Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
| Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
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
Before nominating a page for deletion
[edit]Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
| Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
| Duplications in draftspace? |
|
| Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
| Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
| WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
| Alternatives to deletion |
|
| Alternatives to MfD |
|
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]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.
|
Administrator instructions
[edit]| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 62 | 4 | 66 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 20 | 9 | 29 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 10 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 12 |
| 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.
Current discussions
[edit]- 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 11, 2025
[edit]This userbox links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian continent, which... doesn't actually exist. I'm not sure if it's ever existed.
The closest WikiProject that does exist is probably WikiProject Oceania, but that already has its own template, Template:User WP Oceania. – numbermaniac 06:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Can the link be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- User:Skakkle/GRR Martin-verse with no-limit TOC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?rev1=1063011899&rev2=1062002618 Paradoctor (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm generally fine if you want to delete this, but I don't understand the diff/ compare link you posted skakEL 10:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The comparison shows that the first revision of your subpage is identical to the specified revision of World of A Song of Ice and Fire, save for a {{TOC limit}}, which makes COPIES applicable. Further reading at Help:Diff. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- OK, delete is fine with me, the page owner. 😁👍skakEL 12:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as a copy of an article and so a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
November 10, 2025
[edit]This could loosely be considered as Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviours with no project benefit as per WP:UPNOT. This user page has been edited by multiple accounts over the years, all of whom seem to be WP:NOTHERE. While Wikipedia is not censored, a user page consisting entirely of inappropriate and homophobic banter since 2007, to me, is something not closely aligned with Wikipedia's goals. This probably would have been eligible for WP:U5 before it was made obsolete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete for various reasons, including that the page can be construed as vandalism and that the page is a target for vandalism and having negative encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
While I generally support these pages being created for extremely persistent abusers, the off-wiki evidence I've seen makes me think that memorializing them isn't beneficial for their well-being, and besides, their vandalism is obvious in most cases and they'll eventually end up being blocked. We can always undelete this if the abuse becomes insurmountable, which isn't the case now. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, or at the very least, blank per DENY - their vandalism isn't really subtle, nor is it some kind of POV-pushing. It's easily recognizable without the page. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or blank per WP:DENY, per above. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - The nominations of these pages for deletion based on denying recognition is a Streisand effect because MFD is much more visible than long-term abuse files. The creation and maintenance of these files should be limited to Checkusers and SPI clerks. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - back when I created the page a year ago, the user's edits more so weren't obvious, blatant vandalism but were harder to detect as many could be interpreted as good-faith competence issues [1][2][3][4], and they did not engage in much of the obvious trolling vandalism that they do engage in now but were still persistent and disruptive. And still, many of their edits are not blatantly obvious vandalism to this day; [5] [6] could be interpreted as good-faith unsourced changes by users unfamiliar with this case. If consensus states that the page isn't needed though, I'm fine with deleting or blanking it. ~delta (talk • cont) 17:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The nomination of long-term abuse files for deletion on grounds of non-recognition is a Streisand effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
November 9, 2025
[edit]I would have tagged for WP:G11 but the initial revision was not that promotional. Every revision has been an unsourced BLP, though. Despite one attempt to remove some of the promotion, this page has since been used as a violation of WP:NOTCV/WP:NOTWEBHOST. In any case, delete this unsourced self-promo BLP. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I am generally predisposed to give en.wp contributors a lot of latitude what they can put in their userspace. A 10 year old abandoned unsourced BLP, presumably an autobiography, by someone who have made no other contributions to wp, is not it. Martinp (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete
or Speedy Delete as U6as an unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)- User:Robert McClenon, it’s not a subpage, so it’s not eligible for G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Attempts to blank the content and to CSD the page have been contested previously. In my view, this user page should be deleted for violating WP:NOTCV and for being an unsourced BLP. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - I support giving wide latitude to Wikipedians regarding what they use their userspace for, but being here in good faith is a prerequisite. It's been 14 years and this person has no contributions outside of this page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per Rhododendrites and my reasoning on the MFD immediately above this one. In this instance, it seems this was actually created in article space, userfied, and sat here untouched for years. Martinp (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete
or Speedy Delete as U6as an unreferenced BLP . Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Hoax, no such person. Paradoctor (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a sandbox. If I edit my sandbox and type "blue is red" I'm not creating a hoax, I'm experimenting/learning. There aren't many reasons we'd delete something in a sandbox (BLP violations, copyright violations, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - On the one hand, I agree with Rhododendrites that there are not many reasons why we would delete a sandbox, and that they include BLP violations. On the other hand, if a page looks like a biography of a living person, it is subject to the biographies of living persons policy. So what appears to be a BLP should be deleted as an untrue BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOTWEBHOST content, looks like an outline for a Powerpoint presentation Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: As a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as web hosting violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Is there a loophole in U6 and U7 because they only apply to user subpages and not to user pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is a design feature. Userpages are less likely to be unobjectionable speedy deletions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
November 8, 2025
[edit]| Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dark Flow |
|---|
The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted per criterion U1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC) With CSD U5 gone, this looks to be the correct place to put this. Non-contributor using English Wikipedia as a webhost for a personal essay. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
|
November 5, 2025
[edit]The individual in question is non-notable and was declined twice. It is unlikely that the subject would become a Wikipedia article. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 00:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - See Drafts are not deleted for notability. Drafts are declined for lack of notability. This is not, in my opinion, a useless draft, but also see Leave Useless Drafts Alone for an estimate of how badly overworked MFD would be if 5% or 10% of all drafts were nominated for deletion. Abandoned drafts are automatically deleted in six months, so that human nominations at MFD are not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The person is notable. They have good references. LDW5432 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: per WP:NDRAFT. Leave it to expire to WP:G13 or be improved. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Old business
[edit]| Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC) ended today on 11 November 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. |