Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	92	92
TfD	1	1	2
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	2	24	26
RfD	0	24	24
AfD	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.

May 27, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shreeman vs Shreemati

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: redirect to Shreeman v/s Shreemati. (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shreeman vs Shreemati

a mainspace with the same title already exists and i have fixed that article in accordance to User:Theroadislong BengalMC (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shreeman v/s Shreemati: As is standard practice with drafts that are duplicative of mainspace articles. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
however the confusing part is that there is two other drafts with the same name other than the draft which i made where one of them is from the official wiki handle of kahhak studios(User:Kahhakindustries) where there is obvious conflict of interest in the name of paid edit and the other one is directly plagiarised from the said coi article. (you can find these draft articles in the talk page of User:Theroadislong) BengalMC (talk) 10:29, 27 May 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.

May 26, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 15:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association

Empty placeholder that user hasn't done anything with. Page created on June 2nd, 2023. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no time-limit in userspace. I'll also add that the creator has edited recently (last month), and on a related topic no less. Stop mucking around in userspace, see WP:Ragpicking. Curbon7 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a time limit for WP:Article wizard placeholders of 6 months, see WP:G13. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:G13 does not apply here as this isn't an AfC submission; Curbon has the right of it. (It's questionable if G13 should even apply in userspace in cases like this to begin with.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 applies to pages in userspace that are just the article wizard placeholder, which haven't been edited in 6 months, see WP:G13, paragraph 3. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And? There's literally no benefit to deleting this page simply because it is a placeholder. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No need to delete this. The user may come back to it and edit it later, in the meantime it poses no problems. Nominating WP:RAGS at MfD like this wastes time and runs the risk of WP:BITING newcomers. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What is the harm, even minimal, of keeping this? I can't answer that question. What is the harm, even minimal, of deleting this? The harm is that time is wasted by volunteers in reviewing this nomination that could otherwise be spent: reviewing drafts, copy-editing articles, improving articles, gnoming categories, etc. We all do other things to improve the encyclopedia besides taking part in MFD. Leave Useless Drafts Alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just tag as G13, no need to create a MFD. TruenoCity (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty likely a G13 would get declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It already did. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:02, 27 May 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:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 15:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis

Topic is not notable. I can't find a single source about the topic. User has not made any improvements to the page since 2023. See, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. Sandboxes don't have to be notable, and notwebhost is about material unrelated to Wikipedia (i.e. not relevant to draft articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia then that violates WP:USER § Excessive unrelated content. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a draft article on Wikipedia, it is not unrelated to Wikipedia. NOTWEBHOST is for, say, storing my original poetry or creating elaborate alternative history fictions or hosting a movie review blog. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a valid use of userspace. Curbon7 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts which do not be meet WP:Notable should not be kept indefinetly. See WP:STALEDRAFT. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why you're grasping for reasons to delete these pages and cherrypicking parts of that guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No need to delete this. The user may come back to it and edit it later, in the meantime it poses no problems. Nominating WP:RAGS at MfD like this wastes time and runs the risk of WP:BITING newcomers. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. It looks like valid potential mainspace material. Advise User:Legend of 14 to keep out of others’ userspace and stop wasting others’ time will bad MfD nominations. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is not currently notable because it is not adequately sourced, but it is inherently notable if it is sourced. An extinct genus of Mammalia is worth a stub article, and the userspace stub draft is useful for that reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 27 May 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:Pookiebear69/sandbox/Igloo effect

This is just the WP:Article wizard placeholder with the addition of "started page". It has no chance of becoming an article, and has been abandon since October 2023. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator An alternative to deletion is clearly appropriate here. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a WP:RAG. Leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I found this through Category:Stale userspace drafts. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. If it's very important to clear that stale category, you can just remove the template at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STALEDRAFT is valid. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, guidelines are valid. And this doesn't qualify. How is this page "problematic even if blanked" for example? Digging around other people's userspace looking for stuff like this to delete is not a good use of anyone's time. What exactly are we accomplishing by creating a whole discussion page (this one) dedicated to what's effectively a test page in a sandbox that nobody will ever see other than the creator and people looking for unnecessary work in other people's user space. (Sorry, I know I'm coming on strong here and you're relatively new to this -- I tend to comment on these [IMO] frivolous userspace nominations because userspace is supposed to be a safe place for people to experiment, draft, make mistakes, and play around. It includes serious drafts as well as notes, wikimarkup experiments, and all manner of stuff. And that's ok, because it's not indexed and doesn't affect anything else. There's just no gain to balance against (a) having an extra discussion, and (b) potentially initiating unnecessary conflict with the user whose space it is, or (c) demotivating users who now feel like they've done something wrong. For things like the category you mentioned, there are typically other ways to clean it up, like removing a template. FWIW.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I can withdraw the nomination, I'll blank this page and move on. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You can withdraw it if you so choose: WP:WDAFD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have taken a quick look at that maintenance category, and I think it is clear what is needed, which cannot be done by MFD and cannot be done by Ragpicking. There are 39,560 stale userspace drafts in that category. Any human-based process is the wrong way to deal with the category, regardless of whether the category needs dealing with. What is needed is a bot to walk through the category and determine which of the authors are in good standing, and notify those authors that they have stale drafts, and to produce a report listing the indeffed users who have drafts in that category, and how many drafts each indeffed user has. Some of the users have simply forgotten that they started work on those drafts, and notifying them will reduce the number of drafts in the category. That is the first step. The second step may be deciding whether a third step is necessary. We certainly don't need to discuss thousands of useless drafts. I was thinking of draft space drafts when I wrote Leave Useless Drafts Alone, but it also applies to userspace drafts. We don't need to review them one by one, or one dozen by one dozen. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The existence of these 39,560 stale user drafts is an interesting situation. Reviewing them for deletion at MFD is the wrong answer, regardless of whether there is a right answer or even whether the situation is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mhgsalim/sandbox/MHGsalim

This is just a placeholder that looks like it came from the WP:Article wizard. It doesn't look like it will ever be viable as an article. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a WP:RAG. Leave it be. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this through Category:Stale userspace drafts. There's a huge backlog for that maintenance category. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's good to clarify I guess, but my opinion on the matter of deletion is the same. This isn't a copy of a mainspace article, it isn't any sort of harassment or BLP violation, it's just an unstarted userspace draft which may have been meant to become something but which the user hasn't yet gotten around to working on. I don't see a reason to bother deleting it. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. If it's very important to clear that stale category, you can just remove the template at the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STALEDRAFT is valid. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly the most useless of the batch that has been nominated, but still no valid rationale for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:G13, which says that WP:Article wizard placeholders like this should be deleted after 6 months. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 is about AfC submissions and drafts in the drafts namespace. This is neither. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 also applies pages in userspace that are just the article wizard placeholder, which haven't been edited in 6 months, see WP:G13, paragraph 3. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have taken a quick look at that maintenance category, and I think it is clear what is needed, which cannot be done by MFD and cannot be done by Ragpicking. There are 39,560 stale userspace drafts in that category. Any human-based process is the wrong way to deal with the category, regardless of whether the category needs dealing with. What is needed is a bot to walk through the category and determine which of the authors are in good standing, and notify those authors that they have stale drafts, and to produce a report listing the indeffed users who have drafts in that category, and how many drafts each indeffed user has. Some of the users have simply forgotten that they started work on those drafts, and notifying them will reduce the number of drafts in the category. That is the first step. The second step may be deciding whether a third step is necessary. We certainly don't need to discuss thousands of useless drafts. I was thinking of draft space drafts when I wrote Leave Useless Drafts Alone, but it also applies to userspace drafts. We don't need to review them one by one, or one dozen by one dozen. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:OComainDraft

This is a WP:POVFORK. The Ó_Comáin article already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering may I ask why Bastun is attempting to delete the draft article when there is an ongoing Talk discussion here Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was already explained to you in the section you linked. It is a WP:POVFORK. We do not improve articles by having a draft and live version of an article; we work on the live version. It's the way Wikipedia has worked for 24 years. There is no reason to change that now. Work on the live article, where everyone can see your work, rather than a tiny number of editors who are aware of your draft being expected to follow updates. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note I could have just replaced the draft with a redirect to the live article, as generally, drafts of articles aren't kept when there's already an article. It's possible an admin may still do that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be a CFORK of the original article. It is hard to read through much of the llm-discussion, but in doing so I'm not seeing how this Draft will help. Part of the past issues were huge-scale changes that were hard to parse, and the creation of a separate draft reinforces that challenge. This could be userfied, but it doesn't really work that edits to the draft are done which are then moved to the actual page. Better to keep all the edit history together. CMD (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this deletion nomination. The draft was created in good faith due to NEW secondary sources. This was not an attempt at a POV fork, but a required refresh in light of new matertial. I created a pre-emptive talk page discussion before any edits and, in fact, this draft page was recommended by an admin (@Asilvering) for section-by-section review.

More concerning, however, is that this nomination comes after repeated dismissive commentary from Bastun and Fram—accusing me of bad faith, suggesting I “move away from all related articles,” stating I “expect minions,” and that Irish clan content like this "belongs on Wordpress, not Wikpiedia". Bias against Irish clan material as a subject category—is not neutrality—it’s selective gatekeeping. Scottish clans are broadly covered under a dedicated WikiProject.

I’ve improved the article using reliable sources, community input, and transparent drafting. If there are flaws, I’m happy to fix them collaboratively. But deletion here would punish good-faith editing and send the wrong message about openness to cultural history on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irish clan content absolutely has a place on Wikipedia. What you are doing, though, is adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is poorly sourced and has included multiple copyright violations, reads as promotional, contains appeal to authority language, and is not WP:NPOV. Perfectly fine for a privately hosted clan website (except for the copyright violations, obviously!), not so much for an encyclopedia. When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! Requiring editors to stumble across a reference on the talk page to a separate draft article where "improvements" are being carried out, where we are expected to changes to the draft article, and the main article? That is not how Wikipedia works. This has been pointed out to you many times, but WP:IDHT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest salvo in a content dispute where both sides have, for a long time now, continuously assumed the worst of each other, making it completely impossible to reach any sort of consensus. You can see some of this even in the back-and-forth above: Kellycrak maintaining that there is some kind of bias against Irish clan material as a subject category (they have been repeatedly explained that this is not the case, and that their contributions have issues with sourcing and WP:DUE), Bastun acting as though there is something deeply nefarious or incompetent in Kellycrak's attempts to take feedback, eg When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! (the copyright violations referred to here were to post images of sources to Commons, so other editors could see the text - an obvious copyvio, and a situation where editors very commonly email copies of sources to each other when necessary, eg for WP:GAN purposes). -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That my repeated attempts to get the editors involved to calmly and politely discuss specific issues of disagreement has been characterized below as continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering is a pretty good illustration of the problem. I'd be at ANI suggesting mutual IBANs if I thought it would do any good, but since that would basically cede first-mover advantage to Kellycrak, that's obviously not ideal. Good luck, MfD regulars. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unreliable WP:OR with POV issues added. Today, I said about another draft by the same editor:

"The Inisfallen sources seem to pose problems quite regularly, in Draft:Célechair mac Commáin as well the claim is made that "The Annals of Inisfallen (AI705.1) state: "Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin." (“The battle of Corco Mruad, in which Célechair son of Commán fell.”)" The actual Annals say "AI705.1 Kl. Flann Fína son of Oswy, king of the Saxons, rested." Basically, every single thing you post needs to be doublechecked as much of it is just wrong. "

So what do they do just now, under the guise of "source review"[1]: add a reference "1. The Annals of Inisfallen 704/5 Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin. " (layout original).

Despite the continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering, it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months, with continued copyright violations (not just the ones discussed above by Asilvering, but uploading someone else photo's as their own, or copyvio text which had to be removed today), misrepresentation of sources, copying sources from other articles without checking them, and so on. Fram (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram writes: it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months. Those are conduct issues that are out of scope of MFD. I think that the editors at MFD should avoid trying to decide the content issue of deleting this draft when the conduct is complicating things. This is a dumpster fire, and we should not worry about whether to rescue papers from the dumpster or throw papers into the burning dumpster. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct isn't complicating things, it is making it more clear that this is an unhelpful attempt to get their POV into the article by writing it separately and then giving an ultimatum at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you very well know @Fram from our ongoing Talk, I said I'm currently working through the sourcing with a fine tooth comb. It's a DRAFT page!

According to Cotter; Annals of Inisfallen in 751 (Mac Airt 1951, 110) notes the death in Aran of Colmán mac Commain.

@Fram once again, instead of constructive feedback, you’ve chosen to escalate things into a personal attack. "booted off Wikipedia completely"—this isn’t critique, it’s hostility. It's nearly every interaction I’ve had with you, and it’s not in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What has a 751 entry for Colman to do with a 704/705 entry for Celechair? You do nothing substantial with feedback, making the samy type of mistakes or even the exact same mistakes over and over again, and then answer completely besides the point, like here. Fram (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation in the lead is for the name appearing "in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" so yes it's relevant, Colmán mac Commain appears there, I've also added Celechair correct referencing (Gibson and Cotter suggest they're brothers). Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn´t explain why you added a completely wrong reference here, while claiming that you were actually doing a source review and when it had been already pointed out to you today that you made the exact same error on another draft before. The kind of issue we have had way too often already. Fram (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you. The 3 subpages I'm not working on yet. What 's the point if this page gets deleted. The correct citation is in the lead now for "which appears in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" if you still see a problem with it let me know and I'll fix. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least at this time - This is an ongoing content dispute that is complicated by conduct issues, and this nomination appears to be an attempt to use MFD in order to "win" the content dispute, because the regular editors at MFD are not familiar with the details of the dispute (and may not want to be familiar with the details). This dispute clearly needs to be resolved somewhere, but MFD is not the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ó Comáin: as is the usual practice. A way to resolve a content dispute about the direction an article should take is not to start a FORK, but by discussing it in the articles talk, utilising dispute resolution/RFCs if necessary. TarnishedPath^talk 06:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also being hashed out at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dumpster_Fire_at_Talk:Ó_Comáin. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2025

Template:User en-cyr-5

This userbox may not serve any usefulness at all, being used in just one User page. It is themed to be English written in the Cyrillic alphabet, which I have never heard of. In fact, there might be users who would not even learn the pseudo-language(?). ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 19:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be a valid template for users who speak this language (apparently it's Bashkir, if Google Translate is correct) to indicate their level of English proficiency. It's useful to at least one person and isn't hurting anyone to keep it around, so leave it alone. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]
It's not Bashkir, it's "This user can contribute with a professional level of English" approximated out in Cyrillic. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I guess weak delete. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not a real language, we've deleted other of this user's userboxes here before for being made up. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If that transliteration is correct, then the userbox is useless and needlessly confusing. The English language is either spoken, or written in the Latin alphabet. Any professional use of English is either spoken, or written in the Latin alphabet. There are reasons to render the English language in the Cyrillic alphabet, but not in the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless and confusing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is deleted then Template:User en-cyr-0, Template:User en-cyr-1, Template:User en-cyr-2, Template:User en-cyr-3 should also be deleted. Template:User en-cyr-4 was already deleted for some reason. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - I have tagged the other templates named by User:Helpful Raccoon for deletion with {{mfd}}. Striking previous !vote so as not to duplicate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless and confusing. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 23:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ended today on 27 May 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

May 19, 2025

Template:User Wiktionary/Administrator/fr

Can use the following instead: {{User Wiktionary/Administrator|French Wiktionary}} (No design differences) YeBoy371 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this time pending possible explanation - Why does it matter if an editor is using a different userbox for another WMF system than the nominator is proposing be used instead? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other languages can use userboxes by entering parameters, but I don't understand why they made one for French only! YeBoy371 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are or were an admin on the French Wiktionary! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the userbox design is different, there is a way to input parameters, so creating a separate userbox seems inappropriate. YeBoy371 (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 12, 2025

Wikipedia:Culture of disrespect

This essay claims there is a "community consensus" based on an admittedly small sample, and fosters an attitude that is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy (See WP:CIVIL). Attempts to characterize it as a "humorous essay" have been removed, as the author has stated that they are "serious" (see diff). Even if it is claimed to be expressed "ironically," it contributes to a toxic atmosphere for newcomers to Wikipedia, especially given its presence in the Wikipedia namespace. Newcomers would generally not understand the distinction between a policy and an essay, and would be likely to get the impression that a cabal of "experienced editors" feel that policies do not apply to them, to the point that they see no problem with telling someone editing in good faith to "go fuck yourself." I fail to see what value this essay adds to Wikipedia, but I can definitely see how it could easily be misinterpreted and do damage to the project. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd nomination. CIVIL does not mean one can't voice opinions about serious systemic problems in the editing environment. We are not required to have what you consider good attitudes, or to remain silent with what you consider bad ones. Stop trying to suppress dissenting essays—that's what would "do damage to the project". Yes, the essay is anything but humorous. By the way, it existed on my user page for quite awhile until a different, quite experienced editor saw it and made it an essay in the WP space. Thank you for advertising this essay, I've always felt it needed more attention. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to express your views in a civil manner. Nobody is disputing that. I agree with commentators below that the essay in question is inflammatory. If it were userspace content, I would find it distasteful but acceptable in that context. If it is going to be in the Wikipedia namespace, there needs to be a higher bar. Wikipedia has a reputation (unfortunately) for being a rather inflammatory and unwelcoming environment. This is a tragedy, and we need to do more to promote a positive atmosphere for those who would wish to dedicate any amount of their time to its improvement. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or alternatively, userfy without leaving a redirect). It seems here that Mandruss is seeking to get away with having an unpopular and inflammatory opinion and claim immunity to criticism by saying it is "ironic", which is inappropriate and disruptive. Sarcasm and irony fall under the banner of humor, and Mandruss's conduct surrounding this essay violates the spirit and goal of the longstanding consensus reflected at WP:HREQ. I'd strongly prefer to delete this essay because I similarly see no project value in it, but if consensus for deletion is not attained, then it should be userfied, without leaving behind any Wikipedia space redirect to it to lessen the possibility that new editors stumble upon it. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping the editor who created the essay, as his subversive, conspiratorial activities apparently need correction. He's less active these days, but he might receive the ping in time to comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping, Mandruss. FWIW I did not create this essay, I only made one edit right after it was published. Galobtter created it, apparently based on something you wrote elsewhere. I don't care one way or the other about deleting this essay, as you mentioned I have been mostly inactive for several years now. Got tired of the unending discussions about wording issues, bias, sourcing, sealioning and pervasive bickering. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 02:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit, but rewrite it to be serious, not ironic. Keep, because it is a multi-authored project-related opinion, and a quite serious one at that. Rewrite to be serious because the humour/irony is not very good and can confuse too easily. It’s also an effort to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
Delete - That is, delete the current version of the essay as not humorous or ironic and as divisive and inflammatory. Deletion will not salt the title, so that it can be rewritten to be serious. An editor who wants to start with the current version can copy it to their computer before this MFD is closed. Edit or Rewrite are not workable closes, but are reasonable actions that can be taken by an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Rewrite entirely. This one is tricky. On one hand, there is no problem with an essay about either the reality of people being rude online, times where being rude might still be "okay" despite civility rules, or both. On the other hand, it's absolutely not this rambling wreck of an essay. If people are okay with it, I could take a shot at rewriting it, but I don't think there's much lost from just userfying it either. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reminded myself that I semi-retired some time after this essay was created. One of the tenets of my semi-retirement is that I avoid trying to help improve the larger problems in the editing environment; inertia is too strong a force. At en-wiki, apathy is beneficial to one's mental well-being, and my motto is now DGAF.
So I now regret commenting here at all. Delete, userfy, suppress constructive discourse in whatever way you deem appropriate, rewrite because you don't like my choice of rhetorical style for this case, or leave it alone; I DGAF. Semi-retirement is remarkably freeing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, this sounds like the snarky opinion of a single editor rather than an actual community consensus. Not appropriate for project space

Update: Now that Mandruss has manually moved the essay to userspace, I am changing my vote to delete without leaving a redirect for this page. ApexParagon (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom and SilviaASH. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's looking like Keep is unlikely, I have copied the essay back to my user page where it originated. It will enjoy higher visibility there than on a separate page in my user space. Userfication therefore no longer makes any sense.
If this creates an attribution problem—not all of what I copied was written by me, though I fully support and endorse all of it—I'm completely open to guidance on how to fix that (ping me here or post on my UTP), or to anyone fixing it themselves. I don't really understand all that, but I know similar things have been done before without objection.
Or, barring that, I'm prepared to restore what was originally on my UP and then apply the few additional edits there, thereby making them my own.
If it's important or necessary to preserve the six uses of the shortcut, the redirect can be retargeted to User:Mandruss#Culture of disrespect. I'd just redlink it as unimportant, but that's me. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: You can repair insufficient attribution by leaving a particular kind of note in an edit summary at the target page (list all contributors) -- as seen in Special:Diff/1246354078. —Alalch E. 15:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates