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 7 disambiguation pages), Event: 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	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	31	31
TfD	12	6	18
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	1	9	10
RfD	0	33	33
AfD	0	18	18

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.

June 20, 2025

User:Thine Antique Pen/DYKcheck

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?rev1=489515090&page2=&rev2=489515907 Paradoctor (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of the main page in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2025

User:Jonnyboi0927/sandbox

Obviously a developing promotional article. In the first edit, "Link to your Spotify or YouTube" is included (then replaced later), furthermore demonstrating the promotional intent. No articles online show significance of the artist either, so it will likely be denied through AfC either way. OnlyNano^talk 20:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's promotional enough for deletion, tag G11. Otherwise, it's just a sandbox where things are allowed to be subpar and we encourage people to experiment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a G11. No evidence of notability, but drafts are not checked for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2025

Wikipedia:What's a forint?

No connection with the goals and processes of Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia.—Alalch E. 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought by the title this would be some essay about wikilinking obscure currencies or whatever, but nope. Violates Wikipedia namespace guidelines of "They should... not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." Also contains a random promotional bio of some YouTuber in the middle of it. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having encyclopedic value and very little humorous value. Userfy is a second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia due to the lack of encyclopedic value. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 02:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A transwiki to Uncyclopedia may not be viable, given its CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. CC BY-SA 4.0: "You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on [...] Adapted Material". Maybe the author could dual-license the page under both licenses. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Schützenpanzer. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above, soft redirect to Uncyclopedia. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/opinion Hello. This is Melissza1692. I created this article under my other, now abandoned, account, Kangaroologic17721. I don’t know why I decided to create this useless article. I was being just a really bored 12 year old being bored, and one average early April day, I thought “let’s create a silly article that I bet nobody will ever pay attention to because of course they won’t!” I seriously regret that. I feel like I should have really kept my impulses under more control than I did when I thought of making the article. And yes, my humour is bad. Badly bad. Sorry. I wouldn’t mind it being Uncyclopediarised, deleted, userified. Just do anything you all feel is necessary. Melissza1692 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thor Kropikson/sandbox

Per WP:STALEDRAFT #6: No potential, entirely unsourced, German language, created two years ago with two edits and untouched since, user never edited anything else. Paradoctor (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete since we are here. Could have been ignored, because no harm done by lingering in user space until January 2038. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel Larson (Internet personality)

Not much significant coverage of the subject, who falls under BLP. Any bit of reliable information I could find almost exclusively covers the bomb threats he made, which isn't nearly enough to warrant a full article... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 03:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an unsourced BLP making extremely contentious claims without citations or non-primary citations; this likely reaches the point of WP:G10. However, the nominator should note for future reference that drafts are not checked for notability at MfD. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that last point, thanks! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 08:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an entirely negative biography of a living person with no secondary sources. Also has a portion that should probably be redacted due to questionable mention of another living person, except that deletion is a form of redaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per others. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like lolcow stuff, definitely not appropriate as a BLP. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2025

Draft:EA Sports FC IOS Edition2

This draft is just a duplicate of Template:IOS and is not a plausible redirect to the template. GTrang (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is not an article draft because this is a template draft. There is no guideline about template drafts because draft space was not designed for template drafts. There is no guideline that says that we should delete this thing, but there is no reason to keep it. The benefit of keeping it is zero, and the confusion from keeping it is minimal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unsolicited advice

Not a useful addition to project space. Manifesto of an insufficiently collaborative and now indefinitely blocked editor, explaining their divergent attitudes about editing and conduct, that are contrary to the the norms and conventions of the Wikipedia community. If you find feedback, advice, and criticism controlling and demeaning, you can't participate in this encyclopedia-building collaborative project. While this is not an appropriate page for project space, I am not opposed to userfication.—Alalch E. 13:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Userfy which will move the essay into limbo, because the userspace of a banned or indeffed user is a limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator under criteria 13 of the deletion policy. The essay seeks to facilitate disruptive behaviour by silencing criticism of that behaviour. For example, the line "Editors shouldn't directing comments at specific editors about what they should and shouldn't edit, unless it concerns a policy or guideline" (emphasis added) seeks to prevent editors from citing an essay like Wikipedia:Ragpicking to criticise the form of disruptive behaviour described in that essay, on grounds that it is only an essay. It seeks to limit the scope of the guideline WP:DISRUPT to only the specific examples given in that guideline. James500 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Participation optional

Not a useful addition to project space. Redundant to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. And while it appears as if the essay would be explaining the same thing about Wikipedia as that established explanatory essay, the text quickly loses focus and becomes incoherent, as the creator is actually describing some unsatisfying experience they had as a new editor of Wikipedia with no discernible relation to Wikipedia being a voluntary service and participation being optional. —Alalch E. 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a single-author disputed essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Userfy which will move the essay into limbo, because the userspace of a banned or indeffed user is a limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. But worse than that, the statement in the essay "Going through multiple discussions just to complain about how trivial they are, is generally of no value" is completely disruptive, as it is an attempt to facilitate the disruptive time wasting frivolous MfDs that this user was blocked for (among the other things they were blocked for). Accordingly this should also be deleted under criteria 13 of the deletion policy. James500 (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2025

Wikipedia:Not a law library

I feel like the contents of this essay can just be merged with WP:NOT. Not to mention it was made by the same blocked editor that made the other essays currently on MfD. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 14:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. Basically, this adds nothing to existing policies and guidelines, namely the lead of WP:NOTREPOSITORY (which already says we are not a digital library) and criteria 3 of that policy and WP:NPS (which already tell us we don't include the full text of every statute because we are not Wikisource) and criteria 5 of WP:PRIMARY etc. The essay is badly written, and the restatement of existing policies and guidelines is not entirely accurate. But the most important problem with this essay is its excessively narrow scope, which would set a precedent for massive numbers of similar essays: We cannot have an essay for every type of library eg "not a physics library", "not a botany library", "not a cricket library", "not a morris dancing library", "not a garden gnome library" etc. A single essay on WP:Wikipedia is not a library might be acceptable if it was well written and told us something we don't already know, but this essay has reached the point of spam. James500 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This essay is actually wrong. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot contain a stub or Start-Class for every statute passed by a national legislature that has been discussed by reliable sources, and national statutes usually have been described by reliable sources. I mostly agree with the nominator and with James500, but they understate the issue. This essay is contrary to the purpose of a general encyclopedia. There is no reason not to have stubs referring to national laws. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author of this essay nominated a large number of Acts of the Parliament of England and Parliament of Great Britain for deletion, and criticism of those nominations resulted in the author losing their temper, and then their privilege of editing, so that this essay is sort of a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An encyclopedia is not a library, but an encyclopedia can and should have entries for the books in a library, including physics textbooks and botany textbooks, as well as an entry for each species of plant described in the botany textbooks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. I read the nom’s “can be merged with” as “is redundant to”. People writing essays do not get the right to influence the policy WP:NOT. As a userspace essay, there are no problems with it, and it is irrelevant that the user is blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sometimes patience is better

I'm am disputing the usefulness of this single-author essay in projectspace. There's no coherent argument. It says that blanking-and-redirecting may "make the page your editing hard to find", but the guideline about blanking-and-redirecting already says It is good practice to notify the article creator or significant contributors using {{uw-blar}} Similarly Wikipedia:Merging says: Any editor can perform a merge. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed (emphasis mine). Also, Wikipedia:Be bold § Be careful is an entire section about how sometimes "patience" is better. It might be that the creator of this essay, who is a relatively new user, had some of their articles turned into redirects and wrote about their dissatisfaction with this. —Alalch E. 11:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. James500 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete at this time. I agree with the title, but don't think that this essay provides any useful information. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The creator of this essay should have taken the advice of the title of this essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. A reasonable useressay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tag updating

Not a useful addition to projectspace. Redundant to Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and Help:Maintenance template removal. Includes sentences such as "You cannot solely rely on the tags themselves, the article content itself is relevant." —Alalch E. 10:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under criteria 5 of the deletion policy as a WP:BADFORK. James500 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Per nom. No reason to delete over Userfying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation)

Hatnote is sufficient per WP:TWOOTHER. There was no consensus to use this page at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55 § Redirects in WP:DABCOMBINE? —Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hatnotes are low quality information in the prime real estate of the page. DAB pages are better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page can be used in the hatnote to make it more concise: {{Redirect|WP:DAB}}, which yields...

P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The hatnote in WP:DAB that immediately links to MOS:DAB is more useful than what Paine Ellsworth suggests (why the extra click?), and we are not getting rid of the hatnote entirely under any scenario. This means that the page can be safely deleted, per nom.—Alalch E. 11:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because MOS:DAB "may be linked from the disambiguation hatnote if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question" (WP:1HAT), leaving only one other entry in the dab page. (Wikipedia:DAB (disambiguation) was originally created with several items, later found to be partial matches.). fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some readers find DAB pages more useful than hatnotes. When the guidelines say that a DAB page is optional, do not delete it only because a hatnote is permitted instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no incoming links; I don't nominate dabs if say there is at least a reasonable "see also" link from another dab. —Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a meta-DAB, a disambiguation page about disambiguation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 14, 2025

Draft:Lies about chemtrails, the big coverup on wikipedia

This doesn't meet any CSD but, in my view, warrants an MfD delete. WP:SOAPBOX applies in draft space and I believe that this violates WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:NOTOPINION or both. The user did submit the article through AfC as well, which I know means we should scrutinise it a bit more than if it were unsubmitted per points raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lil star(artist). I would also say that this is similar to Draft:Djanildo Vicente or Draft:We Are One: Our Nepali Roots Can Never Be Erased. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nonsense soapbox, without even any attempt at sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not exactly a hoax, but too much like one. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, for obvious reasons. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete borderline hoax/vandalism. No chance of ever becoming a plausible constructive draft. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elon Musk e Israel Robles Sánchez

Spanish language WP:NOTESSAY, appears to be some LLM drivel about nothing in particular. Strongly suspect creator is WP:NOTHERE and that this is created as promotion for the creator or their pet project. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator - There are at least three problems with this page:

This doesn't appear to be a draft encyclopedic article.
This is in Spanish (and this is the English Wikipedia), and it isn't worth translating (having machine-translated it).
This reads like it was generated by a large language model.

- I agree with the nominator about the originator, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 13, 2025

Draft:Miss Charm 2025

There is no evidence in the references that this event exists or will held. Sciencefish (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares. See Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity and Leave useless drafts alone. It's a waste of community time to review drafts if there are no urgent problems with them, and going out of one's way to nominate these at MfD risks biting new users. Leave it alone, let it expire. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bri. Although I would have preferred that Sciencefish clarify the issues in their nomination statement, it is clear from the context provided below that the draft should be deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilviaASH or, rather, not be deleted :) —Alalch E. 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale given is not valid as there might be such event but it is not yet announced when. Drafts are not deleted due to notability concerns, except maybe it has been resubmitted after a rejection. In the end, I think that this draft is rather harmless. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Generally I would agree to leave drafts alone. However this one has eaten up a lot of resources that would have gone to other more productive things, due to its apparent irresistibility to the Ky01535 sockfarm and the DevilBlack69 sockfarm. As an oh-by-the-way one of those sockfarms moved the draft to mainspace at one point, as noted here, so it isn't exactly a draft-only issue. Also, I don't think drafts automatically "expire" as suggested above, unless they are tagged as articles for creation drafts. This one is not so tagged, so this venue is the correct one to ensure expiry, and I think Sciencefish was correct in bringing the issue here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think drafts automatically "expire" as suggested above, unless they are tagged as articles for creation drafts

WP:G13 explicitly states that any page found in draft namespace that has not been edited in six months is eligible under the criterion. It says nothing about requiring draftspace pages to be tagged as such. There is such a requirement for userspace pages, but a discussion for removing that is currently ongoing at WT:CSD.

Nevertheless, now that you have given context for the issue, I have struck my original vote and support deletion. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is automatically generated, as is User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible and User:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts which list non-AfC drafts. My recollection was that only the AfC list was getting bot-tagged with {{db-g13}} but it looks like that changed around this February(?). Thanks for pointing that out. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. MfD is not a forum for examining bad drafts. All bad pages in draftspace will be managed by the G13 process. MfD is not a forum for responding to sockpuppetry, not unless requested by an SPI clerk or checkuser. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in draft space because drafts are not checked for notability. This draft has an "interesting" history . It has been in article space three times, and has been moved from article space to draft space three times, and much of the work on the article was by sockpuppets. The second and third draftifications were actually good-faith errors, and it should have been nominated for deletion. Lack of notability is a reason to delete articles, and is the main reason that they are deleted. This draft is now extended-confirmed protected,and the article title is also extended-confirmed protected, so this draft should stay in draft space unless an established editor can bring it up to general notability. Until then, ignore it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid draft, viable topic, reasonable TOOSOON content (holding such content is one of the purposes of draft space per WP:DRAFTREASON). The event, third edition of the pageant Miss Charm, is scheduled to place in November-December 2025, per the official YouTube channel (linked from the official website: https://misscharm.tv), and some national entrants have been confirmed: https://www.metro.pr/entretenimiento/2025/06/10/nicole-airem-presentan-a-la-nueva-miss-charm-puerto-rico-2025/. About G13: G13 isn't good for bringing up directly as the rationale of a deletion nomination in a full deletion process, because it's an abstracted and mechanical criterion that is totally opaque as to the supposed underlying deletion-worthy problem with the page. It's good in the speedy deletion track but isn't functional in the full discussion track. Editors should simply let admins apply G13 mechanically as they do and not concern themselves with G13.—Alalch E. 15:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 15:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC) ended today on 20 June 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 12, 2025

Talk:Progressive scan DVD player

Orphaned talk page with no discussion. Proposed for speedy deletion under CSD G8 which was contested —danhash (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep = There was an article at Progressive scan DVD player. It was then merged into DVD player. The talk page didn't have any discussion, but was available for discussion. Leave this as a historical stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the talk page of a redirect. We generally do not delete those. They may be used for discussing the redirect (though the talk page of the redirect target is almost always a more visible place to do so), and they may also be used for maintenance and tracking. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, G8 shouldn't have been applied since the main page is a redirect though it can make sense to redirect the talk page to the corresponding talk page of the target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to match the subject. G8 does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above, who said what I was already going to say. We just leave talk pages around in situations like this. Graham87 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Talk:DVD player; there's no content here and hence no need for a separate talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/Civility is optional

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legend of 14/Civility is optional

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Reasonable editors may disagree reasonably as to how to enforce civility, and we may fall short in maintaining civility, but civility is not optional. This essay is contrary to Wikipedia policy and should not be in user space or project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The author took criticism badly and left this as they slammed the door on their way out. An admin then locked the door. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you saw this, but this editor created a Project-space essay after virtually every bad interaction they've had, and these essays are practically solely targeted at the editor they had the dispute with. WP:Not a law library, WP:Stay uninvolved, WP:Unsolicited advice, and WP:Participation optional are the one's I know for sure are targeted. I would rather not say which editors are targeted for the purposes of denying attention, but some are quite obvious. WP:Sometimes patience is better, WP:Tag updating, and WP:Why does this redirect here?, may or may not be related, I do not know. Curbon7 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sarcastic or cynical userspace essays are allowed. Blocked or not, Legend of 14 is far from the first person to observe the unequal application of our civility rules. I'm not convinced that that's applicable in the case they chose to quit over, but that's beside the point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Robert McClenon. After reading the ANI thread that led to the creator's blocking, I see this as a clear-cut violation of WP:UPNOT, specifically WP:POLEMIC. This is not a substantive or useful essay; it is a personal screed from an editor who refused to listen to good-faith feedback about their editing and WP:RAGEQUIT when they didn't get their way, and insisted on blaming everyone but themselves for the consequences. Tamzin is correct regarding the observation about how the civility policy is sometimes applied unequally; however, there are other, better essays from editors in good standing on the matter, and I don't see any value to the project in retaining this one by an editor who evidently had little interest in being civil themselves. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a variation on Wikipedia:Unblockables. I don't find the essay contrary to Wikipedia policy exactly; whatever the motivations of the original author, the idea that civility is often treated as optional is well known, so commentary on that is appropriate. However, delete in this case as the essay is targeting a specific individual, probably not something we want on user essays whatever the merits of the claims. CMD (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I missed the fact that they linked to the diff of EEng's reply to them at ANI. 110% delete. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an essay, but a WP:POLEMIC rage-quit statement with a link targeting another editor. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted this, the link has been removed. Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that the page should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:POLEMIC. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I highly suggest the same for the other user essays this user created. – The Grid (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– The Grid (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing deletion of these other essays on procedural grounds. They are not the subject of this MfD. They may have issues, and some of them may need to be deleted, but other MfDs for those essays must be started separately so that editors can evaluate their worth individually. Just because we've identified one problematic page doesn't mean we need to indiscriminately nuke everything the creator has ever done. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked on WP:CIR and made these "essays" as a backhand response to the complaints they received. The user warnings essay starts off with Social disorders are a disability that affect Wikipedia contributors. They can impair Wikipedia contributors to effectively communicate in their own ways.

This is not gravedancing, it's removing WP:POINTY material that would have been removed instantly if they were posted outside of the userspace. – The Grid (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is a discussion that should be held at the appropriate location, namely: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Legend of 14/User warnings are an accessability feature. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This essay is exactly the opposite to the bullet of WP:5P, and I do agree that it falls within the WP:POLEMIC. Not quite sure why the user created stub-essays, some which I feel are unnecessary. But that is to be dealt in a case-by-case basis. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pointy complaint post. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I am not in favor of deleting the other essays. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we should leave people who are hurt alone. I've removed the link that calls out a specific editor, so I think it's fine now. We don't need to twist the knife by deleting everything in their userspace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying we need to delete everything. Or at least I think most people are not. I'm only in favor of deleting this one thing, and not solely because of the thinly veiled personal attack- that didn't help matters, but is not the reason for its nomination. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just remove the essay template and move on. Creator is indeffed. This bit of frustration is fine to have in userspace, but it doesn't really seem intended as an essay -- as an essay, I'd say it's just WP:POINT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:POINT, and as such it should be deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POINTy. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The same goes for the other essays, per The Grid. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:POINT. I agree with the comments made by Curbon7 above. James500 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates