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:,^[a] Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
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.

Notes

^ The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

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	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	65	65
TfD	1	45	46
MfD	1	0	1
FfD	1	16	17
RfD	0	17	17
AfD	0	4	4

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.

July 31, 2025

User:KritsanaOPS/sandbox

Userspace draft that is in Thai and does not seem to be encyclopedic; it seems to be about current infrastructure projects in Thailand and has promotional tone in some places. I can't rule out if it is LLM-generated or copy-pasted from a copyrighted government document.

The sandbox owner is a blocked sock of a user who used LLM, and at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1.2 Motorway สายบางขุนเทียน-บ้านแพ้ว และ บ้านแพ้ว –.png I raised concerns that the image seems to be AI-generated. (Several other images, probably similar in content, were deleted due to lack of licensing information.) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yoel Rak

Two different users created versions of the same BLP. This one was in draft, declined at AfD. The other at Yoel Rak is better, created in main directly but has structural problems. This one needs to be moved out of the way or deleted as the other one should probably be draftified for quality control -- the sources are incorrect, either careless editing or LLM hallucinations. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Prasat Ta Mon (Moi)

LLM-generated crap by a blocked sock of Abhichartt (talk · contribs), G5 contested twice. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsalvageable nonsense. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined, by User:Jlwoodwa, with advice to fix it and resubmit. It was not rejected. Reviewers or AfC processes should be reviewed, if this is what often happens. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete:
- It really makes very little difference whether this is kept for six months or deleted, because the submitter is blocked and this page will go away in six months.
- The reviewer did not mean that this can be fixed. The reviewer had an option to decline as LLM output, and no option to reject as LLM output. The mere fact that a reviewer declined a draft does not mean that we at MFD should agree that it should be kept. This should have been rejected, except that the option of Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia does not state our disapproval of LLM stuff.
- A consensus is developing that AI slop should be speedily deleted as G15. In the meantime, we can get into the habit of deleting AI slop. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, weak delete - probably would have been better to just wait for G13 but since we're already here might as well delete it now. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 19:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Prasat Ta Leng

Yet another AI-generated slop page created by Abhichartt (talk · contribs); the last that isn't nominated for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so bad as to need deletion, it should not have been declined in AfC review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete:
- It really makes very little difference whether this is kept for six months or deleted, because the submitter is blocked and this page will go away in six months.
- The reviewer did not mean that this can be fixed. The reviewer had an option to decline as LLM output, and no option to reject as LLM output. The mere fact that a reviewer declined a draft does not mean that we at MFD should agree that it should be kept. This should have been rejected, except that the option of Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia does not state our disapproval of LLM stuff.
- A consensus is developing that AI slop should be speedily deleted as G15. In the meantime, we can get into the habit of deleting AI slop. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theogjordie/sandbox

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=User%3ATheogjordie%2Fsandbox&rev1=&page2=Old+Alton+Bridge&rev2=914807484 Paradoctor (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of article space to user space, which is a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 30, 2025

User:Geo Swan/review/Christine Rosen

There is now an article at Christine Rosen, so this draft is no longer necessary and its creator has been banned. Jahaza (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christine Rosen. This is not exactly a Speedy Redirect, but is similar enough that the answer is the same, to point to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected it and am willing to withdraw on that basis if that's possible. I don't really know all the procuedures here at MfD vs AfD. Jahaza (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 29, 2025

Wikipedia:Project Content Gaps (Wenard Institute)

Attempt to start a WikiProject that appears never to have gotten off the ground. The project page has only been edited by one user, and that user hasn't edited in over for years. No talk page activity (apart from a recent move request from a non-participant) or other signs the project ever did anything. It appears to be connected to an external institution, so it is unlikely anyone else could revive or that there is any value in merging/redirecting it to another wikiproject page. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject is a group of editors that wants to work together. This appears to be an external organization's project, which they helpfully documented on wiki for us. See "Wenard Institute is a nonprofit organization, aiming to publish copyleft information where such information is not yet unavailable. This joint project with Wikipedia is an experiment that uses Wenard Institute’s resources to add to Wikipedia content in a few selected areas." The only editor was User:Ally at Wenard, who worked with User:凰兰时罗 and User:Eugene at Wenard (and maybe one or two others?) on the articles now in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Wenard Institute.

I think we need this page, even if Template:Wenard attribution could be subst'd or merged with a generic template, to explain what they were doing and what the license information is. But I don't think it was ever a real WikiProject; it feels more like a WP:GLAM project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not and has not been a WikiProject. It has a useful purpose, but the WikiProject was started without any sort of planning and without any sort of support from the Wikipedia community. I mostly agree with WhatamIdoing that it is a good conceptual idea, but that isn't a reason for keeping it as a WikiProject. At this point it seems more straightforward to delete it and decide how to implement it if Wenard Institute still wants to implement it, rather than figuring out what to move this page to. Not all noble ideas are ready for WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to delete this because there is Wikipedia:License information in their template, which says:

This article is based on the text donated by the Wenard Institute under CC-BY-4.0 license.

and which links to this page. If we don't have this page, then what should that link to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User css-N

The text in this userbox is almost identical to Template:User css-4, which indicates expert knowledge. The "-N" templates for programming languages have long been treated as a joke, since the "native speaker" wording is not really applicable to them. The associated categories have already been deleted multiple times — see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 12#c-Timrollpickering-2012-01-21T01:56:00.000Z-Category:User_pas-N. I believe the appropriate solution is to replace all uses with "User css-4" and either delete this template or reclassify it as a joke template, as an analogous ones (Template:User pas-N and similar in Category:Humorous user templates) still exist. Solidest (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case someone missed the title of this page, there was a previous nomination of this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User css-N. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 02:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Corkythehornetfan/Userboxes/SupportTrump

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, userbox serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree and also note not all wikipedians live in the USA! Bduke (talk)
Keep: While I sympathise with the merits of removing editor partisan politics from Wikipedia, removing a vanilla support for a sitting politician is going too far. It is more likely to cause Wikipedia harm to be accused of bias due to removing this than for allowing it. This user box mere reflects the bias of the editor, and is proper. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which word(s) meets WP:UBDIVISIVE? Can it alternatively be reworded?—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — while I don’t edit much any more (nor do I agree with the politics of said president any longer), I agree with Smokey. It’s a pretty neutral userbox, doesn’t have anything offensive (except to those who despise the man), and serves no harm. There’s no reason to delete. Corky 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Donald Trump 2020

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, userbox serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:UBX/Obama exists. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Id nom that as well LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A simple support/oppose userbox is within the current standards as it is not sufficiently divisive. I sympathize with the idea of limiting political userboxes, but do not think we should be singling out any one politician; they should go at the same time, as there is no difference between this and the rest in Category:United States politician fan user templates. Curbon7 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Donald Trump

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, userbox serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot I made that, I don't care if it gets removed but am I still able to see the edits on the userbox in my edit history if it gets removed? I still like to look back at any old edits I made whether I find it cringe or not Jerry (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerry: If the userbox is deleted, then any edits to it will be deleted as well. If you want to keep a record of them in case this gets deleted, you might want to copy them to an off-wiki page now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A simple support/oppose userbox is within the current standards as it is not sufficiently divisive. I sympathize with the idea of limiting political userboxes, but do not think we should be singling out any one politician; they should go at the same time, as there is no difference between this and the rest in Category:United States politician fan user templates. Curbon7 (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShadowDragon343/Donald Trump

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, userbox serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I forgot I made it as its been so long but given theres several others of the same thing, feel free to delete. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blitziko/Userboxes/User opposes Donald Trump

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, userbox serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 28, 2025

User:UBX/User Trump Worst President Ever

WP:UBDIVISIVE WP:POLEMIC no intelligent discussion results from rhetoric like this; just distracting. This is irrespective of the opinion expressed; I despise Trump but don't engage like this with others grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also don't like Trump, but any userboxes indicating one's political team colors are detrimental to collaboration. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casspedia/userboxes/User hates trump

WP:UBDIVISIVE WP:POLEMIC no intelligent discussion results from rhetoric like this; just distracting. This is irrespective of the opinion expressed; I despise Trump but don't engage like this with others grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unhelpful to productive collaboration. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless as the opposite userbox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOHATE Userboxes. Too negative by a long way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexysun/Counter Kamala

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, this is definitely a negative comparison that serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 19:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Violates WP:POLEMIC. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer nom, as a side note, this happened after I mentioned in the Discord that I think the entire category of Donald Trump user boxes should be nuked. I was not told to come to this MfD.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too personal. It might be ok to state the reason for opposing Kamala. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 24, 2025

User:Spectra321578/TWA/Earth/2

Useless leftover of a indefinitely/globally blocked user. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being the coprolite of a banned user is not a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you boldly unilaterally quietly blank these. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really like to perform bold, unilateral moves inside other editors' userspaces, even in a case like this one. I'm more inclined to just nominate problematic or useless stuff here, and let the community to decide. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You like to make busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I just like to avoid "Wiki-dramas" whenever possible, and staying away from other editors' userspaces is a great way to achieve that. Another great way is to refrain from doing non-admin closures and such (which I never do), and leaving that task to admins themselves... As for "busywork", obviously your and mine intepretation of that notion can be very different, and I never have a problem to agree to disagree. But please, keep in mind that we should stay civil around here, and when you describe other users' work in such a way it could look like you forgot about that. Regards, — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: I am sympathetic to your sentiment. However, this is miscellany for 'deletion' not discussion. If deletion is not a likely outcome, then alternatives should be implemented without a listing here. WP:STALEDRAFT offers great guidance on how to handle such pages. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: Thank you. I surely hear you, but I would (almost) always prefer an MfD nomination over just being bold inside of someone's userspace. Also, as we know, discussion must precede 'deletion' when something is nominated. So, discussion is a part of the process we have here. In the end, if a nomination wasn't really necessary after all, there is always an option of 'speedy keep' or something similar. It can be closed rather fast if needed. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank.: A useless worthless harmless page that has the only problem that some people look at it and think it’s a problem somehow. Blank, so that people don’t so easily come to look at it. Do not delete, administrative overhead should not be spent on harmless things in userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank if desired. No action necessary here; a vast multitude of such pages exist and running such pages through here would not be beneficial. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spectra321578/TWA/Earth

Useless leftover of a indefinitely/globally blocked user. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useless indeed, but we should not delete useless userpages of blocked users without good reason; they're indefinitely blocked, not publicly executed. This WP:TWA remnant does not meet any deletion criteria, and userspace cleanup is a typically lacking rationale. Curbon7 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Being the coprolite of a banned user is not a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank as a useless worthless thing that bothers someone. If the user is ever unblocked, they can unblank. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank if desired. No action necessary here; a vast multitude of such pages exist and running such pages through here would not be beneficial. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jorge Mendoza Yescas

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: keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jorge Mendoza Yescas

Biographical draft whose creator is persistently ignoring or flouting rules about the WP:AFC process. The attempted notability claim here, "Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix", is not an "inherently" notable role that would guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia, and would instead require evidence that he passed WP:GNG on substantial reliable source coverage and analysis about the significance of his work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to Xitter tweets, YouTube videos and other primary sources that do not constitute support for notability.
Accordingly, it has been rejected by AFC reviewers for not being properly sourced three times now, but after each rejection the creator comes back and removes all the prior decline notices, despite more than one attempt by established editors to restore them, so that it looks like a "fresh" and "clean" new submission each time.
As well, the page has also been repeatedly placed back into categories in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT. After the third time it had to be pulled out of categories back in April, I posted to their user talk page to advise them that drafts can't be in categories -- but even though they claimed at the time to understand what I said and promised not to put it back into categories again, they have proceeded to put the page back into categories again three more times since then anyway, most recently just today.
So, since they're not following the rules and the draft could never be accepted into articlespace in this state anyway, there's not much point in just continuing to patiently clean up their disruption over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the draft, but block the creator. I do not see anything inherently problematic with the draft. It may be possible that this person meets notability guidelines, and the creator has simply not shown this/does not understand how their behavior is disruptive. I noticed in the page history that others have been trying to improve the draft; they should not have it pulled out from under them just because of one person's actions. It is the editor here who is the problem, not the draft. Keep the draft for others to improve (or for G13 to get it if it doesn't) and block the creator until or unless they have shown they understand the issues. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the draft, issue warnings to the user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the draft, but partially block the originator from the draft. This will permit other editors to add sources to establish general notability. If other editors do not edit the draft, it will expire in six months. The problem is not with the draft, but with the editor. The problem is not submitting a draft that does not establish notability; that is what the AFC process is for. The problems are adding article categories after being told not to add article categories, and removing the record of reviews. Partially block the editor from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the draft, and issue the warning to the creator – as the alternative to the immediate block. If they don't change their ways, then the block will be warranted. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:45, 25 July 2025 (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 00:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC) ended today on 1 August 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.

June 18, 2025

User:YSec/sandbox

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)

Salvio giuliano

18:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user edits primarily in user space and has declined to engage in discussion about this on their user page. The nominated sandboxes are an interlinked set of pages which appear to form a hoax about a non-existent media executive named Nathan Holton and a Batman spinoff named Wayne. These could probably all be speedily deleted under WP:U5 but I thought it would be better to leave an audit trail. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, really sorry for not getting back to you on my Talk page back in October. I definitely didn't mean to completely ghost you. I think I saw your message and intended to reply, but then it just totally slipped my mind. My bad! Also, I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to be writing this here or on my Talk page, so apologies if this is the wrong spot. And yeah, I can totally confirm these pages are 100% about made-up stuff. It's all fictional characters and concepts that actually helped me through some personal struggles a few years back, and I just kept updating them for fun.

Thanks so much for not deleting everything right away; it allowed me to grab a personal backup of all the pages. I know it's fake and a clear violation of the terms, and it probably sounds silly, but the content on those pages means a lot to me, and just having a backup is a huge deal.

I'll really try my best to slowly get more active and contribute to pages in a more meaningful way. I'm just pretty slow and awkward when it comes to being social or jumping into online communities. I suppose all this will be deleted pretty soon, right? Cheers! YSec (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YSec: There are several sites online that allow you to create your own Wikis/Wikias if that helps? It could be a good idea to move them there so it can still help your mental health? ☺️ DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation and more policy-based discussion is needed before closing the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

18:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

[1] The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

[a]