Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFDWP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page for you. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G7 for more information.

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

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

^ 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.
Deletions in draftspace	Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context. Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here. Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE. For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider moving it into the historical archive, or userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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:MFDHOWTOWP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	3	89	92
TfD	0	18	18
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	2	10	12
RfD	0	44	44
AfD	0	9	9

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.

January 6, 2026

Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Hot articles

HotArticlesBot is now broken. It has been replaced in WP:SNOOKER, making this subpage defunct. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Replaced by Module:Database reports/Hot articles, in the spirit of CSD T5. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 5, 2026

Portal:Antarctica

A newly created portal by a very new editor with barely any edits. This portal, unsurprisingly, has red links and errors and has not seen any edits since been created in September. Additionally, this does not offer anything special that isn't covered by the parent article (and saves of from the need to maintain this extra space). Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possibly abandoned, as mostly unused, and as probably unneeded. Unlike the last portal to be nominated for deletion, this really is a portal. It has the "newer" portal architecture with a list of 43 articles. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the portal had an average of 2 pageviews daily, while the main article, Antarctica, had 3832 pageviews daily. If readers want to know about the continent at the bottom of the world, they look at the article, Antarctica, not at the portal. The portal originator has not edited sinced September 2025, so does not appear to be about to maintain the portal. For background information, there was a previous portal, which was deleted in August 2019. That portal had an average of 38 daily pageviews. The most likely explanation for the difference in daily pageviews of the portal is that fewer readers are looking at portals, because they are being seen as obsolete. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 4, 2026

Draft:Isha Malviya

Deleted three times at AfD. After the redirect was deleted per discussion on December 25th, OP (now blocked) creates this draft in an obvious attempt to override everything. Topic is still not notable. Would request protection of the mainspace. CNMall41 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the work of a disruptive blocked user. Normally deletions of a title in article space are not a reason to delete from draft space, but the two additional issues are that the author is blocked for disruption and the article space title is already locked. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:CNMall41 - It appears that the title in mainspace is already salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks for pointing it out. I now see it was done in December after the deletion discussion for the redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfDs were TOOSOON (2021), “rough” consensus (2024) and for a technical reason (duplication). These are weak indicators of “never”, and draftspace is appropriate for hosting it. It is understandable that someone feels aggrieved and is breaking behavioural rules. Warnings and blocking is the answer, not the deletion of a plausible draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainspace is already protected. It might be a useless and somewhat disruptive draft, see Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. I will admit I was heavily patrolling that now blocked user (Starting around February last year) because I thought some of their editing on Cricket articles was disruptive, and I ended up seeing more throughout the year such as unexplained mass changes (Such as X national team to just national team, with of course X representing whatever national team, as well as adding hosts to tournaments based on where some games were was played rather than official host, as well as changing from worded awards like winner and runner-up to gold 1 and sliver 2), and I'm not going to go on and list every single thing with me and other users, and creating costly redirects to a single snapshot of careers of people in like Badminton, and others) but see Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. She is also 22 years old. And if content is significantly different from what it was at deletion, it could be published. She is also only 22 years old. She might be notable in the future. And since the user that has repeatedly recreated it is now blocked so I don't see any potential for disruption in the future. Only possible way I see it in the future is sock puppetry and quite frankly, and that can easily be investigated, particularly with the actions and language used by OCDD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about drafts do no harm. I normally leave them alone, but the question becomes how many times do we have to keep reverting and blocking socks? As of now, the draft cannot be G5d, but if deleted here and then recreated by a sock, then G5 would apply. If an experienced editor wants to take on the project, there really isn't anything usable in the draft as it is just an opening line and then the filmography and awards which can be taken from IMDb. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2026

User:Baxito

No longer active but still a promotional user page Gbawden (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This user page looks like a user page, and is not inconsistent with other user pages. User pages are not normally deleted when the user goes away. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This user page has more contact information than most, but it is not promotional. There is also nothing wrong with them saying that they have coding experience. This editor has more than a few contributions in mainspace, so they are a contributor, and therefore are not misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing screams WP:PROMO for me. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2026

User:Redskevin2688/sandbox/Battle of Baracedra Port

This sandbox page is crystal balling, alternate history, and made up. Wikipedia is not for alternate history is an essay, but WP:NOTMADEUP is a guideline and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is a section in a policy. Found in checking the contribution history of the editor who created the BLP of the fictional General Callaghan. Have not checked whether the fictional general was one of the commanders of this fictional battle. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. As it turns out, @Robert McClenon, Callaghan is involved in the prelude of this "battle". Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answer, Chess enjoyer. World building is part of the art of fantasy and science fiction, but is not part of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Completely made up. If the creator of the page enjoys writing military fiction, Google Docs is free and can be shared. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:SLMn475/sandbox

Yet another sandbox page which exists solely to fictionalize the results of the 2014 Brazilian presidential election so that it was won by somebody different than in reality. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write any alternate history you want to for shits and giggles -- it is for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when you're done, which this obviously can't be.
And as usual, it violates WP:BLP to make false claims about living people, even in userspace. And also as usual, it was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is absolutely never acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as biographies of living persons violation, using the names and images of living persons in a manner contrary to fact, and a hoax. Also alternate history (but that is only an essay). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jack Sucks at Life

Jack is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and this one has nothing on it. Dylan Hackworth1 (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let it time out. No point bringing a draft to MfD unless it's been repeatedly resubmitted or there is a truly compelling reason; "blank draft" is neither. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There have been many attempts by fans of this YouTuber to create an article about them, to the point where the subject has been listed at WP:DEEPER. There is virtually no chance of this draft ever being approved. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also said that about Battle for Dream Island, did we not? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lack of notability is a valid reason to delete an article, but it is not a valid reason to delete a draft. Being empty also isn't a valid reason to delete a draft, as draft space is meant for works in progress. If it were to get tendentiously resubmitted to AFC, that would be a good reason, but that hasn't happened yet. I see no reason to delete this, and every reason to leave this alone for now. Either G13 will take care of it, or someone will come along and develop it into an article (although that won't be easy). Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with Jéské Couriano & Chess enjoyer, I'd let AFC or G13 deal with it. Encoded Talk 💬 16:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Sugar Tax. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and salt per result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JackSucksAtLife TruenoCity (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly an attempt to prevent a non-notable article at Jack Sucks at Life, which would be an unwanted species of beans. This is a two-part nomination, to uproot the bean plant, and to salt the bean garden. I disagree with both efforts. First, we don't need to uproot a bean plant that isn't there, Deleting a blank draft is silly. Second, salting a bean garden is mistaken (and I was mistaken in my previous nomination) because it just causes the beans to be planted somewhere else. If there is an effort to create an article in article space, it can be dealt with by AFD, by salting as appropriate, by partial blocks, and by other techniques. We don't need to deal with this blank draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redskevin2688/sandbox/Henry Callaghan

This is an unsourced biography of a living person at best. I have recently nominated another page created by this user for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, and I had difficulty finding sources for this person, so this may be a less blatant hoax. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the page begins by falsely claiming that this man is the commander of the United States Special Operations Command, so this is more blatant than I thought. This page should be speedily deleted under G3. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and unsourced BLP. No objection to this going via G3. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP violation. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP violation and a hoax. There has not been a General Callaghan as a commander of USSOCOMM. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely hoax. A search for General Callaghan doesn't return any Henries on the first few pages. The commander of USSOCOM is someone else. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mark O'Leary

Proposing deletion and salting of this draft which has been repeatedly pushed for by its subject, who has rejected the draft decline reasons. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and is an all around COI issue. This draft was previously deleted a decade ago, per a prior MfD, and this current iteration remains problematic. The subject and draft author in question rejected a G4 speedy deletion tag, and has also failed to communicate constructively. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice and protect against recreation I just indeffed the author as a compromised account since his assistant has been using it. I don't know why we are even bothering with this process; if I hadn't seen that this MfD was being held I would have dispensed with the draft on the spot. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator and admin. The question is what degree of create protection to put on it. I think that admin-protection of drafts is a bad idea (and admin-protection of articles is often a bad idea), but that semiprotection or ECP-protection is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeatedly resubmitted without improvement, and the author has also repeatedly removed the AfC declines, reviewer comments, and MfD notice. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Repeatedly resubmitting a draft with no improvements, removing declines, and removing the MFD notice wastes the community's time. Enough is enough. This was deleted in a previous MFD, so I agree that the page should be salted. Fully protecting the page from being created seems like a bit much, so I would recommend extended confirmed protection. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kerala Christianity

Exact same scope as Christianity in Kerala (WP:DUP), LLM usage to create it from scratch; no regard for WP:MOS The Kora Person (come say hi!) 01:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G15. The nonsense revisions being made after nomination aren't helping either. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G15, LLM usage is screaming out! Encoded Talk 💬 16:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G15, not to mention LLM usage. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I haven't seen or looked for the evidence of artificial intelligence. If someone will point them out, I will strike the Weak. If there isn't any artificial intelligence, a Redirect to Christianity in Kerala is alternatively in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly AI generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Historical archive/Template:Not a forum

This appears to have been unilaterally undeleted and moved to projectspace by an admin, Hex, after being deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Template:Not a forum. I don't see any reason for keeping this in projectspace given that it was deleted from template space. Sugar Tax (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really see much value in keeping this around nor did the participants at TfD. Despite this Hex clearly did and that's enough for me to feel like it's justified to keep itin this very unintrusive form. The barrier for keeping one of stuff in a historical archive should be very low imo. Trialpears (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient reasoning to keep. If this can be kept, why aren't we keeping the hundreds of superseded templates? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Because few templates have had someone specifically claim they want to see it archived and had tens of thousands of uses at one point. Iirc there was some discussion to remove not a forum when used in conjunction with talk header resulting in tons of uses being removed already before this deletion nomination but once upon a time I believe it was used on nearly every popular talk page for some reason. Trialpears (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any reason for keeping this in projectspace – I would counter that I don't see a good reason to delete the page. Historical pages are meant for obsolete material that doesn't have a place anywhere else. I used to see this template on a lot of article talk pages, which makes me believe that it's worth archiving, now that the community has decided that it's not useful. I'm also not convinced by the argument that other stuff does not exist. If an editor thought one of the hundreds of superseded templates was of historical interest, I fail to see why we shouldn't keep an archive of it. It's not like this page is wasting server space. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chess enjoyer. I'm one of the most active maintainers of the historical archive along with Hex. Graham87 (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no harm in keeping this copy of a deleted template, and minimal benefit in keeping it. That is a small net benefit. The TFD discussion was about whether to use it as a banner, not whether to destroy the record of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion has historically been understood as the way to take templates out of service, but they can also be archived, which has enduring value to historians of the project - even with a seemingly mundane item like this one. The existence of Wikipedia:Historical archive isn't well-known and perhaps this MfD will actually have some benefit by bringing it greater attention. Also, "it was deleted in one namespace so shouldn't exist in another" isn't a legitimate argument for deletion. If it was, userfication, which is an everyday activity, would cease to exist. — Hex • talk 12:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 29, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr.Cherki/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. ✗plicit 00:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr.Cherki/sandbox

Arabic-language draft about a surname repeatedly resubmitted without any improvement. No sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A draft being in a language other than English is not a valid reason to delete it, but being repeatedly submitted with no change is, as that wastes the community's time. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It begins “Abolfazl Soltani (born 26 April 2006 in Ahvaz ) is an Iranian football player who plays as a left back .”

Delete as an unsourced BLP.

Delete due to being tendentiously resubmitted.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a waste of community time by repeated resubmission. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: waste of community time and resources. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a waste of community time and resources. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Submitted 4 times in 4 days with no attempt to respond to translate to English. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 3 January 2026 (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:Mohamed Gamal Eldin Abdelaziz Noureldin

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 00:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohamed Gamal Eldin Abdelaziz Noureldin

WP:UP#NOT / WP:NOTWEBHOST, non-contributor. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:OR. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps word or Google docs is a better place for that user’s page, he should move his document (if he in fact wrote it, although parts read like AI). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Web hosting by non-contributor. Note the duplicated (but different) section numbers, which usually are a sign of artificial intelligence and in any case of something not written for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Whether an LLM is involved doesn't matter, as the webhosting is good enough reason on its own. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Chess enjoyer that the use of artificial intelligence is not the primary reason to delete, but we should be aware of when artificial intelligence is being used and abused. I am not sure what this is meant to be, but it does not appear to be something that contributes to an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom et al. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST, no clear relation between this paper on AI and the goals of Wikipedia. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 3 January 2026 (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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 17:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC) ended today on 6 January 2026. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

December 4, 2025

User:Adisamanbek

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Star Mississippi 00:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UP#NOT, would consider draftifying but there is already an existing article on this topic, Pensions in Denmark. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to a subpage. This is probably all that needs doing. Drm310, can you be more specific about “”WP:UP#NOT”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - No. Did you have banner blindness? Did you see the template that says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress? You broke the link back from the page to the MFD, among other things. That was not all that needs doing and was not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a copy of a mainspace article without attribution. That is the specific provision of WP:UP#NOT. Copies of mainspace articles are permitted only for short periods of time, as for editing of discussion, and should be attributed. This was not attributed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion provided. There is some forking, but it is not copying, and temporarily forks in userspace are perfectly ok. This page is recent. No one has tried talking to the newcomer, so this mfd is premature (even if there is a deletion reason) and bitey (WP:BITE. The only WP:UPNOT issue is drafting on the main Userpage, which is trivially fixed by moving to a subpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in its new home as a sandbox subpage in userspace, per SmokeyJoe. Yes, their move technically violated the banner that got placed by the deletion nomination. However, as an IAR satisfactory resolution to a situation that obviates the need for a deletion, and corrects a minor error by a new user rather than biting them, I endorse it. Martinp (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more eyes given how stale this is
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:56, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Robert McClenon. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

[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.

[a]