Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

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.

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in template deletion discussions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary essay created in 2018 by a now site banned user. There are only four "arguments" on this page, which can be merged to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions if necessary. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There is no need to hide the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tfm template considered harmful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary essay that does not represent common practice; creator was site banned in 2018. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete as the work of a banned user, part of the conduct that led to their banning. Almost harmless because only viewed approximately once every 10 days, and so almost not worth the cleanup effort. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Master Santhi Prasad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Promotional draft by a single-purpose account (or at least, single-purpose apart from a few edits in 2016). This is almost certainly also AI-generated, given bizarre markup such as enclosing urls in {{curly brackets}}. I would have nominated it for G11, but it doesn't seem obvious enough; nevertheless this page still needs to go. Somepinkdude (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I found many errors and violations in citing sources etc I used AI to correct these technical matters. But the content is valuable and it still remains un discovered as the master who is the subject of the article is not intersted in publicity. And we have no association with School of Santhi in Sweden or India or other countries. We have association with Chattampi Swami Archive Trust which also understood the importance of this masters teachings recently and tried to archive and disseminate information on his teachings. So I can remove the citations etc reformed using AI. But the thought content is orginal and those going through it can understand that it is orginal and important. Dr. R. Raman Nair (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Who is "we"? The author of this draft writes And we have no association with School of Santhi in Sweden or India or other countries. We have association with Chattampi Swami Archive Trust which also understood the importance of this masters teachings recently and tried to archive and disseminate information on his teachings. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I associate with chattampi Swami Archive. I along with two of my friends involved in Chattampi Swami Archive projects attended this masters talks during November 25 to january 2026 when the Master was in India guiding programmes at the School of Santhi centre in India (Trivandrum). The other firiends documented his talks using mobile. (approximately 150 Videos. They were not technically perfect But content is OK). Even though I wrote the article I discussed the text with them and we used the content of the video posted in you tube. We could also use the samall collection of Master's books and others on teh subject avaialble at Indian Centre. We used AI also to correct outr mistakes. We find that in this there is something unique and the master covers ares hitherto unexplored with a scientific attitude without an yblind belief. our writings may be poor. But the subject is important. Dr. R. Raman Nair (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The citations corrected using A I have also been revised. Dr. R. Raman Nair (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Playaldn6/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Alternate history again, this time falsifying the candidates and results in the 1994 Mexican general election. As usual, this kind of thing is not an acceptable use of sandbox -- and while the fake PRI and PRD candidates here are dead, the real PRI and PRD candidates that year are still alive, so it still violates WP:BLP by misrepresenting real people. And yes, yet again this was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, violating WP:USERNOCAT. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as contrary to fact, and as biographies of living persons violation. The BLP violation is not the only reason why this should be deleted, but sort of the cherry on top of a toxic ice cream concoction. It appears that the text has not been changed from the original article, and only the infobox has been changed, so this is also contradictory. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The categories would not in themselves be a reason to delete, because they can be fixed, and the nominator did fix them, but the mess should not have been there to require cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What is allowed on user pages? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Recently created page which is entirely redundant to and duplicative of Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages? and Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_not_have_in_my_user_pages?. I did initially tag this page with {{db-g3}} (as the page looked like this at the time), but it was declined. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that deletion is necessary. Please discuss the issues in the talk page. The essay is not complete. If you do believe that it does deserve deletion, please reply. Robloxguest3 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to what may i have in my user pages. I do not think we need to balkanize every concept into multiple essays. The fewer the merrier Sahib-e-Qiran 00:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i guess so... Robloxguest3 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Command line script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Move page script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScriptImporter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No need for these placeholder accounts for scripts that have never been run on enwiki and are likely to never be run on enwiki to exist, and their existence causes chaos by showing up in people's database reports for user pages of nonexistent users, like at WP:VPP#Are "users" only human editors and bots?. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There's neither contributions nor log actions assigned to any of these three usernames, so I don't think we lose anything by deleting them. (Contrast User:Maintenance script.) They don't even need to be restored if that changes, since there's global user pages on meta that'll keep these blue. But I have little sympathy for people running queries that turn up pages like this but don't know how to exclude them. —Cryptic 18:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cryptic: While they have user pages on Meta, those won't appear on other wikis because technically they don't have global accounts. For example, if you look at Special:CentralAuth/Command line script, you'll see that it doesn't have one. Perhaps a better long term fix is to file a Phabricator ticket to get global accounts for these scripts so that their global user pages will actually work. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hunh. In that case, this mfd shouldn't prevent restoring/recreating the pages if they get edits or logs before the global pages work. —Cryptic 01:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charitha sandanayake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Inappropriate use of user page Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - User page used as web host by non-contributor. This is not U6 or U7 because it is a user page and not a user subpage, but that only means that it may not be speedily deleted, and does not mean that it should not be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sometimes I find nominations like this too rushed, BITEing a newcomer who may not have internalized what exactly is appropriate tone and content for their user page. But that is not a concern here, given this CV was uploaded over 6 months ago, and the user has made no wiki-contributions since then except slight edits to the same CV. Martinp (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Deltarune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is too narrow a topic area for a portal. Readers should be directed to the Deltarune article instead. John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Whether this is actually a portal depends on how one defines 'portal'. A portal normally has a set of articles about the topic, and a method of viewing the articles. This page in portal space has 5 links to different sections of 1 article, Deltarune. That would be the lead article if there were any other articles, but this page in portal space is only a mechanism for viewing parts of an article. In 2026, through 27 January 2026, the portal had an average of 10 daily pageviews. (It will have more on 28 January and 29 January because it is being viewed by the MFD editors.) The article had an average of 1414 daily pageviews in the same period, so that the portal had 0.7% of the average daily views of the article. The portal (if it is a portal) was created on 23 December 2025, so that there is no whole month for which to provide page view statistics. This is a page in portal space that looks like a portal but provides none of the usual portal functionality, so there does not need to be any argument or discussion about whether portal functionality has been obsolete since the launch of Wikipedia. The originator of this page in portal space has a total of 14 edits, of which edit 11 was the creation of this page, after they had achieved autoconfirmed status. They have not done any maintenance on the page, but it doesn't need maintenance because it isn't really a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above. I think portals are now deprecated. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us agree with you about portals, and some of us have thought that since at least 2019. However, as became evident in 2019, some editors like portals. Creating portals is fun, at least for those editors who like portals. I have tried to understand what they thought was the value of portals. I couldn't even understand well enough to disagree reasonably, and concluded that portals may be thought to have some mystical value (and mystical beliefs are protected by freedom of religion). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are, at most, four articles directly related to the topic of this portal (Deltarune, List of Undertale and Deltarune characters, Kris (Deltarune), and Music of Deltarune) - and they are all linked from the main article. A portal is completely unnecessary. Omphalographer (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A portal specifically on Deltarune is unnecessary. It would just be redundant to the normal wiki page on Deltarune. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not necessary grapesurgeon (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of animated television series of the 2030s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:TOOSOON draft that's not going to be needed for years. This is simply a draft "list of lists", but none of the lists in this list exist yet and none are going to exist for at least another three full years, as we do not indiscriminately create TV show lists that plow this far ahead of properly sourceable firm premiere dates. Even the 2030 list is not going to exist before 2029, and as of right now even the list for this year doesn't exist yet, let alone any future year past this year.
Creating new articles is not hard enough that we would already need this to be sitting as a placeholder three full years in advance of anything in it actually being a blue link. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Ignore - Should be Rejected if submitted, but this is a useless draft, and we should Leave Useless Drafts Alone. Draft space is self-clearing. The unregistered editor is not here to contribute usefully, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wikipedia:Too soon is an essay on notability, and a lack of notability is not a valid reason to delete a draft. If this was filled with fictional entries or was being resubmitted without any improvement, those would be valid reasons to delete it. That's not the case here. This draft is bare bones and has not been submitted even once. Useless drafts should generally be left alone, and this one in particular is harmless. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have reported at WP:ANI that this list and four other lists are the playthings of four unregistered editors who are doing very little except editing these lists. I saw that as a conduct problem rather than a content problem, and MFD is a content forum. My post has been ignored at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignore, i.e. keep, per WP:LUDA. It isn't worth anyone's time to police, or debate, draftspace for useless but not actively harmful stuff. One can debate where that dividing line is, but this doesn't seem close to it. Martinp (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "policed" anything. This was left filed in mainspace categories in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT — which is disruptive and harmful in and of itself (as it requires active cleanup effort that people have to undertake daily despite the fact that it shouldn't be a thing anybody has to worry about because such things should never be happening at all), and meant that nobody had to do anything special or "police-like" to find it because it was discovered on a standard cleanup process. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jogtexan/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Muddled alternate history sandbox which copies the text of 1912 United States presidential election, but infoboxes it for the 1984 United States presidential election, as fought between a Ted Kennedy who somehow still looks like Woodrow Wilson and a James Buckley who somehow still looks like Teddy Roosevelt.
As usual, science fiction is not an appropriate use of sandbox, and while most of the people involved here are dead, Teddy Kennedy's "running mate" is still alive, so this violates WP:BLP due to false information about a living person. And also as usual, this was again left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, in violation of WP:USERNOCAT. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternate histories are incompatible with Wikipedia, even offensive to Wikipedia. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The description of this page as "muddled" is correct, and so it isn't exactly alternate history, but it isn't history, although history is muddled into it, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It also includes a BLP violation, which is not the only reason to delete it, but is a reason to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a sandbox, not a draft, but alternate history is another of the few things that should be deleted from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:A Chuck E. Cheese Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Fantasy article; not a real TV show; WP:NOTWEBHOST Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Decline or Reject, but this is MFD and not AFC. I am thinking about whether a reason for deletion from draft space has been presented. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't a Fantasy Article, its an actual TV Special, check it out on YouTube. VictoryStar3236taaidepikiwtodgro (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore per WP:NDRAFT. Draftspace is clearly not Wikipedia-proper. It serves well to contain junk. Bringing junk to MfD is counterproductive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the editor has now published a version of it in article space. This is a real thing. Whether it is notable or not is a different question. Given that there is an article, we can simply redirect the draft. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A Google search shows that this is an actual television show. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to A Chuck E. Cheese Christmas. I have not reviewed the sources of the article in depth, but have tagged the article for possible {{notability}} concerns. The article has been redacted to remove copyvio material and can be assumed now to be clean. NPP editors reviewing newly created draft articles should be aware that they should not send drafts to MFD, and that the only reason for review of new drafts is to tag drafts for speedy deletion (esp. G12 and G10). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignore or redirect to A Chuck E. Cheese Christmas: the show exists and there is now a mainspace article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chahk noct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Promotional user page. Not webhost etc - copyvio images claiming to be here deleted. Not sure what they are trying to achieve Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest me changes, Coz I am making page for my client and what information my Client is providing, I am editing and my edits are continuing to improve Chahk noct (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced biography of a living person, and as promotion and web hosting for non-contributor. The volunteer Wikipedia community cannot be expected to advise a paid editor if the paid editor has to ask for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dehari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I'm doubtful this is an appropriate place for this page to be, but I don't know if this qualifies for WP:U2 since the account technically exists, though it was created in 2016 and has no edits. At any rate, this page was created by a seemingly unrelated user and may have been (at least partially) a cut-and-paste move from a version of Draft:Dehari. Left guide (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although the draft and this user space located article are by the same author, it was not a cut and paste move. They are not the same despite being about the same village. Neither the deleted draft nor this user space article have any references at all. This user space article is not in any way significantly better than the deleted draft. If the editor would like to work some more on this as a draft they should request a refund as it was deleted WP:G7, which would then also retain the Articles for Creation log of a declined submission. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fake article in user space that should be in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kim Ju-na (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This nomination is on behalf of @~2026-53801-5. Their rationale is as follows:

Would fail WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. AfC submission were declined due to lack of a WP:RS.

I may or may not add my own !vote below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This draft was not resubmitted after it was properly rejected after repeated submission. See Drafts are not reviewed for notability. Failures of general notability, musical notability, and reliable sources are what Rejection is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We generally don't delete drafts just because of notability concerns, or because they were rejected, absent disruption. That is because they might be improved, and it is not worth community effort to parse to what extent that possibility is real in a particular case. This draft, like others, will however be administratively deleted after 6 months of no editing by G13. I would be amenable to considering deletion of a draft by G7, author request, where there were no substantive contributions by other editors, or in a case of marginal notability by subject request, but neither seems to be the case here. Martinp (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No deletion rationale. User:Chess enjoyer, please stop proxying for logged out editors giving bad deletion rationales. If someone wants seriously to get into policing others’ work, they should register and do so with accountability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, Unregistered users are allowed to request AFDs, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to request MFDs. The place to argue whether a deletion rationale is good or not is the MFD, not the MFD request. I would not deny a request unless it was obviously in bad faith, which this was not. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is about mainspace. MfD is different because we get old users, logged out, acting on some historical grudge. Logged out users in the backrooms are to be viewed with some suspicion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, unregistered users deserve an assumption of good faith just as much as you or I do. I don't know what prompted the TA to request this MFD, but we can't just assume that they had bad intentions. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users wanting to get involved in the back rooms should register, so they have accountability. If they have registered, they are violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace logged out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether registered users may proxy for unregistered users making MFD or AFD nominations with a plausible deletion rationale, please consider whether the unregistered user has presented a plausible deletion rationale. This MFD wasted community time because the unregistered editor apparently has no idea how draft space works. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. A plausible deletion rationale should be the standard for making a proxy nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a bad mfd nomination. You should take responsibility for you actions, including when proxying for someone unknown. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, and has not been resubmitted since. The are no BLP problems. Bring this to mfd was premature. Let standard AfC processes proceed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Martinp. Unless this draft gets tendentiously moved to mainspace or is used for similar disruption, we should leave it alone. Either someone will come along and improve it (unlikely, considering it was rejected) or G13 will take care of it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NDRAFT. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 06:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as withdrawn? Nominator (Chess enjoyer) has !voted Keep, effectively withdrawing the nomination. All other !votes here are keep. I'm not 100% against proxy MFD nominations for anon/temporary users -- for instance, in the case of a nonnotable BLP subject requesting delete of a draft about themselves -- but to have a deletion discussion we do need a nomination from someone who actually endorses the argument being mooted for deletion. Martinp (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's my nomination to withdraw, @Martinp, since I was only acting for someone else. And, as far as I know, you don't have to agree with the nomination request to fulfil it. Someone should probably snow close this, though. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 21:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC) ended today on 1 February 2026. 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.

Draft:John M. Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was the creator and primary author of this draft article. Guard's nomination to the Federal Judiciary has been permanently withdrawn and he was not selected for the Florida Supreme Court, but only for a lower Florida appellate court, which does not carry a presumption of notability. As this draft will likely go stale, I will go ahead and nominate for deletion, on the grounds that the subject will lack requisite notability in his upcoming role. Safiel (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a valid draft biography of a living person who may be notable, even if he does not have a presumption of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Robert McClenon above. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the spirit of G7 and as a BLP. G7 does not technically apply, since in addition to Safiel's leading role in the draft, one other user and one of more temp users have made factual additions as well as minor stylistic edits. However, there is no meaningful claim to notability. Nominations/selections that would confer notability have not gone ahead. While he has been subpoenad regarding a scandal and this is duly sourced, his role there is not major enough to warrant mentioning in our article on it. Net-net, this draft is a BLP of an individual who turns out to not be notable, where the only remarkable item is mild involvement in a scandal, and where the creator, and primary and nearly-but-not-quite exclusive author of the page is requesting deletion. There is no reason to keep this around for G13 to kick in. Martinp (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Martinp. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although technically not elegible for G7, the primary author has clearly indicated that they don't believe this will become an article. No need to keep a draft that clearly won't be worked on. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Started filling up in May 2024, now at 1.8Mb of 50+ times the same (or nearly the same) data. I'll stop nominating these for now, will probably continue in a few days or weeks if there are more of these. Fram (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I see several similar nominations for ListeriaBot pages. On this one, while it looks like the bot is active, it has stopped updating this one. Maybe that means Will (Wiki Ed) no longer needs it? It looks like the duplication issue has been going on for some time, based on User_talk:ListeriaBot#List_duplication, but it's not happening on every page. e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Portugal. Broadly more an issue for the bot board, and if the issue is widespread enough the bot should be turned off until it's fixed. If the duplication weren't happening, I would see no problem with these lists requiring deletion, but yeah we don't need endlessly multiplying lists that become unusable (if anyone intended to still use them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. I figured it out. These lists don't have {{Wikidata list end}}. User error, not bot error. In that case keep and fix (unless we hear from the creator that they don't want it anymore). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creators never noticed that the list gets added, and added, and added, and added... Highly unlikely that they actually need it. Fram (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is a Quarry query that lists all the pages that use the template {{Wikidata list}} but not {{wikidata list end}} - presumably they're all expanding to infinity. This is a fix it, not delete it issue. If any of the creators don't want them anymore, I'm fine to delete, but default to keep. Also, sort of tangentially, I would hope we would have a standard practice of turning off bot activity for userspace jobs of long-inactive users. If not, I'd be more supportive of just removing the templates from those pages and leaving them a static list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        Nope, this is a delete it, don't fix it situation, as it is clear that none of the page creators (of the ones I MFd'ed at least) checked the results after the first day or so. If they don't even look at the page, then why should we host it? Fram (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        • Because "the person who created it hasn't looked at it in a while" is not one of the deletion criteria (and nothing is gained by deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

          Why keep pages around that obviously (a shown by the evidence) have no interest to any editor, and have (as also shown) potential issues? Fixing the "append" issue still means that the bot will regularly update the page, but instead of appending it will overwrite. Why would we want to have a bot regularly update pages no one looks at? Fram (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

          As I said, I agree with turning off bot tasks in userspace of long-inactive users. Also would support the ability of other users to turn off this sort of bot in other namespaces, using some banner that says "this bot-maintained list has been deactivated as of [date]. if you want to restart the bot, [instructions]". But just a static page sitting there with no bot activity is as at worst neutral-nothing, and we need a reason to delete (not just a weakness of a keep reason). At best, someone does actually use it. It's very low stakes, and we're only adding to the amount of space/attention it takes up by having this whole additional discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

          And yet you voted to keep these for long-inactive users as well. And if you believe this takes up too much of your space and attention, there is a very simple solution... Fram (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      • See also: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ListeriaBot_duplication_issue — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a fix it issue rather than delete it. I think that I have seen that deleting the sandbox that the bot is mindlessly (because it is a bat) dumping sand into will simply cause the bot to recreate the sandbox and resume dumping sand into it. I don't know the details of what the bot is doing, but the task entry for the bot needs to be deleted, rather than deleting the file that the bot is appending to. Just deleting this file will not solve the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Offering an update here that @Guettarda helped me by updating the template code to prevent list duplication. I'll keep an eye on these pages to make sure that they stop duplicating. @Fram @Robert McClenon. I shared this comment on a few other deletion nominations, but I won't do it for all of them. All of the nominated pages have been updated with code that should stop duplication. Thanks, all. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The standing circumstances indicate that the easy fix of this fix it issue is to delete. As it stands, no easier fix is needed.—Alalch E. 16:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider possible BLP issues (this was brought up in a similar discussion) to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The bot issue has been fixed. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 13:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Qatar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This one is already above 2Mb, with the same 84K added by bot every few days. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I just said I wasn't going to follow up on these further, but then I saw this: If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only - The change is just to remove the template at the top. That would turn it into a static page. If anyone wants to resume bot edits, they can restore the template. This seems like a reasonable thing to me for cases of pages created by inactive users and such, although I think Will (Wiki Ed) indicated they may still be using these equity lists? I don't know the background. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, causing a lot of ever-accumulating crap to be created, and we are now in a position to apply an easy fix, which was already identified prior to the second purported easy fix being put forward. It is the first easy fix (deletion) that I recommend.—Alalch E. 16:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider possible BLP (this was brought up in a previous discussion) issues to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created then it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That being said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. This particular one has just existed since last August. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 19:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Created in August, 1.9Mb by now and counting (same 80K added every few days). Fram (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As it stands, of the proposed fixes, one of which is to delete, it is this fix (deleting) which appropriately and easily fixes what needs to be fixed.—Alalch E. 16:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: All of these pages had an easy fix, which User:Guettarda added to this page already. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 19:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider possible BLP issues (this was mentioned in a previous discussion) to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get then created it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Li Song/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Editor hasn't edited since 2021, but the bot keeps on appending the same 10K of data to the end of this sandbox, resulting in a 1.2Mb page by now. Fram (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I didn't bundle them all together. A sandbox for someone who hasn't edited since 2021 isn't the same as a page for an active editor and deserves separate discussion, not the same boilerplate text you post everywhere. Why would we keep a page around that required a bot edit every few days, but isn't used for anything at all? What a waste. Fram (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As it stands, the most helpful action would be to delete, which is the easy fix, as identified by the deletion nominator, with no alternative required.—Alalch E. 16:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we keep a page that requires regular bot edits, for a user who hasn't edited in years and apparently never looked at that page when it was constantly growing? The fix stops the constant growth, but still requires regular bot edits for no apparent reason at all. Fram (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I fixed the issue and stopped the bot. As elsewhere, bot errors and when to stop a bot are not deletion issues. I agree we don't need regular bot updates of lists in the userspace of inactive users, so I've removed the template that calls the bot. Now the page is just the first version of the table that will not be updated again, and the creator can restart the bot if/when they return. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Now that the bot is no longer being called, I don't see any need to delete this page. A user being inactive is not a valid reason to delete one of their subpages, and I don't see any policy violations here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Kazakhstan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only created in October and already 1.2Mb, as every few days nearly the same 80K is added at the end. Completely useless accumulation of data Fram (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, the identifier of a suitably straightforward fix -- an easy fix. Any subsequent purported easy fix is already less easy by virtue of an easy fix having been put forward and requiring less explanation.—Alalch E. 16:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider possible BLP issues (this was mentioned in a similar discussion) to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created then it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That being said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Fiji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Created in August, and since then the bot adds the same or nearly the same 67K list at the end every few days, resulting in a 1.6Mb page by now. Useless. Fram (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Deleting is a much easier fix then having to read Rhododendrites' comments to look for a less easy fix.—Alalch E. 16:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• [consider this copy/pasted to the other noms, I guess] "Delete because it's easier than fixing" is a bananas argument with no basis in the deletion policy, and both of the people who have now argued that above did so after it was already fixed by someone who obviously doesn't think they're useless. I see Explicit already deleted one of the set. As they're all basically identical cases, were all nominated because of a broken bot, all now fixed by those who created the page, and should've just been bundled in the first place, perhaps we can just get a single closure for all of them. Would be curious to see what policy rules the day. If BLP, I sort of get it (but then we would need to delete the e.g. Women in Red lists, and I don't see an appetite for doing that), but not sure how someone would see arguments like "it's easier to delete than to fix [an already fixed page]" and find consensus in favor of those arguments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This page was not fixed by the page creator... Fram (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, two people beyond the creator were interested enough to intervene. As an aside, Explicit I see you closed a few more of these as delete -- as these are functionally identical, it would be helpful if you could clarify which policy-based arguments were weighed to have consensus. Big implications for a lot more lists, and a lot more pages with bot problems that we can presumably just delete even after being fixed, or a lot more "redlists" of people which would need to be deleted for BLP reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! The creator corrected it, shows it is important!
  • They didn't.
  • Keep! Someone else corrected it, shows it is important!

  I don't think we need to waste more time on your boilerplate fallacies (never mind that you now claim "two people beyond the creator", maths?). Fram (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How many people need to use a page to deem it important? We remind hundreds of people we train every year that these pages exist as resources for new article creation. Not everyone takes us up on it, but the pageview statistics show that people use the pages. Similar to WIR, not all of the pages will receive traffic, but that's the point. They're specifically there for new article creation. Only those interested in specific topics will use them. More people will continue to use them if we decide to keep them around. The redlist tag issue was and remains an easy fix. I'm glad we know about it now. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No idea which pageviews you think prove that these pages are used, the 19 views in 2 months is basically random noise level. None of the people who supposedly used these ever noticed anything wrong with them either? Across all of them, not just this single one? Fram (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Last reply from me on this until/unless deletions don't cite any policy reason and we go to DRV (BLP being the only policy-based reason I can see across these noms, but again with some serious implications for many other lists). Here's what we have here:

  1. You mass nominated similar articles that should've been bundled, then accuse me of using a boilerplate rationale on each one?
  2. You nominated for a bot error, which should've just been speedy kept as an invalid deletion rationale.
  3. Then the bot issue was fixed, so you said it was useless. Again, "useless" is not a deletion rationale for something that has a self-evident use of identifying people to write articles about (a well-established type of list used extensively by e.g. Women in Red).
  4. In addition to the creator creating it, we have two people who either expressed interest or fixed the lists directly (Will (Wiki Ed) and Guettarda), and a whole system apparently set up around them at Wikipedia:Equity lists. We even published a signpost article focused on these lists. So even if "useless" were a deletion rationale, clearly some people want them.
  5. Now the only thing that matters is that the creator fixed it, and not other interested parties? Again, no basis in the deletion policy. But sure, "boilerplate fallacies". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I nominated some similar and some quite different articles, with some similar and some different additional issues, which you failed to notice. I nominated for bot error, clearly unused pages using resources (bot updates) for no good reason, and in some cases BLP issues. "Then the bot issue was fixed, so you said it was useless. " "Useless" was already present in my AfD nom, it's not something I added later. No idea how these pages "identify people", I guess you mean something else. The people so interested in these lists never looked at them, or they would have noticed the issue much earlier. Being featured in the signpost is meaningless. "The only thing that matters"? It was your argument, something you considered was a convincing reason, but which was false. Then apparently it suddenly didn't matter anymore whether it was the creator or someone else. You are obviously free to go to DRV, but I do hope you will present more facts and coherent arguments there than you do here. Fram (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: All of these pages had an easy fix, which User:Guettarda added to this page already. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 19:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider possible BLP issues to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/States/Oregon/WD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Clearly no one cares about this page. Nearly 2Mb large now, because every few days the bot appends the same 10K of data at the end, and has been doing this since December 2020... Fram (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been poor form to bundle this one with e.g. the equity pages, or the user sandbox, as the situation and outcome may be quite different. Which of course can't be addressed in a boilerplate keep... Anyway, if a page needs bot edits every few days, but hasn't been used since 2020, then what is the argument for actually keeping this? Wikipedia is not a free webhost for whatever someone fancied at one time, and using resources like this is wasteful. Fram (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As explained elsewhere, we need a reason to delete (which "there's a syntax error on the page" and "I don't think anybody is using it" do not qualify), not just an argument that the reason to keep is weak. The BLP concerns elsewhere aren't nothing (a result of weaker sourcing requirements on Wikidata), but they would be true of absolutely any ListeriaBot list of people, including e.g. every Women in Red list (that people do actually use). The bot issue is, again, a separate issue from deletion, and deletion is not how we solve for bot issues that can be fixed with a simple edit. FWIW I don't intend to follow up on these further. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only simple edit that can solve the issue of "bot editing page every few days for page noone looks at" is by removing the bot code and making it a static page no one looks at. And the BLP issues with other pages are more serious than with most WiR pages, as they concern medical conditions or ethnicity, not just occupations (as with most of these WiR pages). And the WiR pages get actively looked at and issues (e.g. misgendering) normally get rapidly corrected (if my experience with them is still valid), while here BLP issues get posted to enwiki and no one acts on them. Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Deleting doesn't save hard drive space, but deleting that prevents further wasting of hard drive space does in fact save hard drive space, thus coming into light as an easy fix.—Alalch E. 16:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per @Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. No it hasn't, actually, but if it does I don't see the benefit of deleting this page (BLP does not apply here, as it's just a list of newspapers), and there is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC) (Underlined added 05:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per Alalch E. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• So, first of all, @Pppery: it's fixed now, as anyone could've done in a few seconds. Has anyone actually, you know, checking with WikiProject Newspapers to see if it's true that nobody wants these? There is no policy about a minimum number of pageviews in order to retain a bot-maintained list. We have furthermore been instructed time and time again not to consider hard drive space in any decision (apart from e.g. pagesize for its implications on readers -- not its impact on memory). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left a note at the wikiproject talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates