Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFDWP: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 for you. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G7 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.
Deletions in draftspace	Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context. Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here. 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. For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
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:MFDHOWTOWP: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
t
e
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	3	104	107
TfD	4	28	32
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	8	8
RfD	0	37	37
AfD	0	6	6

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 5, 2025

Draft:Benin at the 2026 Winter Olympics

Fails WP:GNG. Benin will not participate in the 2026 Winter Olympics. Sangjinhwa (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4, 2025

User:Adisamanbek

WP:UP#NOT, would consider draftifying but there is already an existing article on this topic, Pensions in Denmark. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Total Fruit Island

See WP:NMFD. This was a web series inspired by Battle for Dream Island back when it was still niche. Considering how it's effectively "lost media", I fail to see any sources cropping up for this, and thus its inclusion on Wikipedia ever solidifying. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 22:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1960 NBA season

Putting this in Miscellany because I'm not sure where else it should go - if this is wrong please advise. I'm not sure where to put a mass deletion proposal.

This page and many like it (e.g. 1961 NBA season, 1962 NBA season... 2025 NBA season inclusive) are almost wholly useless two-outlet disambiguation pages. I say useless because they don't appear at the orphaned pages list entirely through linking to each other (they were all on it not long ago...). They are not linked in actual NBA articles, which properly pinpoint the link to the exact season where necessary (e.g. Boston Garden uses an inline link directly to 1986–87 NBA season). I'd argue they are improperly classified/tagged {{Set index article}} because in all cases there can only be two things to index. The pages simply add an unnecessary extra click-through in search engine results; and on top of that, they are all of them 50% inaccurate because in the vernacular, someone saying a single year + "season" - e.g. "Well, in the 1969 season..." they always or very nearly always mean the season for which the finals were played that year (in this case the 1968–1969 NBA season).^{[citation needed]} The long and short of it is that all of these pages should either be changed to hard redirects as described in the previous sentence (e.g. 1960 NBA season -> 1959–60 NBA season) or deleted outright. ZenSwashbuckler 20:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ZenSwashbuckler 20:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue: @Zenswashbuckler, Disambiguation pages should either be PRODed or taken to AFD, not here. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marvin Kaye Valmores

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jean Lorraine Lubong. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the third version of this probable class project. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my already duplicated !vote here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/20th Century Studios

Unnecessary deletion sorting page for an overly narrow topic that is not linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact and only consists of a single AFD from 2023. Creator has been inactive since 2022. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This deletion sorting list, like all deletion sorting lists, states that it belongs to WikiProject Deletion sorting. Has this been discussed at WikiProject Deletion sorting? Also, should it be marked historical rather than deleted?Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2013 Blairgowrie collision and the Bike Boy controversy

BLP-violating WP:POVFORK of Daniel Andrews#'Bike Boy' conspiracy theory that was almost entirely sourced to the Herald Sun, and has now been blanked. For more RS consensus on that, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_426#Reliability_of_the_Herald_Sun. It was also completely written with an LLM, but I am unsure if G15 applies here. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - LP is probably correct that G15 doesn't apply given there are no hallucinated references and no signs of LLM markup in the version prior to my blanking. However, this is an blatant BLP violation which relies on the Herald Sun for half of it's references to push a conspiracy theory about a living person. The Herald Sun has been caught out distorting facts about political rivals of the Liberal Party of Australia, which the subject Daniel Andrews—Former Victorian Premier and Labor Party Member—most definitely is. Even that aside the Herald Sun is a tabloid and it should never be used for statements of facts about living persons. Beside from the usage of the Herald Sun, there was also two instances of court documents being used in the article—a statement from a witness to a Victorian Supreme Court defamation trial and a court filing—WP:BLPPRIMARY is unequivocal in this matter stating "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." To make sure there is no misunderstanding of this policy the word "not" is deliberately bolded. Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 58#Published judicial documents where there was clear consensus in support of maintaining the current widespread understanding of BLPPRIMARY. In short this article should not exist and its writing is a large part of the reason why its author copped an indef. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The reasons stated by the nom are some of the very reasons that a draft is likely to be deleted at MfD. The creating editor is indeffed, thus unlikely to return to the draft, and it has the potential of being viewed unfavourably by people referred to in it. It is well on the way to being an attack page, if not over the boundary line. An abundance of caution might suggest it be speedily deleted as an attack page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sendator/sandbox

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?rev1=607323685&rev2=607323373 Paradoctor (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 3, 2025

User:El-Jazzy/sandbox

Abuse of the userspace as webhosting. It's a (large-language-model-generated) story. RandFreeman 21:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as web hosting. This is the same as Draft:Hakuna. This raises conduct and not here to be constructive issues about the originator, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. This could not be interpreted as a draft, but if it could it would be eligible for G3. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aila Mae Abalos

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jean Lorraine Lubong. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy and guideline cited by the nominator. This is an essay by a non-contributor on a subject that we already have an article on. This would have been eligible for U5. (You're not seing double, this is very similar to User:Jean Lorraine Lubong). Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be some sort of class project. Whatever it is, we don't need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jean Lorraine Lubong

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy and guideline cited by the nominator. This is an essay by a non-contributor on a subject that we already have an article on. This would have been eligible for U5. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be some sort of class project. Whatever it is, we don't need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Robert McClenon that this could be a class project, a similar situation to the cluster of accounts I reported at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. These are the other accounts I suspect are part of this newest project (will add as needed):

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Beemaah Cantürk

Beemaah Cantürk was moved to draft three times, and has sat unreferenced and virtually unchanged for over a year, apart from minor edits to avoid deletion G13. AfC templates have been removed without comment, and clearly there's no intention to publish this, as it would fail an AFD on notability grounds. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikishovel (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Every indication that draft workspace is being misused as a webhost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I count five moves from draft space to article space, four moves from article space back to draft space, and one A7 deletion from article space. Enough is enough. Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons, but they are deleted for misuse of draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. Enough is enough is a good summary of the situation. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hakuna

Obviously LLM-generated, and it's not even an article, it's a "story". RandFreeman 19:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as web hosting. This is the same as User:El-Jazzy/sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. If this was structured as an actual article, it would be eligible for G3. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Salt Lake City/FAQ

This FAQ page was created during an RFC on the inclusion on some additional flags in the infobox of Salt Lake City, and it was about why those flags were there. The RFC was closed with consensus to remove the flags. Therefore, I don't think this subpage is needed anymore. This may be eligible for an IAR G6, but I'm not sure, so I'm listing it here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we generally keep historical record of discussions, including RfCs and supplementary material, in this instance the whole content of this page (1 FAQ) is encompassed in the RfC's header, and no links point to this page except related to this deletion nomination. So this feels like noncontroverial cleanup, and kudos for someone thinking to do it now rather than in years when community memory is gone. Martinp (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp, no links point to this page – a slight correction: it was on Talk:Salt Lake City, but I removed it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2, 2025

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Older consolidated

Not used in almost four years and likely will never be used again. If there is a need to list backlogged copyright problems again it can be done directly on Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than on a hard to find subpage that happens to be transcluded on the main page. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 07:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has useful history of past issues, similar to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings which also isn't used anymore. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question is if we lose previous copyright investigations by deleting this page, given that copyright investigations I noticed are transcluded by year month day. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They used to not be. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is information to be lost I would agree with the comments above and below marking historical rather than deleting. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is information that will be lost. We are currently clearing up old improper claims of permission and are relying on those old listings that were manually copied to that page for a period of time. I also object to old projectspace process pages being deleted just because they're currently unused - if you look at the /NewListings page, you can see it's nowikied and marked historical. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 21:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather this be marked as historical than deleted. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Mark Historical - The only effect of deleting this would be to make its history invisible to non-admins. Is there any reason why we need to hide its history? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon. Graham87 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Observer33/sandbox

No point keeping this here as it already exist as a draft at Draft:Alternative Hypotheses. The author also has not been editing for a few months. Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 01:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A10 speedy tag was removed (by a temp user!) since not in article space. That is correct as far as rejecting that speedy. But there is no reason to (and some confusion arising from) retaining a userspace draft identical to, and probably recreated as a misunderstanding of, a draft moved to draftspace. Martinp (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's a sandbox. Sandboxen do not need to be deleted unless they contain seriously problematic material such as BLP violations, What Wikipedia is Not violations, or other troublesome material. This is only a fragment, and does not need deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author removed my redirect tag to the draft page, which contains similar content. Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, its going to be deleted anyways after 6 months. Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 00:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally tend to agree with Robert (and others) on not interfering with users' sandboxes, absent them being really objectionable. I was swayed to Delete in this instance since I interpret the author's reinstatement of the original text, essentially duplicated from the draftspace version, over your redirect as a mark of inexperience and confusion, rather than passive-aggressive disagreement with you. So I'm !voting Delete here purely as administrative clean-up of confused duplication. That said, part of the reason we let user sandboxes be, and let 6 months inactivity take care of Drafts that get abandoned, is that it's generally somewhere between a waste of time and an unnecessary microagression to be deleting this kind of stuff. Users come, try something, often depart. Abandoned stuff in Drafts gets recycled, and abandoned stuff in userspace is (generally) harmless. Martinp (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1, 2025

Draft:IBM System/23

Procedural nomination. This was tagged in September for RFD, despite not being a redirect -- and the RFD tagger (who was also the page creator) did that incorrectly, so that it never actually got added to the RFD queue at all, and was still sitting in an RFD error-catcher category today, as it never got dealt with either way. Their rationale was that "The draft contents have already been ported to the article itself and this is only consuming disk space", for what it's worth -- I have no opinion on whether that's a valid reason to delete it or not, and am simply acting to fix an unresolved four-month-old mistake. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IBM System/23 Datamaster. Something strange appears to have happened here - the original enwiki article IBM System/23 Datamaster was created in 2004; that article was translated to Catalan in April 2025 (as ca:IBM System/23 Datamaster), and this draft was created in August 2025 by translating the Catalan article back into English. Omphalographer (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IBM System/23 Datamaster. The existence of an article is not a reason to delete a draft, but it is a reason to redirect a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IBM System/23 Datamaster per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BobT34655

Used as a sandbox. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the nominator says, this user page is being used as a sandbox. I have looked for, and not found, a guideline against the use of a user page as a sandbox. I don't see a guideline that would imply that this use is improper. I don't see any policy difference between a user page and a sandbox in user space (where sandboxen are). Does the nominator want to explain why this is improper? Otherwise a trout may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:BobT34655/sandbox. This new-ish user seems to have good intent, but have had some difficulty editing productively in mainspace. They seem to have internalized feedback given and are now trying out stuff in their userspace. It is true that it would be better to do so in a sandbox that in their actual user page, but let's not beat them up more for sorta doing what we want them to do, if imperfectly, when we can just as easily just fix it. Martinp (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29, 2025

Draft:Bharath Madhugadh

Draft written in a mix between some foreign language and English. Seems to potentially be LLM-generated as well. GrinningIodize (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. The purpose of draftspace is to keep low quality stuff contained, and bringing this to MfD is contrary to that purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Leave Useless Drafts Alone so that they will expire in six months. If you have evidence that this is unreviewed LLM output, that can be a basis for G15. None of the other criteria for speedy deletion are likely to apply to something that English-literate readers can't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore. Harmless draft; draft processes will take care of it as needed. Martinp (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 28, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Samreet groups

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samreet groups

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — ERcheck (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drm310. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 30 November 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.

Draft:Disney Legacy Animated Film Collection

Should have been A10'd (for Lists of films released by Disney), not moved to draftspace. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article cited by the nominator, Lists of films released by Disney, is a list of lists. This draft is a candidate to be included in that list of lists, except that it has no references. It should be kept in draft space until references are added, and then promoted to article space, and added to the list of lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Time Reborn

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Time Reborn

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Appears to be a class project, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the others, listed below through User: Savi Tiwarna. Whatever is going on here, the purpose does not seem related to building an encyclopedia, and the lack of response by the contributors to any of these nominations makes it less likely this is someone finding their sea-legs with confused but encyclopedic intent. Martinp (talk) 23:55, 1 December 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ridhamverma1234

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ridhamverma1234

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Harjinder69

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harjinder69

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Appears to be a class project, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mankirt group

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mankirt group

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my opinion, these nominations could have been bundled. However, many experienced editors have never had the unpleasant responsibility of having to learn how to bundle nominations, and bundling is not done by Twinkle. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Randeepmaan490

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. ✗plicit 14:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randeepmaan490

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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 04:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC) ended today on 5 December 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.

November 26, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana

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. CoconutOctopus talk 18:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Savi Tiwana

WP:NOTWEBHOST content. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete User:Savi Tiwana/sandbox too, the same thing. Clear NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also appears to be AI-generated (90.76% ZeroGPT score). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I have tagged the sandbox. This would have been U5 before U5 was revised, but it still should be deleted. This appears to be some sort of promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a school project, judging by the section listing group members at the bottom of the page. This is more common than one might think. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are not the only ones, it seems. Look at these userpages as well:

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:ChildrenWillListen - You wrote: This is more common than one might think. Did you mean that there are other such school projects, or that there were other participants in this project? I see that you have nominated the other participants in this project? If there are other such projects, please nominate them if you know about them, or provide information. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other such school projects, yes. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1202 § Class project users and inappropriate userspace pages, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pashayat Jitendra/Archive, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pruthviraj Ranjane/Archive are some examples. I'm not sure if chasing them down is worth our time. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Class projects, whose instructors are either uninformed or ill-informed about Wikipedia, seem to recur at regular intervals. The students, of course, blindly follow the instructor's directions without question. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with class projects to create Wikipedia articles, in which the instructor may set unreasonable terms, such as a date for acceptance of the article into the encyclopedia. These projects are problematic, but are consistent with the purpose and concept of Wikipedia. This is a more serious problem because this class project is not about the encyclopedia. It apparently is just using Wikipedia as a web server, and there is a policy against that, in Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lot of users involved in those rogue projects. Ugh. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 November 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.

November 25, 2025

User:Rager7/sandbox/draft2

WP:FAKEARTICLE with potentially highly offensive word substitutions, like "Is real" for "Israel" and "imagination" for "immigration". Not to mention that it's some weird sort of alternative/wished-for history, or something. Not what userspace is for, at any rate. Graham87 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not trying to do alternate history or anything like that. Those are just typos. Rager7 (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do, then? Graham87 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to compile a period of time (in this case a series of wars) in Middle Eastern history into one article, that's all. Typos and mistakes are bound to happen. Rager7 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the article Arab–Israeli conflict, which serves that purpose quite nicely. Graham87 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I'm trying to go more in depth and be specific. Like the article Arab–Israeli conflict is more about the general long term conflict. While I'm trying to explain more about the four major wars within the overall conflict. Does that make sense? Rager7 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me it doesn't. I'll leave others to comment further. Graham87 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recognize this is a very sensitive topic area, where unusual contributions provoke some concern. But I start from a presumption of significant latitude for potentially encyclopedia-related userspace sandbox content by a long-term, varied-topic editor. @Graham87:, can you elaborate what you found "potentially highly offensive"? I wasn't highly offended by anything based on a quick glance, and I hesitate to censor based on potentiality of offensiveness and second-guessing what some other editor might or might not find useful for their editing. But I'm also aware that some of these long-term contentious editing conflicts use coded language that those of us outside do not immediately recognize. Martinp (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Martinp: FWIW this was how the page was when it was nominated for deletion, with the incorrect words that I noted (not all have been fixed; and I honestly don't know what to think of the user's explanation, but autocorrect can be interesting). I barely edit in the topic area either. But stuff like "Israel for the most part have [sic] now cordial relations with the neighboring Arab countries despite past grievances" is flatly contradicted by the fact that both Lebanon and Syria, two countries that border Israel, don't recognise it, along with the very next sentence in the user page, "Relations are still tense despite the various peace deals and agreements.". The whole thing feels like an ill-thought-out mishmash of ideas that will be of little use to anyone and ignores Israel's incursions into universally recognised Arab sovereign states like the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Re the "potentially encyclopedia-related userspace sandbox content by a long-term, varied-topic editor" bit, I don't think this user has the bredth or depth of experience to overhaul a topic area like that; but then again, neither do I. I'd feel differently if the author was a recognised subject matter expert and/or had a strong reputation among editors in the topic area, but I don't think we have that here. Graham87 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The part where I wrote: "Israel for the most part have [sic] now cordial relations with the neighboring Arab countries despite past grievances" are place holders. Obviously, that's not accurate. After all, I will change it later on when I have better information to put down. Rager7 (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hmmm, there is the [[Arab–Israeli War disambiguation page (created relatively late in Wikipedia's history, in 2014) and this American University source seems to describe the early history of the Israel-Arab conflict this way. But my question is: would anyone else actually find a page like this in article space useful? To me it feels like a page on, say, World War I or World War II that only focuses on a few of the major battles/events. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive. Graham87 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Graham87 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re applying too high a bar in asking “could this as-is be useful in article space”. It’s a user sandbox. So I think the bar is more “could this be useful to this user in eventually making edits in article space”. And I’m disinclined to second guess that, absent actual disruption. There’s enough preamble on the subject age that it can’t be mistaken for an actual article.

As to factual accuracy, meh. If a sandbox claims the world population of kangaroos is 5 billion, I may have grave doubts about it, but I won’t advocate deleting the sandbox as a result (I’d ask for a source if put in article space though). I realize this is an oversimplification given the contentious area here but I think we just don’t need to police user sandboxes like this absent a real problem. Martinp (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we already have Arab–Israeli conflict which does the same thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep in the absence of a more specific reason by the nominator - This should be treated as a draft, and drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. However, this is not a draft that we need, because the article already exists. I will ask the usual annoying question, and that is why the nominator is reviewing user sandboxen. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this user page while briefly checking the creating user's contributions (their latest edit was to the nominated page at the time) and the combination of the unusual word usage, the odd-seeming slant/scope, and the controversial topic area prompted me to bring this user page here. Perhaps talking to the user about it (or consulting privately about what to do, as I was thinking of doing) might have been a better idea. I didn't think this was relevant enough to mention in the nomination statement but I have quite a fraught history with the user who created the page, which also led me to wonder whether views of it from other people besides me would be helpful. I don't usually patrol user pages and have no intentions of doing so in the future, either for this user or in general. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Blunt comment: Either your concern with this page is somehow related to your recent involvement with the arbitration motion related to this user (that you have now linked to above). In that case, that is a germane part of the discussion and it is impossible to evaluate whether intervention is needed without more context.
  
  Or it is not related. In that case, I would strongly suggest you avoid this type of investigation of users' edits and their own userspaces in particular, and especially of users with whom you already "have a fraught history". While ostensibly your failed re-RFA (I'm hoping you don't mind me linking to it here, given your own link under "fraught history" above leads to it) was about overzealous blocks, the underlying issue was a pattern where based on a minor issue, you made exaggeratedly negative interpretations of a user's editing pattern and intentions, and rushed into action on that basis. That pattern seems to have been repeated here, where for some reason something about this user's actions attracted your attention, and you've jumped to the most negative possible interpretation of their other edits.
  
  Reading between the lines in the discussion here, you're getting lukewarm agreement from all 3 uninvolved editors that we don't really see what usefulness this page brings. But that's not a standard we generally apply to deleting userspace sandboxes; it's whether the creator finds them useful that matters, absent some other major problem. You're getting pushback from me on why you find this page offensive (frankly, it seems to me a pretty strong failure of AGF to take a few typos and interpret them as a "highly offensive word substitution", absent some other evidence) and from Robert why you're poking around and making judgments about user sandboxes in the first place. And you're getting loud silence from others, who probably (I may be wrong) find your nomination unusual but scroll on, figuring there must be something they don't know about the situation.
  
  En.wp is a big community. If something feels questionable about a situation, one where you think your judgment might be off, it's a good idea to get a second opinion. Or if marginal, just let it be, since if it is a real problem, someone else will deal with it eventually. Nominating a page in someone's userspace for deletion is an aggressive act, less severe but similar to blocking them. Don't do it where in situations where you have a history with someone that might be impairing your judgment. Martinp (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Points well-taken; I don't mind the link at all ... it's part of Wikipedia's history. In this case, I just wanted to see what Rager7 was up to; my concern was not related to the arbitration motion. As for my comments about not patrolling userspace, just so they're not taken out of context, I think it's worth noting that I've since started doing so to prevent pages from being deleted due to bot-tagging, but that will almost certainly never bother MFD. Graham87 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 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]