would, however, like to expand on why I believe this particular page is problematic and why it might warrant deletion or, at the very least, movement to a more appropriate namespace:

While, yes, it is true that users can maintain drafts in their userspace, WP:FAKEARTICLE discourages content that resembles a polished article in userspace. This page, with its infobox, headings, and formatting, gives the impression of being a fully-fledged Wikipedia article, which could easily confuse readers who stumble upon it that aren't familiar with Wikipedia and the difference between a user's userspace or the Wikipedia mainspace. Moving this content to the Draft namespace or a sandbox would resolve this issue while allowing the user to continue working on it, if that is their intention (which doesn't seem to be the case) because:
It's worth noting that this userspace has not been edited since 13 March, 2021, over three years ago.
The inclusion of links primarily referencing the company's website and its commercial catalog of porngraphy raises significant WP:NOTPROMO concerns. While I understand that userspace drafts don’t necessarily need to meet notability requirements upfront, the content appears to be heavily promotional in tone and focus. It serves to advertise the company rather than establish its encyclopedic value. Retaining such content, even as a draft, sets a poor precedent. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service: WP:NOTWEBHOST.

I agree with your suggestion that the user could blank the draft during periods of inactivity, but given the extended inactivity in this case on the page, I feel that moving the page to the draft namespace or sandbox or better still outright deletion, would be a more appropriate course of action.

~~~~ Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 18:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a tag. This is a draft, and drafts may be in either draft space or in subpages in user space, and sandboxes are a type of subpage, but not the only permitted type of subpage for userspace drafts. The idea of blanking it so as not to make people think it is an article is silly when there is a template for the purpose. The user should put the {{Userspace draft}} tag on it. It's a draft. Label it as a draft, and that will solve things. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, thank you for writing and for suggesting an alternative way of going about this by adding the {{Userspace draft}} tag on it. While this could clarify the page's status as a draft, I still believe that this approach wouldn't actually fully address the broader concerns about its appropriateness or potential future use.

WP:STALEDRAFT says that userspace drafts have no expiration date and cannot be deleted solely because of their age. But, when drafts are inactive for an extended period of time such as this one, which hasn’t been edited since 13 March, 2021 (just shy of four years ago), we should evaluate its content and potential. “If the draft has no potential and is problematic even if blanked”, seeking deletion is an appropriate course of action. In this case, the combination of inactivity, promotional tone, and reliance on only primary sources strongly suggests that this content has no potential to become a valid article, even with further development.

While adding {{Userspace draft}} could clarify the page's status, this would only address surface-level concerns. It doesn't resolve the fundamental issues of promotional tone, reliance on primary sources, or namespace misuse. Blank-and-tag options, as suggested by WP:STALEDRAFT, are better suited for drafts with some potential but may have problematic content. In this case, where the issues go beyond simple formatting or neutrality concerns, deletion, in my opinion, still remains the most policy-aligned solution and I hope this may help to change your mind on keeping it. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If u delete TCU9999 Will be sad Iamsteve69420 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon. Bduke (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of the 197 Countries of the World

This is a draft made purely by one (now blocked) editor. It is also just an unfinished list that is already covered by List of sovereign states. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The cost of leaving this stupid list alone for six months is zero. It will be auto-eliminated in six months. The cost of discussing the deletion of this list is measured in minutes or hours of volunteer time. Now that we are here, if we delete it, because we are already here, we establish that we will delete useless drafts when they are brought here through mistaken good faith, and will encourage other editors to bring useless drafts here in mistaken good faith. We don't want MFD to take on the responsibility of curating useless drafts, since there are thousands of them that will auto-expire, but will create busywork if we delete them because we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Olufemi Oluyede

I created this page unknowingly that during the draft period before moving to the article space and discovered it was created by another editor which make it irrelevant again kindly assist to delete this article. Royalesignature (talk). 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tag this with WP:G7. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Olufemi Oluyede . This doesn't need speedy deletion because it can be speedily redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 26, 2024

Draft:Alphabet Lore

Definitely not notable. Speedy deletion was repeatedly avoided by very minor edits. It is time to delete this draft. Janhrach (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Draft:Alphabet Lore (web series) also exists. Janhrach (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. It is the purpose of draftspace to hold stuff like this. Bringing it to MfD is a net negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By the way, nominating a draft for deletion also restarts the six-month calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ge split by middle ring

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the other similar drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Bduke (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Script U

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The amount of community work by these MFD nominations for these Cyrillic letter drafts exceeds any work from leaving them alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. Please read the criteria for deletion again before making another XFD. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer and any future readers of this discussion: if I infer correctly from one reviewer commented on the draft itself, the edit history seems show much quacking. Are we sure this (and any other Cyrillic letter drafts whose history shows quacking) wouldn't be G13-eligible if the sockpuppeteer had abided by their block? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Script A

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:SmokeyJoe. My own guess is that a second source probably exists, which will make it a notable stub, but that is up to its authors or any other editors who make minor or major tweaks to it. Please stop ragpicking for drafts on Cyrillic letters (or other seemingly useless drafts). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bashkir Ha

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and there seems to be an effort to avoid speedy deletion for abandonment.

I also strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Effort to avoid appearance of abandonment is proof that it is not abandoned. GNG is irrelevant to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. User:Janhrach - Please stop ragpicking for drafts. If they really are abandoned, a bot will nominate them for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was just submitted for AFC review on Dec. 22nd so obviously an editor(s) are still working on it. It's not happening here but it's not misconduct to do minor edits to a draft avoid CSD G13 deletion, I've come across drafts that were created in 2019 that are still regularly edited. We allow a lot of leeway to editors working in Draft space and, as SmokeyJoe states, we don't judge drafts at MFD for GNG notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC) ended today on 2 January 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

December 5, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

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: send the talk history back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x. and then delete the remainder. Clear consensus that these revisions need to be kept in the database somewhere; less clear consensus as to at which page in particular they should live at. As a WP:BARTENDER, I am going with User talk:Vicipaedianus x, which is where the revisions were originally. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

The page now located at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT was formerly a talk page for my previous account Vicipaedianus x, so –when I created this account back in 2021– I moved it into my user space an turned it into an archive. Later, on 19 June 2023, I copy-pasted all of its content to my archive located at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, so I requested to merge the page history as well (specifically edits between February 2014 and February 2021, when it was a talk page) and the deletion of the former, but my request got declined, so I got stuck with a blanked subpage, and I started using it as a sandbox. I now remembered that –on 14 December 2023– I got told it was "not eligible for WP:U1 because at one time it was a user talk page, it may still be deleted by being listed at WP:MFD", so please, merge its history as a talk page into User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, if needed, and delete this useless duplicate turned sandbox. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this is not eligible for U1 because of its history, it is enough like a U1 that it should be deleted at the originator's request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.
Per WP:DELTALK, the edits between September 2013 and November 2020 must not be deleted no matter how many layers of obfuscation you try to use to hide that fact.

The request to history merge the talk page edits so the later edits can be deleted is valid and in my opinion should have been granted, but four other admins (including my past self) have improperly stonewalled it. Now that we're at a discussion venue rather than an individual-admin-request venue I guess we can override them and grant that request, so I support doing so.

Est. 2021's insistence in getting things done this way has grown beyond reason. They've made nine distinct requests for admin actions relating to this one sandbox, all of which were declined. My gut wants to say "Keep" out of spite. But I'm better than that.
Overall, weakly support history merge and delete, but if that's not done, strongly oppose deleting without history merging - that would set a hideous precedent that people can get their way by complaining enough. Although I guess WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#User talk pages exists, so the blatant double standard being demonstrated here will continue to exist either way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having reviewed the history in detail once, there is a strange odor to the history, and we don't want to just incinerate it to get rid of any possible dead animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split history to put the talk page revisions back in User talk:Vicipaedianus x. Moving the talk page of your past account to a subpage of your current account is totally inappropriate. Let's say I want to read the talk page of User:Vicipaedianus x, an editor for multiple years with 278 edits. How do I do that? Obfuscating the previous account's talk page is falsifying history.—Alalch E. 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alalch E.: Interesting misunderstanding, but I actually I moved the talk to my archive to be transparent about the ownership of both accounts, not to obfuscate anything. Moreover, if I didn't, people could have written onto the old talk page –without me ever noticing– and hence never got an answer. You can still read any thread posted there tho. How do you do that? User talk:Vicipaedianus x should redirect to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, after the page history is merged –as I personally requested multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  User talk:Vicipaedianus x should be archived at that root name, and you can leave a message on your old account's talk page saying that it's your old account and that messages should be left on your current account's talk page. —Alalch E. 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see why the current setup is wrong? Why is is any different from User talk:Malleus Fatuorum having been page moved to User talk:Eric Corbett, or many other instances of users being renamed? If that's what we have to do to get a consensus I can accept it, but it seems like hostile hair-splitting to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split history and send it back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x (same !vote as Alalch; different reasoning). The problem with history-merging to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0 is that the history would then be intertwined confusingly with the history already there, which goes back to 2013 and the third account Marco Antonio Sorrentino. The most logical alternative would be to put the history back with the original talk page (under the redirect), which is where I at least would expect to find it. (The archive doesn't need to have the history under it.) It's not the only solution, but it checks all the boxes and makes this mess slightly less headache-inducing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the relevant edits to this page would fix nicely in the gap between 2012 and 2021 at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0. If there were actual parallel histories I would agree with you, but I don't see them here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there are no parallel histories, and the result would not be confusing purely technically, it would still be less than the opposite of confusing for the practical purposes of looking at, reading, someone's talk tied to a particular account, and I am against joining talk histories from different accounts. —Alalch E. 11:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this going to be the Immovable Ladder of Wikipedia? Will this useless subpage outlive the encyclopedia itself? We literally delete hundreds or more pages a day, but woe betide who touches this ladder. Lmao. This is going to be very good and useful for the overall project, I guess! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2024 (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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates