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.

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

Shortcut 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

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

Information on the process

[edit]

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

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.

Before nominating a page for deletion

[edit]

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 page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, 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 moving it into the historical archive, or 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

[edit]

• 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

XFD backlog

• v
• t
• e

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	1	44	133	178
TfD	0	0	0	54	54
MfD	0	0	0	13	13
FfD	0	0	0	6	6
RfD	0	0	0	38	38
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

[edit]

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

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:Articles for deletion/Core Education & Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Malformed AfD discussion. Article under discussion has been kept multiple times at previous AfDs; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Education & Technologies Ltd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Education & Technologies (2nd nomination). Jalen Barks (Woof) 18:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate use of a user page Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:USERPAGE. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G11 TruenoCity (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly AI-generated (according to gptzero.me) and has telltale Markdown-style bolding rather than actual wikitext bolding. Also, the one external link to amahq[.]org actually points to a parked domain. Maybe delete? I'm MfD'ing this because I don't think this is a strong enough case for CSD G15. Duckmather (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Collapse - AI slop on talk pages should be collapsed rather than deleting whole talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robert McClenon. User talk pages are usually not deleted without good reason. @Duckmather, I have collapsed the content and left a user warning. I request that you withdraw this nomination. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Robert McClenon. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 02:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and blank per WP:DELTALK. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Silly Things/Hamsteria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page about some sort of fictional region which has been lingering in project space since 2005, when it was moved here after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamsteria was closed. Since about November 2024, the page seems to have attracted a number of editors with few or no edits outside of this page, and the page has changed drastically since then.

If any other page like this were to be created nowadays, it would most likely be speedily deleted as {{db-hoax}}. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies here, specifically Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia as this page has virtually no relation to Wikipedia itself aside from being created by a user with no other edits 20 years ago who has almost certainly matured and forgotten about this page by now. and I see no reason why we should make an exception for this page just because it's been around for 20 years. Delete. Sugar Tax (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Information about Hamsterberg and population size was removed. This article no longer meets WP:NPOV. It seems that it is only being used to advertise YouTube channels based in Hamsteria. Delete this article to avoid a lawsuit by the royal family of Hamsteria. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 11:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'd be inclined to speedy this as G4, but given the time elapsed, that might be regarded as pointy. Better to have a formal discussion in which we can accurately describe this as just something somebody made up one day. If Wikipedia is a maze, this is one of the most remote dead ends. There's never been anything to preserve. Given the WP prefix, we should nuke this from orbit, just to be certain. BusterD (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misuse of project space for something unrelated to the building and maintenance of an encyclopedia, and as inappropriate web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - G4 does not apply, because a page in project space is not substantially identical to a page in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of the recent additions include photographs of living persons in a manner contrary to fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• As a potential alternative to deletion, we could roll back to a revision reflecting the original state of the page (perhaps Special:Permalink/554019770 or so, minus the image which has since been deleted) and protect to prevent further unproductive editing. But I'd be in favor of deletion; this isn't really all that funny. Omphalographer (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hamsteria approves of this alternative, so I approve as well. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the person who effectively rescued this page back in October 2007 (which I'd forgotten about until now), I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I paid it special attention while collating some April Fools' Day stuff. (Also see this earlier MFD about what was then "bad jokes and other deleted nonsense" for a bit of context; I liked some of the old pages there). Blame it on me being a dumb late-teenager at the time, or something. Now I'm older but no wiser. Graham87 (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete due to the person who moved it to BJAODN Silly Things in the first place not wanting it anymore, and unconstructive edits, although Wikipedia:Silly Things/Outtakes of What Wikipedia is not had similar issues before it was moved into Silly Things and had most unconstructive edits mass-removed or even revdelled, but the page still exists. Xeroctic (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC) Correction made at 12:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point: I moved it to "silly things", not BJAODN. If I hadn't done that, it would've eventually been deleted as a result of the BJAODN deletion discussion linked above. I'll ping the person who did move it to BJAODN though, because he's still editing. Graham87 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the blast from the past, Graham87! It's nice to see there are still a few of us old-timers doing the rounds on MfD and AfD (or VfD, as it was called until three months earlier). Owen× ☎ 00:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have archived it and the edit action on the Wayback Machine. Here:https://web.archive.org/web/20260115100738/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Silly_Things/Hamsteria and https://web.archive.org/web/20260115101155/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Silly_Things/Hamsteria&action=edit ~2026-29993-3 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could also create a additional "Hamsteria Wiki" on Fandom. ~2026-29993-3 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, I suggest making it on another wiki host (e.g. wiki.gg, Miraheze). Fandom is practically unusuable. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is Fandom practically unusuable for a Hamsteria Wiki? ~2026-29993-3 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request for a Hamsteria wiki on wiki.gg. ~2026-29993-3 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also archived the old revision linked above by Omphalographer: [1] --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to the original version. This seems to originally have been an archive of a funny (to some) deleted article, which is something that frequently happened on Wikipedia back in the day. Nowadays we don't do that anymore, but it feels like we should leave well enough alone regarding such things, as there are better uses of our time than being time-travelling party poopers. However, now it's become some sort of collaborative worldbuilding project, which fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP w.r.t. some entries. We should revert back to an earlier version of the page (such as the one Omphalographer mentioned above) and put something akin to Template:Hoax demo at the top, protecting if necessary. -insert valid name here- (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If so could we make it a WP:HOAXLIST subpage if necessary? ~2026-29993-3 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the criteria for WP:HOAXLIST as it was only in mainspace for a week. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not relevant to the goals of Wikipedia and attracts unwanted attention. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

User:SDN 2 PANGKAL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Image was recently removed on Commons, making this an otherwise empty user page which has not been edited for over 12 years. This makes it eligible for deletion. Btrs (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This makes it eligible for deletion: no it doesn't. Please see WP:DEL-REASON and WP:DELETEOTHER, and report which of the criteria this user page falls under. Incidentally, you should also mention that the only reason the image was recently removed on Commons was because you nominated it for deletion with the somewhat opaque rationale that Image only used on otherwise empty user page ... not modified since 12 years, a nomination which frankly I'm surprised was given any credence by the Commons admin who deleted it "per nomination".
  Talk about circular; there, the image had to be deleted there because the user page was unused, while here the user page should be deleted because the image is now deleted... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, Commons admins do routinely delete personal images uploaded by "users who have no constructive global contributions", typically under Commons CSD F10. A user who only edited once, in 2013, to insert an image on their user page certainly qualifies. Omphalographer (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Fortuna imperatrix mundi. An inactive user's talk page does qualify for deletion. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Contrary to the nominator, neither a userpage being blank nor the user in question being inactive are valid reasons to delete the page. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:SK #1, no valid reason for deletion. Busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the general policy here on English Wikipedia is to make it as hard as possible to delete content. The pages mentioned above always refer to "archiving" rather than delete. I am aware all delete actions on either project (here or on Commons) are merely soft deletes (because of the requirement to undelete) and will always consume disk space, regardless if they are deleted or not. But the approach on Commons is cleaner, because there unneeded clutter is hidden. Out of sight, out of mind. Too bad this policy is not echoed here. For my part, the discussion may be closed, but I won't be nominating pages for deletion again. I hope sometime in the future a (semi-automated?) cleanup of stale user pages will be performed, similar to inactive draft pages. The creation of such policy and process is up to the responsable admins here. Btrs (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Btrs: It seems odd that you would expect one project to have an identical deletion criteria as a sister project. It also seems odd that you would begin a deletion discussion here without having read the en.wp deletion policy; if you had, you would see that it clearly states, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. It is also not the case that on en.wp all delete actions ... are merely soft deletes, far from it.

I won't be nominating pages for deletion again: Until you familiarise yourself with the relevant en.wp policies and guidelines—which, going by your nomination and subsequent statement, you clearly have not done—this is for the best: doing otherwise wastes other editors' time and effort. These are every projects' most precious resources. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:53, 20 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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

The User: space page resembling an article (→WP:FAKEARTICLE), but not promising any notability. It also looks like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Apart form that, it's been created in 2011 and its author/owner has been inactive since. CiaPan (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Other than when a user is writing about themself, a user page that resembles an article is just called a userspace draft. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a deletion justification for articles, not user pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rhododendrites: I used 'indiscrimitate' as a hint that the contents is not likely to ever become an article. --CiaPan (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete editor only made two edits on Wikipedia, and then never can back. Catfurball (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Catfurball: Did you mean 'never came back'...? --CiaPan (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is correct. Catfurball (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Userspace drafts do not have an expiration date. Userspace is for experimenting and drafting without affecting the encyclopedia. That it is not extremely valuable is all the more reason to ignore it rather than create a discussion about it IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not just a userspace draft, it is a userpage draft, and those are not acceptable. They need to be moved out of userspace, or the page should be blanked. This page could have been blanked. Deletion is fine.—Alalch E. 15:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Endoheretic exoheretic/sandbox. This draft seems more appropriate in a user sandbox, regardless of whether the user is active or not. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 00:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates