Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFDHOWTO)
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. For mergers for discussion, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers.


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

[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Notes

  1. ^ The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

Before nominating a page for deletion

[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deletions in draftspace
  • Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context.
  • Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here.
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
  • For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider moving it into the historical archive, or userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit]

How to list pages for deletion

[edit]
Shortcut

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

Administrator instructions

[edit]
XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 1 42 210 253
TfD 0 0 0 11 11
MfD 0 0 0 8 8
FfD 0 0 0 20 20
RfD 0 0 0 10 10
AfD 0 0 0 22 22

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.

January 26, 2026

[edit]

Draft:A Chuck E. Cheese Christmas

[edit]
Draft:A Chuck E. Cheese Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Fantasy article; not a real TV show; WP:NOTWEBHOST Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't a Fantasy Article, its an actual TV Special, check it out on YouTube. VictoryStar3236taaidepikiwtodgro (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chahk noct

[edit]
User:Chahk noct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Promotional user page. Not webhost etc - copyvio images claiming to be here deleted. Not sure what they are trying to achieve Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest me changes, Coz I am making page for my client and what information my Client is providing, I am editing and my edits are continuing to improve Chahk noct (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dehari

[edit]
User:Dehari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I'm doubtful this is an appropriate place for this page to be, but I don't know if this qualifies for WP:U2 since the account technically exists, though it was created in 2016 and has no edits. At any rate, this page was created by a seemingly unrelated user and may have been (at least partially) a cut-and-paste move from a version of Draft:Dehari. Left guide (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although the draft and this user space located article are by the same author, it was not a cut and paste move. They are not the same despite being about the same village. Neither the deleted draft nor this user space article have any references at all. This user space article is not in any way significantly better than the deleted draft. If the editor would like to work some more on this as a draft they should request a refund as it was deleted WP:G7, which would then also retain the Articles for Creation log of a declined submission. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fake article in user space that should be in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 25, 2026

[edit]

Draft:Kim Ju-na

[edit]
Draft:Kim Ju-na (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This nomination is on behalf of @~2026-53801-5. Their rationale is as follows:

Would fail WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. AfC submission were declined due to lack of a WP:RS.

I may or may not add my own !vote below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This draft was not resubmitted after it was properly rejected after repeated submission. See Drafts are not reviewed for notability. Failures of general notability, musical notability, and reliable sources are what Rejection is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We generally don't delete drafts just because of notability concerns, or because they were rejected, absent disruption. That is because they might be improved, and it is not worth community effort to parse to what extent that possibility is real in a particular case. This draft, like others, will however be administratively deleted after 6 months of no editing by G13. I would be amenable to considering deletion of a draft by G7, author request, where there were no substantive contributions by other editors, or in a case of marginal notability by subject request, but neither seems to be the case here. Martinp (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No deletion rationale. User:Chess enjoyer, please stop proxying for logged out editors giving bad deletion rationales. If someone wants seriously to get into policing others’ work, they should register and do so with accountability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, Unregistered users are allowed to request AFDs, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to request MFDs. The place to argue whether a deletion rationale is good or not is the MFD, not the MFD request. I would not deny a request unless it was obviously in bad faith, which this was not. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is about mainspace. MfD is different because we get old users, logged out, acting on some historical grudge. Logged out users in the backrooms are to be viewed with some suspicion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, unregistered users deserve an assumption of good faith just as much as you or I do. I don't know what prompted the TA to request this MFD, but we can't just assume that they had bad intentions. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered users wanting to get involved in the back rooms should register, so they have accountability. If they have registered, they are violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace logged out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether registered users may proxy for unregistered users making MFD or AFD nominations with a plausible deletion rationale, please consider whether the unregistered user has presented a plausible deletion rationale. This MFD wasted community time because the unregistered editor apparently has no idea how draft space works. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. A plausible deletion rationale should be the standard for making a proxy nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have created a bad mfd nomination. You should take responsibility for you actions, including when proxying for someone unknown. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, and has not been resubmitted since. The are no BLP problems. Bring this to mfd was premature. Let standard AfC processes proceed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Martinp. Unless this draft gets tendentiously moved to mainspace or is used for similar disruption, we should leave it alone. Either someone will come along and improve it (unlikely, considering it was rejected) or G13 will take care of it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as withdrawn? Nominator (Chess enjoyer) has !voted Keep, effectively withdrawing the nomination. All other !votes here are keep. I'm not 100% against proxy MFD nominations for anon/temporary users -- for instance, in the case of a nonnotable BLP subject requesting delete of a draft about themselves -- but to have a deletion discussion we do need a nomination from someone who actually endorses the argument being mooted for deletion. Martinp (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's my nomination to withdraw, @Martinp, since I was only acting for someone else. And, as far as I know, you don't have to agree with the nomination request to fulfil it. Someone should probably snow close this, though. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 24, 2026

[edit]

User:Philosopher8659/sandbox

[edit]
User:Philosopher8659/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This nomination is on behalf of @~2026-49073-4. Their rationale is as follows:

Unattributed WP:COPIES in old version of Gerald Anderson with BLP problem.

I may or may not offer my own !vote below. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a simple WP:COPIES, but is a fork. Maybe Blank, probably Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the “BLP problem”. Is this Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!"? If there is no actual or specific alleged BLP problem, it is better to quietly blank userspace pages like this. If there is an actual BLP problem, on a quiet page, go for WP:G10. If something actually needs debate, make a proper nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant forks should be, by default, fixed by redirection. Redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Surviving was not my choice

[edit]
Draft:Surviving was not my choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia is not a host for your creative writing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The argument can be made that this shouldn't have been nominated since draft space is self-clearing, but since we're here we might as well delete it. This page is an example of what Wikipedia is not, which applies to all namespaces. Unlike a draft article whose subject may or may not be notable, this isn't trying to be an article, but is instead misusing Wikipia as a webhost for creative writing. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Which line of WP:NOT applies? If one does, User:LaundryPizza03 should quote it. In the meantime, there is no valid reason for deletion. Draftspace exists to keep the junk contained, and bringing junk to MfD is contrary to that purpose. Unless there is a valid reason to actively delete it.
    Bad nominations should be rejected to discourage them.
    ”Misusing as a webhost”? Could be, but that is a vaguewave. How? Is there evidence such as unusual pageviews? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [...] or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. implies that it includes everything that is out of project scope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Large amounts? When the amount is smaller than the MfD discussion, it was not large. You have made busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why was User:LaunndryPizza03 reviewing a page that had been created in draft space within the past 12 hours? Reviewing new additions to article space is important. Reviewing new additions to project space is helpful (although we don't see a lot of such nominations because new editors don't usually create new pages in project space). But there isn't a need to review new drafts quickly, because we can leave useless drafts alone. Reviewing newly submitted drafts is useful, but that should be AFC reviewing to decide between Accept and Decline, not NPP reviewing to decide whether to nominate for deletion. What is the reason for looking at new additions to draft space and nominating them for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing new pages for speedy deletion, especially G10 and G12, is worthwhile. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It is not a useful investment of volunteer time to review drafts for What Wikipedia Is Not violations. The arithmetic in Leave Useless Drafts Alone is applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the above. @LP03, patrolling new pages is worthwhile, and your contribution is appreciated. But the norms in draft space are deliberately relaxed, with drafts being deleted when they are actively disruptive, and no-one's time being wasted to figure out whether specific drafts will ever be useful. So the keeps you're getting here reflect not a conviction the page is worth keeping, but a lack of desire to spend any time judging that for drafts. Martinp (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant noise. While I agree that WP:Ragpicking in draft namespace as was done here is not a useful use of time, since we're at MfD we might as well delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 22, 2026

[edit]

Wikipedia:FEEDINGFRENZY

[edit]
Wikipedia:FEEDINGFRENZY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Note that this was a {{double soft redirect}} until that template was deleted at TFD in 2023. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

[edit]



January 16, 2026

[edit]

Draft:John M. Guard

[edit]
Draft:John M. Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was the creator and primary author of this draft article. Guard's nomination to the Federal Judiciary has been permanently withdrawn and he was not selected for the Florida Supreme Court, but only for a lower Florida appellate court, which does not carry a presumption of notability. As this draft will likely go stale, I will go ahead and nominate for deletion, on the grounds that the subject will lack requisite notability in his upcoming role. Safiel (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Robert McClenon above. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 19:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the spirit of G7 and as a BLP. G7 does not technically apply, since in addition to Safiel's leading role in the draft, one other user and one of more temp users have made factual additions as well as minor stylistic edits. However, there is no meaningful claim to notability. Nominations/selections that would confer notability have not gone ahead. While he has been subpoenad regarding a scandal and this is duly sourced, his role there is not major enough to warrant mentioning in our article on it. Net-net, this draft is a BLP of an individual who turns out to not be notable, where the only remarkable item is mild involvement in a scandal, and where the creator, and primary and nearly-but-not-quite exclusive author of the page is requesting deletion. There is no reason to keep this around for G13 to kick in. Martinp (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 8, 2026

[edit]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles

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

Started filling up in May 2024, now at 1.8Mb of 50+ times the same (or nearly the same) data. I'll stop nominating these for now, will probably continue in a few days or weeks if there are more of these. Fram (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see several similar nominations for ListeriaBot pages. On this one, while it looks like the bot is active, it has stopped updating this one. Maybe that means Will (Wiki Ed) no longer needs it? It looks like the duplication issue has been going on for some time, based on User_talk:ListeriaBot#List_duplication, but it's not happening on every page. e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Portugal. Broadly more an issue for the bot board, and if the issue is widespread enough the bot should be turned off until it's fixed. If the duplication weren't happening, I would see no problem with these lists requiring deletion, but yeah we don't need endlessly multiplying lists that become unusable (if anyone intended to still use them). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. I figured it out. These lists don't have {{Wikidata list end}}. User error, not bot error. In that case keep and fix (unless we hear from the creator that they don't want it anymore). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • The creators never noticed that the list gets added, and added, and added, and added... Highly unlikely that they actually need it. Fram (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is a Quarry query that lists all the pages that use the template {{Wikidata list}} but not {{wikidata list end}} - presumably they're all expanding to infinity. This is a fix it, not delete it issue. If any of the creators don't want them anymore, I'm fine to delete, but default to keep. Also, sort of tangentially, I would hope we would have a standard practice of turning off bot activity for userspace jobs of long-inactive users. If not, I'd be more supportive of just removing the templates from those pages and leaving them a static list. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          Nope, this is a delete it, don't fix it situation, as it is clear that none of the page creators (of the ones I MFd'ed at least) checked the results after the first day or so. If they don't even look at the page, then why should we host it? Fram (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because "the person who created it hasn't looked at it in a while" is not one of the deletion criteria (and nothing is gained by deletion). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            Why keep pages around that obviously (a shown by the evidence) have no interest to any editor, and have (as also shown) potential issues? Fixing the "append" issue still means that the bot will regularly update the page, but instead of appending it will overwrite. Why would we want to have a bot regularly update pages no one looks at? Fram (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            As I said, I agree with turning off bot tasks in userspace of long-inactive users. Also would support the ability of other users to turn off this sort of bot in other namespaces, using some banner that says "this bot-maintained list has been deactivated as of [date]. if you want to restart the bot, [instructions]". But just a static page sitting there with no bot activity is as at worst neutral-nothing, and we need a reason to delete (not just a weakness of a keep reason). At best, someone does actually use it. It's very low stakes, and we're only adding to the amount of space/attention it takes up by having this whole additional discussion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
            And yet you voted to keep these for long-inactive users as well. And if you believe this takes up too much of your space and attention, there is a very simple solution... Fram (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ListeriaBot_duplication_issue — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a fix it issue rather than delete it. I think that I have seen that deleting the sandbox that the bot is mindlessly (because it is a bat) dumping sand into will simply cause the bot to recreate the sandbox and resume dumping sand into it. I don't know the details of what the bot is doing, but the task entry for the bot needs to be deleted, rather than deleting the file that the bot is appending to. Just deleting this file will not solve the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Offering an update here that @Guettarda helped me by updating the template code to prevent list duplication. I'll keep an eye on these pages to make sure that they stop duplicating. @Fram @Robert McClenon. I shared this comment on a few other deletion nominations, but I won't do it for all of them. All of the nominated pages have been updated with code that should stop duplication. Thanks, all. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The standing circumstances indicate that the easy fix of this fix it issue is to delete. As it stands, no easier fix is needed.—Alalch E. 16:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider possible BLP issues (this was brought up in a similar discussion) to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Qatar

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

This one is already above 2Mb, with the same 84K added by bot every few days. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just said I wasn't going to follow up on these further, but then I saw this: If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only - The change is just to remove the template at the top. That would turn it into a static page. If anyone wants to resume bot edits, they can restore the template. This seems like a reasonable thing to me for cases of pages created by inactive users and such, although I think Will (Wiki Ed) indicated they may still be using these equity lists? I don't know the background. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, causing a lot of ever-accumulating crap to be created, and we are now in a position to apply an easy fix, which was already identified prior to the second purported easy fix being put forward. It is the first easy fix (deletion) that I recommend.—Alalch E. 16:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider possible BLP (this was brought up in a previous discussion) issues to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created then it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That being said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. This particular one has just existed since last August. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 19:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Canada

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

Created in August, 1.9Mb by now and counting (same 80K added every few days). Fram (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider possible BLP issues (this was mentioned in a previous discussion) to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get then created it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Li Song/sandbox

[edit]
User:Li Song/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Editor hasn't edited since 2021, but the bot keeps on appending the same 10K of data to the end of this sandbox, resulting in a 1.2Mb page by now. Fram (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I didn't bundle them all together. A sandbox for someone who hasn't edited since 2021 isn't the same as a page for an active editor and deserves separate discussion, not the same boilerplate text you post everywhere. Why would we keep a page around that required a bot edit every few days, but isn't used for anything at all? What a waste. Fram (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Kazakhstan

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

Only created in October and already 1.2Mb, as every few days nearly the same 80K is added at the end. Completely useless accumulation of data Fram (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the identifier of a suitably straightforward fix -- an easy fix. Any subsequent purported easy fix is already less easy by virtue of an easy fix having been put forward and requiring less explanation.—Alalch E. 16:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider possible BLP issues (this was mentioned in a similar discussion) to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created then it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That being said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Fiji

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

Created in August, and since then the bot adds the same or nearly the same 67K list at the end every few days, resulting in a 1.6Mb page by now. Useless. Fram (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the growth bug is fixed, it still is a page that isn't used (or else the bug would have been spotted a long time ago) but requires regular bot edits. There is no reason to keep such pages around. If it can be changed to be bot-populated on manual request only, i.e. when the page creator really wants to look at it, then a case for keeping them might be made. Fram (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deleting is a much easier fix then having to read Rhododendrites' comments to look for a less easy fix.—Alalch E. 16:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alalch E. I don't necessary think deleting is easier than adding a template, but at the same time the fact that nobody has even noticed that these pages were broken for years is clear enough evidence of their uselessness. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • [consider this copy/pasted to the other noms, I guess] "Delete because it's easier than fixing" is a bananas argument with no basis in the deletion policy, and both of the people who have now argued that above did so after it was already fixed by someone who obviously doesn't think they're useless. I see Explicit already deleted one of the set. As they're all basically identical cases, were all nominated because of a broken bot, all now fixed by those who created the page, and should've just been bundled in the first place, perhaps we can just get a single closure for all of them. Would be curious to see what policy rules the day. If BLP, I sort of get it (but then we would need to delete the e.g. Women in Red lists, and I don't see an appetite for doing that), but not sure how someone would see arguments like "it's easier to delete than to fix [an already fixed page]" and find consensus in favor of those arguments. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This page was not fixed by the page creator... Fram (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, two people beyond the creator were interested enough to intervene. As an aside, Explicit I see you closed a few more of these as delete -- as these are functionally identical, it would be helpful if you could clarify which policy-based arguments were weighed to have consensus. Big implications for a lot more lists, and a lot more pages with bot problems that we can presumably just delete even after being fixed, or a lot more "redlists" of people which would need to be deleted for BLP reasons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep! The creator corrected it, shows it is important!
    • They didn't.
    • Keep! Someone else corrected it, shows it is important!
    I don't think we need to waste more time on your boilerplate fallacies (never mind that you now claim "two people beyond the creator", maths?). Fram (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How many people need to use a page to deem it important? We remind hundreds of people we train every year that these pages exist as resources for new article creation. Not everyone takes us up on it, but the pageview statistics show that people use the pages. Similar to WIR, not all of the pages will receive traffic, but that's the point. They're specifically there for new article creation. Only those interested in specific topics will use them. More people will continue to use them if we decide to keep them around. The redlist tag issue was and remains an easy fix. I'm glad we know about it now. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea which pageviews you think prove that these pages are used, the 19 views in 2 months is basically random noise level. None of the people who supposedly used these ever noticed anything wrong with them either? Across all of them, not just this single one? Fram (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Last reply from me on this until/unless deletions don't cite any policy reason and we go to DRV (BLP being the only policy-based reason I can see across these noms, but again with some serious implications for many other lists). Here's what we have here:
    1. You mass nominated similar articles that should've been bundled, then accuse me of using a boilerplate rationale on each one?
    2. You nominated for a bot error, which should've just been speedy kept as an invalid deletion rationale.
    3. Then the bot issue was fixed, so you said it was useless. Again, "useless" is not a deletion rationale for something that has a self-evident use of identifying people to write articles about (a well-established type of list used extensively by e.g. Women in Red).
    4. In addition to the creator creating it, we have two people who either expressed interest or fixed the lists directly (Will (Wiki Ed) and Guettarda), and a whole system apparently set up around them at Wikipedia:Equity lists. We even published a signpost article focused on these lists. So even if "useless" were a deletion rationale, clearly some people want them.
    5. Now the only thing that matters is that the creator fixed it, and not other interested parties? Again, no basis in the deletion policy. But sure, "boilerplate fallacies". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated some similar and some quite different articles, with some similar and some different additional issues, which you failed to notice. I nominated for bot error, clearly unused pages using resources (bot updates) for no good reason, and in some cases BLP issues. "Then the bot issue was fixed, so you said it was useless. " "Useless" was already present in my AfD nom, it's not something I added later. No idea how these pages "identify people", I guess you mean something else. The people so interested in these lists never looked at them, or they would have noticed the issue much earlier. Being featured in the signpost is meaningless. "The only thing that matters"? It was your argument, something you considered was a convincing reason, but which was false. Then apparently it suddenly didn't matter anymore whether it was the creator or someone else. You are obviously free to go to DRV, but I do hope you will present more facts and coherent arguments there than you do here. Fram (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All of these pages had an easy fix, which User:Guettarda added to this page already. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 19:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. I don't see the benefit of deleting this page, and There is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles that would help counter our systemic bias. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider possible BLP issues to be a reason to watch the page, not delete it, but if few articles actually get created it's possible the con would outweigh the pro over time. That said, have any BLP issues been found in this page? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/States/Oregon/WD

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/States/Oregon/WD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Clearly no one cares about this page. Nearly 2Mb large now, because every few days the bot appends the same 10K of data at the end, and has been doing this since December 2020... Fram (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would have been poor form to bundle this one with e.g. the equity pages, or the user sandbox, as the situation and outcome may be quite different. Which of course can't be addressed in a boilerplate keep... Anyway, if a page needs bot edits every few days, but hasn't been used since 2020, then what is the argument for actually keeping this? Wikipedia is not a free webhost for whatever someone fancied at one time, and using resources like this is wasteful. Fram (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As explained elsewhere, we need a reason to delete (which "there's a syntax error on the page" and "I don't think anybody is using it" do not qualify), not just an argument that the reason to keep is weak. The BLP concerns elsewhere aren't nothing (a result of weaker sourcing requirements on Wikidata), but they would be true of absolutely any ListeriaBot list of people, including e.g. every Women in Red list (that people do actually use). The bot issue is, again, a separate issue from deletion, and deletion is not how we solve for bot issues that can be fixed with a simple edit. FWIW I don't intend to follow up on these further. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only simple edit that can solve the issue of "bot editing page every few days for page noone looks at" is by removing the bot code and making it a static page no one looks at. And the BLP issues with other pages are more serious than with most WiR pages, as they concern medical conditions or ethnicity, not just occupations (as with most of these WiR pages). And the WiR pages get actively looked at and issues (e.g. misgendering) normally get rapidly corrected (if my experience with them is still valid), while here BLP issues get posted to enwiki and no one acts on them. Fram (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deleting doesn't save hard drive space, but deleting that prevents further wasting of hard drive space does in fact save hard drive space, thus coming into light as an easy fix.—Alalch E. 16:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original bot issue have been fixed. No it hasn't, actually, but if it does I don't see the benefit of deleting this page (BLP does not apply here, as it's just a list of newspapers), and there is at least a possible benefit of keeping it. It serves as a possible inspiration for the creation of other articles. If even one article gets created because someone saw this page, I would consider it worth keeping. Maybe the real problem is that these kinds of pages aren't advertised widely enough. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC) (Underlined added 05:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Alalch E. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, first of all, @Pppery: it's fixed now, as anyone could've done in a few seconds. Has anyone actually, you know, checking with WikiProject Newspapers to see if it's true that nobody wants these? There is no policy about a minimum number of pageviews in order to retain a bot-maintained list. We have furthermore been instructed time and time again not to consider hard drive space in any decision (apart from e.g. pagesize for its implications on readers -- not its impact on memory). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1335003781#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion"