Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	44	44
TfD	1	5	6
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	13	14
RfD	0	2	2
AfD	0	0	0

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.

July 28, 2025

User:UBX/User Trump Worst President Ever

WP:UBDIVISIVE WP:POLEMIC no intelligent discussion results from rhetoric like this; just distracting. This is irrespective of the opinion expressed; I despise Trump but don't engage like this with others grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also don't like Trump, but any userboxes indicating one's political team colors are detrimental to collaboration. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casspedia/userboxes/User hates trump

WP:UBDIVISIVE WP:POLEMIC no intelligent discussion results from rhetoric like this; just distracting. This is irrespective of the opinion expressed; I despise Trump but don't engage like this with others grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unhelpful to productive collaboration. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless as the opposite userbox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexysun/Counter Kamala

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE, this is definitely a negative comparison that serves no other purpose than to soapbox and divide people. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 19:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Violates WP:POLEMIC. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer nom, as a side note, this happened after I mentioned in the Discord that I think the entire category of Donald Trump user boxes should be nuked. I was not told to come to this MfD.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2025

User:ImDefAHuman/sandbox

Another alternate history list which copies the real List of presidents of the United States (thus violating WP:COPYWITHIN) and then partially replaces it with pretend presidents like George Clinton, Rufus King, Samuel Johnston, John Pinckney and Henry Clay. But as always, sandbox is not a playground for making up your own alternate history stuff for the lulz, and is for working on stuff that's meant to be transferred to mainspace when you're done.
This, yet again, also seems to be the user's exclusive editing interest -- except for one stray bit of mainspace vandalism in 2021 where they added superfluous n's to the end of Thomas Jefferson's surname in an election article, their edit history has otherwise been entirely on this, so they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not for alternate history or Speedy Delete as U5. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository for alternate history fantasies. Curbon7 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I feel like alternative history pages like this one need their own speedy deletion criterion. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EA54:8DA4:E23A:EBBA (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They arguably fall under WP:U5. Curbon7 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete per nom. Offensive to Wikipedia. Subtle malicious vandalism, even if outside mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for alternate history. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the combination of WP:NOTALTHIST / WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 24, 2025

User:Spectra321578/TWA/Earth/2

Useless leftover of a indefinitely/globally blocked user. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being the coprolite of a banned user is not a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you boldly unilaterally quietly blank these. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really like to perform bold, unilateral moves inside other editors' userspaces, even in a case like this one. I'm more inclined to just nominate problematic or useless stuff here, and let the community to decide. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You like to make busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I just like to avoid "Wiki-dramas" whenever possible, and staying away from other editors' userspaces is a great way to achieve that. Another great way is to refrain from doing non-admin closures and such (which I never do), and leaving that task to admins themselves... As for "busywork", obviously your and mine intepretation of that notion can be very different, and I never have a problem to agree to disagree. But please, keep in mind that we should stay civil around here, and when you describe other users' work in such a way it could look like you forgot about that. Regards, — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundostund: I am sympathetic to your sentiment. However, this is miscellany for 'deletion' not discussion. If deletion is not a likely outcome, then alternatives should be implemented without a listing here. WP:STALEDRAFT offers great guidance on how to handle such pages. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: Thank you. I surely hear you, but I would (almost) always prefer an MfD nomination over just being bold inside of someone's userspace. Also, as we know, discussion must precede 'deletion' when something is nominated. So, discussion is a part of the process we have here. In the end, if a nomination wasn't really necessary after all, there is always an option of 'speedy keep' or something similar. It can be closed rather fast if needed. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank.: A useless worthless harmless page that has the only problem that some people look at it and think it’s a problem somehow. Blank, so that people don’t so easily come to look at it. Do not delete, administrative overhead should not be spent on harmless things in userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank if desired. No action necessary here; a vast multitude of such pages exist and running such pages through here would not be beneficial. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spectra321578/TWA/Earth

Useless leftover of a indefinitely/globally blocked user. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useless indeed, but we should not delete useless userpages of blocked users without good reason; they're indefinitely blocked, not publicly executed. This WP:TWA remnant does not meet any deletion criteria, and userspace cleanup is a typically lacking rationale. Curbon7 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Being the coprolite of a banned user is not a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank as a useless worthless thing that bothers someone. If the user is ever unblocked, they can unblank. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank if desired. No action necessary here; a vast multitude of such pages exist and running such pages through here would not be beneficial. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2025

Draft:Jorge Mendoza Yescas

Biographical draft whose creator is persistently ignoring or flouting rules about the WP:AFC process. The attempted notability claim here, "Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix", is not an "inherently" notable role that would guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia, and would instead require evidence that he passed WP:GNG on substantial reliable source coverage and analysis about the significance of his work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to Xitter tweets, YouTube videos and other primary sources that do not constitute support for notability.
Accordingly, it has been rejected by AFC reviewers for not being properly sourced three times now, but after each rejection the creator comes back and removes all the prior decline notices, despite more than one attempt by established editors to restore them, so that it looks like a "fresh" and "clean" new submission each time.
As well, the page has also been repeatedly placed back into categories in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT. After the third time it had to be pulled out of categories back in April, I posted to their user talk page to advise them that drafts can't be in categories -- but even though they claimed at the time to understand what I said and promised not to put it back into categories again, they have proceeded to put the page back into categories again three more times since then anyway, most recently just today.
So, since they're not following the rules and the draft could never be accepted into articlespace in this state anyway, there's not much point in just continuing to patiently clean up their disruption over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the draft, but block the creator. I do not see anything inherently problematic with the draft. It may be possible that this person meets notability guidelines, and the creator has simply not shown this/does not understand how their behavior is disruptive. I noticed in the page history that others have been trying to improve the draft; they should not have it pulled out from under them just because of one person's actions. It is the editor here who is the problem, not the draft. Keep the draft for others to improve (or for G13 to get it if it doesn't) and block the creator until or unless they have shown they understand the issues. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the draft, issue warnings to the user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the draft, but partially block the originator from the draft. This will permit other editors to add sources to establish general notability. If other editors do not edit the draft, it will expire in six months. The problem is not with the draft, but with the editor. The problem is not submitting a draft that does not establish notability; that is what the AFC process is for. The problems are adding article categories after being told not to add article categories, and removing the record of reviews. Partially block the editor from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the draft, and issue the warning to the creator – as the alternative to the immediate block. If they don't change their ways, then the block will be warranted. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 22, 2025

User:Amanak007/sandbox

Per WP:POLEMIC...

The draft makes several claims in wikivoice, such as [Trans women] are some of the most frequent pornography users of specific cross dressing interests such as sissy hypno / forced feminization, [...], voyeurism, exhibitionism, dyke conversion "therapy", shemale, and girldick categories., [...] the misogynistic and fetishistic nature of [trans women] who congregate in online spaces and cannot accept women's voices. (with the paragraph right before, yet still connected with that sentence, being a blatant exercise in WP:OR), [...] children and teenagers who might self-mutilate after falling for gender ideology (this is most certainly not happening), and [...] when one realizes that trans identities are bogus and harmful to society - particularly women's rights (see MOS:SAID for an explanation; realizes is non-neutral).
These claims are transphobic and vilify primarily trans women but also the trans community in general. The claim that trans women (which the essay calls "Trans-identifying men") masturbate to conversion therapy and engage in voyeurism is particularly egregious.

...and WP:NOTPROMO...

The draft promotes Ovarit by positioning the platform as a hero in the face of "trans ideology," rather than presenting it from a neutral point of view, which is evident by the draft parroting the userbase's claims about the trans community, both in wikivoice (see above) and in non-wikivoice ("Ovarites believe that...") and the excessively long "Purpose and Mission" quote and similar quotes (which may or may not be a copyright violation).

...this userspace draft should be deleted, as there is no salvageable content. OutsideNormality (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom TruenoCity (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank at least, undecided on “delete”. It is a lot of WP:OR. It has NPOV problems. Theses are rarely good reasons to delete userspace pages. The controversiality of the content makes me hesitant to delete, it being better to tolerate controversy in userspace than get into perceivable censorship.

Reasons to delete are:

1. It is heavily sourced, or citing, unreliable sources, bad sources, and is arguably promoting them.

2. The user is a two-day driveby account, over eight months ago, and are very unlikely to come back to fix the extensive problem of poor sourcing, and any attempt to use the content in mainspace would be bad.

If not deleted, it should certainly be blanked.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 21, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:David Hodge and Hi-Jin Kang Hodge

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Hodge and Hi-Jin Kang Hodge

Article should be removed from public view while authors accumulate more sources to support the argument for notability of subject. Clifford888 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the formatting of this nomination. I'm not sure deleting the current draft while new sources are being sought is the standard way of doing things, but I have no opinion beyond that. (Note that this was rejected by AfC after five prior declines.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for fixing the formatting! I was called away for a moment before I could rectify Clifford888 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a strange situation for multiple reasons:
- The nominator requests to remove the article from public view while more sources are found. This is a draft, and drafts are not considered to be on "public view". This implies that the nominator may be misguided as to their reasoning.
- This nomination is being made by a pop-up editor. Requests to delete this draft are the only edits that this editor has made. This raises questions about conflict of interest, since the draft itself is a conflict of interest submission, although not labeled as autobiography.
- The draft has been rejected, not merely declined, so that it should not be resubmitted in its current form. It would be reasonable for the author of the draft to request its deletion as G7 (and the edits by other users have not been substantive, so this would be a valid G7 request). However, this request is made by a popup editor, who may be working for the author (and should declare that connection) or may be an enemy of the author.
- This is almost a Speedy Keep 3 case, because The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. However, Speedy Keep should be used rarely, and the strangeness of this is a reason to keep it on "public view" for seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason for deletion. The nominator should get more experience editing mainspace before getting into doing things like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No valid reason for deletion and the nominator is a SPA. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Barnstars/Requests

This page was created by a now blocked user to host a request for barnstars to be awarded to them. Since this page serves no other purpose, I see no reason to keep it around, especially since it could be mistaken for a legitimate project page. ZLEA _T\^C 17:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Faux project page created by a now blocked editor. Shouldn't exist, full stop. λ NegativeMP1 17:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - has no purpose in projectspace. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no reason why someone should be using this. An actual request for a new barnstar to be made can be done here. GoldRomean (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Asking people for barnstars does nothing to improve Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Should have been speedy userfied, not brought to MfD. As a Userpage, it does not meet WP:U5. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the benefit of userfication over deletion? - ZLEA _T\^C 07:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication can be boldly done, without ceremony and fanfare, without the volunteer cost of a community discussion, and without creating a page to delete a page.

Userfication fits WP:DENY, and MfDing fails WP:DENY.

This practice of a group criticising even condemning an individual is a negative on all involved, psychologically.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I don't see any reason for keeping it userfied as creator is globally blocked. I would lean towards delete as to not unintentionally encourage someone digging up this page to create their own. TruenoCity (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I have a question, which is what criterion for speedy deletion is the basis for speedy deletion? If there is no criterion for speedy deletion, and I haven't seen one, then we should let this run for seven days. The user wasn't blocked or banned on the English Wikipedia when they created this file. They are now blocked indefinitely on three projects, but there doesn't seem to be a basis for G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I did not see that it would fall under any CSD, so I brought it to MfD. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon was probably referring to the "speedy delete" !votes.ObserveOwl (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something than can be confused as legitimate --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Creating unnecessary subpage as well. —HirowoWiki _{DM me on Discord at hirowo_.! | my contribs!} 05:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 05:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also user indeffed for cross wiki abuse Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW delete, this is quite simply not how barnstars are supposed to work. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:4365:D405:8F9E:551B (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Just for the record – I myself like barnstars and other awards. I am glad when I get them, and never refuse them; but actually asking other users to give them to me... nope, I don't think so. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per reasons above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 21:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ended today on 28 July 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.

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]