Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ~2025-34140-84 (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 22 November 2025 (Repealed. I did not explicity state that I wanted my userpage gone.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS:,[a] Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XFD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Notes

  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

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 9 39 48
TfD 0 0 6 15 21
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 5 5
RfD 0 0 0 27 27
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

November 20, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cricket in 1732
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy redirect to 1732 English cricket season. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cricket in 1732

Draft:Cricket in 1732 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Delete. This is no longer needed as it is a WP:DUP of 1732 English cricket season. The latter's name complies with established convention. Thanks, Jack (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:3achmadfauzi/FZ3
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. G11 speedy-deleted by BusterD. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:3achmadfauzi/FZ3

User:3achmadfauzi/FZ3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

CSD was rejected as 'not spam' but this is clearly self-promotion, listing here for further discussion. JeffUK 08:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 19, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharmaakhil182223/Sample page
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sharmaakhil182223/Sample page

User:Sharmaakhil182223/Sample page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, would've been eligible for CSD U5 but alas, that's no more. Blanked twice, reverted each time. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted as G11. I'm also bewildered why the advice on clear U5s is to "in most cases, [do] nothing" (and then wait six months for a bot to deal with it). As an alternative, that advice encourages users to look for other valid deletion criteria. In this case, the userdraft (from a user with no other edits), is clearly promoting a book. This is not a good faith userdraft. BusterD (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agentdoge/sandbox/Galveston Island ghost wolves
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily deleted U1. Whpq (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agentdoge/sandbox/Galveston Island ghost wolves

User:Agentdoge/sandbox/Galveston Island ghost wolves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:U1 This article now exists at Galveston Island coyote. Agentdoge (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Die hard fans
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. This nomination has no reasonable prospect of success. We do not delete drafts at MfD for contravening policies and guidelines that only apply to article-space such as WP:N and WP:NOTDICT. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Die hard fans

Draft:Die hard fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The odds are one in a million that this will ever be published into a mainspace article. There could be a way to publish and redirect somewhere appropriate, but the odds are there will be no reliable sources to merge or create content and redirect. And WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Search results could also give a better overview anyways. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would already have been deleted if you hadn't tagged it. Leave it be for six months and it will be. Star Mississippi 03:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ohyeainfo/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohyeainfo/sandbox

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, no reason for these NSFW (not safe for work, or pornographic) images to exist together in a sandbox, and was created as the first and only edit by the editor. cyberdog958Talk 02:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's porn for Christ's sake, surely this should be gone immediately?. GarethBaloney (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GarethBaloney, see Wikipedia:User pages#Images that would bring the project into disrepute for your answer. Howvever, since we're now at MFD, I don't think anything should be removed until this discussion is closed. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a page created not for the benefit of the project, by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its hard core p*rn shane (talk to me if you want!) 22:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 18, 2025

Draft:Joey Primiani

Draft:Joey Primiani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

In mainspace, it's got nine substantive deletions I can find among Joseph Primiani, Joey Primiani, and Joseph C. Primiani (and a handful more A1's and redirects), with afds at the first two titles and an overly-optimistic DRV for the second. More to the point, between this title and Draft:Joey Primiani (2), it's been submitted at least eight times, G13'd eleven times, and credulously restored seven times without appreciable improvement. We've been hosting this person's resume - sometimes glorified, as at present, sometimes quite literally - since he was an 18-year-old college student in 2006. Enough. —Cryptic 05:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 17, 2025

User:Kerville9/sandbox

User:Kerville9/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Another fantasy version of List of presidents of the United States but with the 46th and 47th president changed, with the page mixed with sections from Mass shootings in the United States. This page seems to be the creator's exclusive editing interest, so they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Creator has been inactive for almost a year now, however, the page continues to be edited by several users and IPs I suspect are sockpuppets of the creator. TruenoCity (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sella Sanjani

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, content already repeated in user's sandbox Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also not in English. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not voting at this time until I review the user page policy as to whether draft articles are permitted. Machine translation shows that this is a draft article in Indonesian about gambling machines that will not be accepted because it has no references, but should not be deleted from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading the user page policy, my interpretation is that there is no explicit rule against a user page that is a copy of a non-English sandbox, but that that runs against the apparent intent of the guidelines, and MFD should use common sense as to the intent of the guidelines. The originator of this user page is a recently active user, and I will reconsider my vote if the originator provides an explanation, in English, of why they should have this user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For me, this sounds like a gambling promotion. Edit: after considering the content, this may not be promotional, but I still support deletion because it is redundant with the user's sandbox. Penyuwangi (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this location, as noncontroversial cleanup . User is new and clearly finding their way. This is one of their only 2 edits so far. The other pasted exactly the same text at User:Sella Sanjani/sandbox, which is a better location for it and keep it there. The text itself, after machine translation, isn't promotional or otherwise objectionable, and could plausibly be used to edit articles on gambling machines on en.wp, though of course such editing will need to follow our guidelines. Martinp (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G11 (including the sandbox). To me, this looks like typical SEO spam, likely AI-generated. It conveniently namedrops whatever "RESMI777" is multiple times throughout in a way that does not suggest the typical practice of providing examples (notice that the text names no other gambling companies?); the absence of an external link is likely an artifact of the AI-generation process (I see some AI slop drafts with "See Also" sections without links at all, as well as citations without any links even if they are available online either). It is worth noting that the user is blocked on Wikidata for being a "promotion only account" and has triggered edit filters related to "Wrong language spam" (I can't view them in detail as I'm not autoconfirmed), so this user should probably be globally blocked for cross-wiki spam. OutsideNormality (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 16, 2025

Draft:Windows 12

Draft:Windows 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
All prior XfDs for this page:


All prior XfDs for this page:

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, also been rejected more times than I can care to count. Tankishguy 15:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lesmtu

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, content repeated at Draft:Space Food for Interstellar Missions and the Gummy‐Dried Ration Concept Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not allowed as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. This and the draft (same thing) also read like an AI-generated text to me. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Uruguay at the 2026 Winter Olympics

Draft:Uruguay at the 2026 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Uruguay at the 2026 Winter Olympics already exists and is more detailed than this draft and better sourced. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the histories and then delete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 15, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2025–26 ISU Speed Skating World Cup 1
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Cannot be deleted. per Cryptic. Redirect has already been implemented, so speedily closing this. Star Mississippi 00:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025–26 ISU Speed Skating World Cup 1

Draft:2025–26 ISU Speed Skating World Cup 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

A page using the content from this draft has been published. Rscala1 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 14, 2025

User:RK/What being an American citizen means

User:RK/What being an American citizen means (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not related to Wikipedia, WP:NOTWEBHOST. contributor has been inactive for ~5 years User:Easternsaharareview this 00:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I can't think of a reason to keep this; it was created before the user pages guideline was created. Graham87 (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blank only if you think it’s an old NOTWEBHOST violation, blanking is a sufficient fix. The user was an active contributor, and deserves more respect due to that. Their userspace pages are a small fraction of their edits, and so it is within reasonable leeway. Policing others’ userspace is an unfriendly thing to do, and shaming old users with an MfD discussion is completely unjustified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I do not agree that it is a WP:WEBHOST violation. There is no plausible notion that it is was was used for an offsite purpose. It would well be reference material of intended mainspace contributions.
    And reasonable leeway is not about “experienced users should be treated any different than new ones”, but is about rations. This user has 10,633 contribution edits, and only 1.5% of them are in the user namespace. This is a very strong indication that the user is a productive Wikipedian, not an abuser.
    Length of inactivity of a once productive Wikipedia is never a justification to mess with their userspace. They will return, and presuming that they won’t will be a self-fulfilling professy.
    This nomination is a net negative. RK (talk · contribs) deserves more respect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to add that the user's last 500 go back to 2009, I don't think their "return" is very likely. I don't think that this matters at all but you seem to care about this. Also I am not messing their userspace up as you say, it does not seem to meet rules 2 and 5 of notwebhost so i am nominating it for deletion. I am also not arguing that this contributor is bad, only that this page is bad. So your points about their contributions makes little sense. While I would like to assume good faith that you are assuming good faith, I am going to point you to WP:AGF as you think that I am "shaming old users" or trying to prevent this editor from returning. As mentioned previously, this material already seems to be online on other websites. I suspect that the ideas here or this entire comment was generated using a LLM due to the language and weakness. User:Easternsaharareview this 02:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Editors matter.
    Policing other’s userspace is unfriendly, and deletion of inactive users’ userpages is unwelcoming to them in their return.
    I disagree that this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST #2 or #5, and certainly not to the extent that it overcomes the negativity of policing others’ userspace.
    What content do you allege is LLM-generated? The usersubpage edit dates makes this very unlikely. Do you suspect I am using LLM? I assure you that I am not.
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore as in Weak Keep - There is no harm to keeping this visible, and no obvious benefit either to deleting it or blanking it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOHARM if you think that Wikipedia userpages that don't serve any purpose to the encyclopedia but are "harmless" shouldn't be deleted then you should create an RfC on the userpage guideline page. However, being harmless doesn't mean that this shouldn't be deleted if it is a breach of policy, that would be selective enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. User:Easternsaharareview this 02:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I very seldom see any reason to blank things without deleting them. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has over 10,000 edits and although they don't seem to be active now, they should at least have been notified. It seems harmless to me and bringing up NOTWEBHOST seems harsh, although I can't see how it's related to writing an article. Should probably just be blanked. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I gave a notice to the user. No real opinion on this otherwise. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think WP:NOTWEBHOST's application is intended primarily for pages which are absolutely clearly not related to editing Wikipedia. I see plausible reasons how this could be intended to be helpful for a user's WP editing, and am disinclined to second-guess whether it likely is or isn't in this instance, absent some disruption. There is none here. As to inactivity, I can understand that we will eventually need to develop some sort of policy of deleting long-inactive users' user space flotsam and jetsam. But we don't have such a policy, don't seem to (yet) have a crying need for one, and this doesn't seem to be a compellingly problematic page to serve as impetus for developing one. Martinp (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response I don't think experienced users should be treated any different than new ones. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and this isn't a userbox either, its an essay. If it were a userbox, I wouldn't even bother because those rarely get deleted. Also Martin mentions that there could be reasons that this could be helpful to a Wikipedia's users contributions but does not name them at all. At least in its current state, it does not resemble anything like an essay which advises people to only focus on American content or to make sure that "American principles" such as Christianity, freedom or whatever else are present in Wikipedia. If it was like the latter, then that sound's like advocacy which isn't what user essays are supposed to do, and if it were the former then it's almost like we have a dedicated Wikiproject. I agree with Martin that this doesn't need a new policy, that policy would be a solution without a problem, but it already treats Wikipedia like storage, which isn't allowed. User:Easternsaharareview this 22:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is (presumably) the text of a fairly well-known speech that is notable and has its own Wikipedia article. I doubt there is a copyright issue. We don't know what use RK intended (or intends, if they ever intend to come back) for it However, an Occam's Razor explanation is that it might be used for improving the article in question, or other articles about that US historical period. Who knows, but I think NOTWEBHOST should be used in instances where there is no plausible use of the material for encyclopedic purposes, not where the Occam's-Razor explanation is, in fact, an encyclopedic one. Martinp (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reviewing. @Easternsahara:, double checking that when you nominated this, you realized this is the text of a (moderately famous) speech by a U.S. President, the article on it linked in the first sentence of the page? Your comments above, "it's an essay" vs userboax etc, make me wonder if your nomination assumed that this was RK soapboxing in their own words? Martinp (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I knew but having very long quotes like this would not be useful to many pages to my understanding. I also think it can be found online this as an example User:Easternsaharareview this 15:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is potentially a tainted nomination. I've done my best to AGF, however I've been puzzled by its motivation, plus inconsistencies in the nominator's followup responses in the discussion. How and why does someone stumble across a user subpage of a several-year-inactive editor? The subpage's only incoming link, other than now related to this MFD listing, is from RK's top-level userpage. Given the page is a pretty short, unremarkable, and clearly related to a Wikipedia article (to which it conveniently links), having landed there, why bother second-guessing what specific intended use its creator had for it earlier, and may or may not have for it going forward, rather than moving on? I then see that RK is (was?) an editor with a strong interest regarding Judaism. The nominator appears to have a strong interest in Palestine, and nominated this userpage for deletion in the midst of a range of edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Absent some additional information about the sequence of events leading to this nomination, I'm left with the unfortunate suspicion that it is a microaggression related to differences of opinion on the Arab-Israeli conflict, just being "played" outside of the spotlight en.wp imposes on this contentious area. With apologies if there is a compelling alternate explanation, but AGF has limits. Martinp (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SirMichaelCollinsToronto
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirMichaelCollinsToronto

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

Unsourced BLP. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unreferenced BLP and as web hosting or Speedy Delete as WP:G11. Look (or don't look) at the last sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promotion, NOTTHERE, unsourced and probably non-notable BLP. Since I may appear inconsistent in my !votes on such user pages, an explanation: I extend considerable good faith to new users who might genuinely if cluelessly be trying to introduce themselves, or creating plausible if poor-quality first article drafts accidentally in their userspace. And so I !vote keep if the user and creation are recent, and one can hope they will find their way soon. But in this instance, this is 6 years old and the silence of the user since then is deafening. "Placing" a bio in en.wiki, any namespace, was presumably the goal, not an initial clueless stepping block. Martinp (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gideon Gideons
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gideon Gideons

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

Would have been a candidate under the old U5 not-a-webhost CSD. Wikipedia still isn't a webhost for devotional advice. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a good example of why I think discussion of these edge cases is warranted rather than the old U5-CSD. Normally, I'd be inclined to say "don't rush to delete, wait and see", giving a new user the courtesy of latitude how they "work" in their userspace, not nuking something that might be weird but might also somehow be used for good-faith encyclopedic editing once they get their bearings. However, my alarm bells go off on this one. It's a first and so far only contribution, which in its edit summary points to a Facebook page. There in turn, a link to en.wp is posted, with the user's exhortation to obey God's commands rather than human ones, and a ping to the users 3000(?) followers. Net-net, the combined context feels more like the start of a campaign to bring more religion to Wikipedia, not as a naive but good faith 1st step to collect one's thoughts prior to making a neutral article edit. So on balance I fall to Delete to nip this in the bud as apparent NOTTHERE rather than extending good faith about future intent. Martinp (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator and per Martinp. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kironshikder
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kironshikder

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kironshikder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/kironshikder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Malformed RfA self-nomination which did not follow the transclusion instructions/process at Wikipedia:RFA/N. The creator was blocked afterwards due to WP:NOTHERE. Unsure if any CSD critera apply.

Note that this is meant to be a multi-nomination along with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/kironshikder but I couldn't figure out how to subst Step II at WP:MFDHOWTO nor does Twinkle or any script seemingly allow MfD multi-nominations AFAIK. Fork99 (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll just add that this looks confusing for anyone who might somehow stumble upon this and think it's an actual RfA. If not deleted, I think it should at least be userfied without leaving a redirect behind. Fork99 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 12, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Soviet invasion of Albania
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Salvio giuliano 22:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soviet invasion of Albania

Draft:Soviet invasion of Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft only has 2 sources, with no credible claim to be significant. Article also has a reference link that doesnt work. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore per WP:NDRAFT. It has a bad title, an alleged planned attack that didn’t happen. The parent article might be Albanian–Soviet split. The purpose of draftspace is to keep low quality stuff out of mainspace, that purpose is being served, bringing it to MfD is contrary to that purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ballbeam/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Albeit weakly. Mostly to Martinp's point of this being a new editor using their sandbox in a manner related to which it's intended. Can be revisted down the line for clearer consensus if still needed Star Mississippi 00:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ballbeam/sandbox

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

Zero Value. Would never be accepted as an actual page and is only being used as a place to contain what would be better off in a google doc. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 13:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is only used for personal drafting and not as an official Wikipedia article. Ballbeam (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 14:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was initially leaning towards delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST, however the page appears to be a good faith attempt by the user to test certain functions, which is allowed and is one of the reasons we have user sandboxes. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 14:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though granted, I'm only !voting keep on that condition. If the user has no plans other than to do that, then I would probably lean towards deleting. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 14:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have admitted it's being used only for personal reasons. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a literal sandbox for users it is not an article, Why is there a literal deletion for a sand box for testing.-Theknoledgeableperson‬18:39, 12 November 2025 (utc)

  • Weak keep, although it's being used for personal reasons, part of those reasons are to test formatting, if this was the only use of the sandbox for a few years I would delete, but it was created on the same day it was nominated. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Within the leeway afforded to users to experiment in a sandbox, and with thanks to the user for learning about formatting where it is harmless. That said, my weak keep is in part due to extending good faith to new users. The page and user are just 9 days old. If this gets kept now, but renominated in a few months, and the user hasn't graduated to actually helping write an encyclopedia, that's when NOTWEBHOST will become applicable and deletion would be appropriate. Martinp (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Ali kanane

User:Ali kanane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Salvio giuliano 14:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user page is not in English (it's written in French), is promotional, and appears to be AI-generated content. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We generally extend leeway to userspace, and it wouldn't be the first time either a new user's well-intentioned 1st version of their user page reads like a CV. Nor would it be the first time a well-intentioned user creates their first draft article not only in their userspace, but accidentally as their user page. However, in this instance the combination of 1) promotional bio in article style, presumably an undeclared COI, 2) little evidence of notabiity, 3) one and only contribution by this user, who hasn't been seen in the 10 days since, 4) not English, 5) edit summary translating as "draft article" not something like "introduce myself", together act as too many strong ocean waves against that leeway. Martinp (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business


Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1323488978"