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	36	36
TfD	0	4	4
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	2	3
RfD	0	28	28
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.

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]

December 29, 2024

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]
Delete or Speedy Delete as U5 - See Wikipedia is not for things made up and Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Big Four pageant winners by country footer

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: procedural close. MfD is the incorrect venue for the deletion of this template and instead should be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for Discussion. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Four pageant winners by country footer

This exists only to facilitate navigation from articles into templates, which is improper. It would be logical to navigate from one list to another, but not into a bare navigation box. In many cases the lists have been deemed to violate SYNTH, see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants and subsequent batch nominations at Special:Permalink/1036690997, Special:Permalink/1037877047, and Special:Permalink/1038545583, so we shouldn't go forward with that either. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close as Wrong Venue. This is a template, and is not a userbox template, and should be discussed at Templates for Discussion, where the editors are more familiar with the uses (and possible misuses) of templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 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.

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]

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]

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]

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

User:Vector legacy (2010)

Purely disruptive and exhibitive of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (Also makes browsers run slow loading it, good grief.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The userpage is disruptive and indicates that the user has contempt for Wikipedia's policies and behavioral norms. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Cullen328. That page is purely contemptuous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the user if he tries to bring it back in some form. Bduke (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bad joke. I don't think it is meant to show contempt, but that doesn't matter. It isn't true. The user hasn't made 8,280 edits, let alone engaged in 8,280 edit wars (in which there is no winner). If one views the user page, one can see the MFD banner, but one cannot click on the link to edit the MFD page (this MFD page), so that this MFD page has to be accessed from the MFD list. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've purged the cache for the page which, for me at least, got it from a red link to a blue one that works. Skynxnex (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there some guideline about deleting stupid pages that overwhelm browsers? If not, should there be one? We get occasional MFD nominations for pages that abuse or misuse browsers or do stupid things or make the browsers do stupid things. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a stretch, but maybe WP:SMI, specifically CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the MediaWiki interface ... making text on the page hard to read or unreadable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely disruptive, especially on mobile where the font size is so large that there is only 2 characters per line. Regarding Robert McClenon, there is a guideline about splitting oversized articles but I doubt there's anything about browser abuse. IMO, such a page could be eligible for WP:G1, WP:G3 or WP:U5 depending on the namespace and content and WP:XfD (or WP:IAR speedy-delete if it needs to go immediately) could sweep up the rest. Otherwise, if this becomes a major problem, we could propose a new speedy deletion criterion for clear browser abuse. QwertyForest (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, purely disruptive, and actively seeking editwars is immature. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: strongly agree with nom's analysis. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EC62:8D2D:7E28:E9AB (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We should not encourage edit warring on Wikipedia. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. KOLANO12 3 22:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolano123 Patent nonsense (G1) is only for writings that cannot be understood due to being gibberish or extremely confusing for reasoms unrelated to the reader's education. If I had found it first, I would have tagged it as pure vandalism (G3). The reason that I mentioned G1 in my message is because a similar effect on the browser could be achieved with patent nonsense. QwertyForest (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

December 24, 2024

User:Awilh37/Android vs. Apple

From my understanding, user essays are only allowed if they're directly about Wikipedia. You better fracking believe that a page called "Android vs. Apple" will almost never be directly about Wikipedia!

To put it more politely, this article isn't about the Android vs. Apple debate in a viewpoint that puts it into the perspective of Wikipedia (like, for example, WP:BFDI does) but rather reads like a kind of soapbox to share your opinions regarding the Android vs. Apple debate (which is what Reddit is for and not us) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an example of what userpages are not for. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We should be tolerant of weird user pages that are not actually disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Weakly. Near the edge of balance between userspace being for Wikipedia purposes, and the harm in encouraging people to police others’ userspace. SOAPiness pushes it to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Not necessarily against the purpose of Wikipedia, but not disruptive either. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 22, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Romane Dasse

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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Romane Dasse

Taking to WP:MfD as was declined WP:G11. This is your run-of-the-mill vanity page written by ChatGPT, or similar, in which every single sentence is pure promotion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and we shouldn't be allowing promotional autobiographies in draft or user space. It's also an unsourced BLP. Fundamentally, I don't see how this draft is any different from the several hundreds that are given the G11 treatment daily. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing except WP:SPS. Blatant non-neutral self-promotion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam. In my opinion, a good-faith error by the admin who declined the G11, because spam may be speedily deleted from draft space as well as user space and article space. That's why it's a G code rather than an A code. Also, unsourced biographies of living persons are deleted here, and this is an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LLM nonsense. Fail to see how G11 is irrelevant. Which admin declined it? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should not have been declined.—Alalch E. 21:54, 28 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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) ended today on 30 December 2024. 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

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]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates