Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

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

Shortcut

WP:MFDNDWP:MFDND

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 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: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	18	87	105
TfD	4	48	52
MfD	10	30	40
FfD	7	13	20
RfD	5	48	53
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.

December 15, 2025

User:PlateOfToast/sandbox

I seem to recall previously making a similar deletion nomination, but don't remember if it was the same user. It's definitely the same nonsense about non-existent elections for non-existent political offices, though. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for alternate history. I didn't see any biographies of living persons violations, which doesn't mean that there aren't any. However, this is fiction presented as fact, which is a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:RadioKAOS It probably wasn't the same user. This sort of fictional history, sometimes about the past and sometimes about the future, is all too common. I wouldn't have written the essay Wikipedia is not for alternate history if it weren't a recurrent problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. RadioKAOS, it's possible to make a list of all the pages in the Wikipedia namespace you've created, all the MFD's you've ever contributed to, and pages titled with the username "PlateOfToast", and on skimming those lists, I can't find any similar discussion you've been involved in. But yes, we do get these sorts of pages quite often. Graham87 (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching around I just found this recent MFD, which also mentions Alaska and fake elections. Graham87 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: Procedural Close - Wrong Venue: Files go to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. See the moved to link below the file name. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg

Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 15 § File:Bondi Beach gunmen.jpg

I don't believe this image fulfils WP:NFCC#8. The image doesn't add anything to the article, nor is it such a high quality visual aid to warrant it's use. orangesclub 🍊 16:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's an image of unique historical significance showing in real time a terrorist attack in progress. The image cannot be recreated. The article that incorporates the image is about the attack. Green Montanan (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're explaining compliance with WP:NFCC#1, not WP:NFCC#8 ie how the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. The grainy image of two men with guns on a footbridge (which we have a better, free photo of anyway) does not add anything that cannot be described with words. orangesclub 🍊 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. A picture is worth 1000 words. Seeing the terrorists with the guns in their hands on the footbridge is not the same as the description in words. Green Montanan (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - low quality and doesn't add to the article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why is this at MFD? This appears to be an image, and I thought that the XFD forum for images was Files for Discussion. Have I missed something, or has the nominator missed the forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I'm not familiar with deletion discussions for images not on commons. Can the conversation be moved? orangesclub 🍊 17:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This adds significantly to the article. Seeing this is far more appropriate than trying to explain it in words. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made a procedural nomination at FFD; see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 15#File:Bondi_Beach_Terrorists.jpg. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Leesikhosana31

Wikipedia isn't a web host Felicia (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as an unreferenced BLP and as web hosting by a non-contributor. But please do not nominate pages as non-contributor web hosting during the first 24 hours of the originating account. The posting of resumes does not require a rush to judgment about new accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikisource/Citation Uniformity/Cite wikisource

This is an unused template in project space that shouldn't be used as it's completely outdated at this point. Template:Cite wikisource is the one that should be used. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This looks like an unused template in project space. It appears to be viewed approximately 20 times a year, because it is there. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius/The Donald

I dislike Trump for obvious reasons; a user box strongly implying that he has mental health issues and needs psychiatric care is, I suppose, a still BLP issue. And, more importantly, stigmatizing of those with psychiatric disabilities who actually do need mental health care. Either way, too WP:POLEMIC for a userbox. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 03:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete raises BLP concerns and is needlessly inflammatory. Day Creature (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this political opinion, rudely put, is out of scope of the purpose of Wikipedia, and could lead Wikipedia into political conflict. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a Republican, many of us will find inflammatory. Outside of politics, it has serious BLP issues. I don't want to political here, so the latter is my main reason for deletion. Felicia (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - rehabilitation can have a variety of meanings. I think that all of them make this a divisive and inflammatory userbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm puzzled by the nomination statement, not seeing anything alluding to mental health issues, or psychiatric care, and therefore don't see any stigmatization of anyone. However, it is divisive and inflammatory, and so unhelpful. I suppose the nominator may be assuming the userbox is discussing Psychiatric rehabilitation as opposed to Rehabilitation (penology), though that possibility didn't occur to me until reading Robert's comment above. Martinp (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this refers to mental health specifically is made clear by the wikilinks. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 20:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, makes more sense now, I didn't notice the links. Regardless, the divisiveness is enough to mean it should go. Martinp (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 14, 2025

Wikipedia:Historical archive/Logs/Upload log/template

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. -- Beland (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has been redundant since at least 2005 per a comment that has been left on the talk page that year. Felicia (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not to mention that the talk page comment was made by the nominator of this MFD. would've been deleted years ago if it it was in the template namespace, which didn't exist when this page was created in April 2004. (I wonder if there was a technical reason that this page wasn't created in the MediaWiki namespace, the predecessor to templates)? Despite working on these old logs myself, I'd never heard of this page. I'm OK with this page being kept around as a historical curio but am also OK with deletion. Graham87 (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This hasn't had a use since before template space was implemented. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. We don't really need decades-old redundancies. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The page was not tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Noted on the talk page as being obsolete in 2005, no reason to keep it around. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SixSixtieth/2022 General Square protests and massacre

Alt history nonsense that has no place on Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for alternate history. Since some of these events are said to be in 2022, this is a hoax. Much of this page has been copied from an existing article, and review has found that it contains the names of living persons , originally with verifiable content, but fiction has been prepended, so that there are also biographies of living persons violations. Either the hoax or the BLP violations would be reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. — ERcheck (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baptera

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT; non-contributor. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as web hosting. There hasn't yet been a lot of time to verify that the originator is a non-contributor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy deleted as editor placed speedy delete tag on own user page. Deleted under WP:CSD#U1. — ERcheck (talk) 17:28, 15 December 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:Top 10 reasons why copying from maps is strictly prohibited on the Wikipedia Syria war map

Originally nominated by User:Ecrusized at this AfD.

Original deletion reason: "This humorous essay and its content violate strict Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR. And editors are linking this essay to remove citations from map files, and then replace them with original research content, in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. I suggest its deletion since it is being used to abuse and violate Wikipedia policies." I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, being humorous instead of serious is not really a valid deletion reason. Humorous essays are allowed. However, to be honest, this essay is not that funny, and it also has a long title. It was created 9 years ago, with most content written by one person. Perhaps it'd make sense to userfy it, leaving a redirect. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This humorous essay reflects long-standing community consensus, as can be seen at Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Rules_for_editing_the_map.

Furthermore, the nominator has been copying map data from demonstrably inaccurate external sources on Commons (File:Yemeni Civil War.svg). When other editors pointed out these issues and corrected the map based on alternative reliable sources and the sourced Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map, the nominator continued to insist on using the incorrect sources, repeatedly reverted other editors’ corrections, and accused them of WP:OR, while ignoring the fact that their own edits relied on erroneous sources. （Link: Commons:File_talk:Yemeni_Civil_War.svg#This_file_is_not_citing_any_sources)

When I directed the nominator to this essay, which explicitly explains why such practices are problematic, they instead chose to nominate it for deletion. I do not wish to assume bad faith, but I cannot regard this course of action as a normal or constructive way of resolving the underlying issue. Nebulatria (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nebulatria: What do you mean you don't want to assume bad faith?? I nominated this page for deletion because of original research concerns. Ecrusized (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I cited this essay in that discussion to explain why directly copying problematic maps from media sources is inappropriate, you responded by nominating the essay for deletion instead of engaging with the substance of the issue. That sequence of actions speaks for itself. Nebulatria (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to respond to you at all. I nominated this page for deletion because I find it problematic. If you're concerned about my sequences, you can take your complaints to the appropriate place. Ecrusized (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea that WP:OR applies to the Wikipedia namespace or to essays is questionable. I think things like WP:OR are mainly for mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The objective of this essay is not to be funny. The humour is just a way to make people read the whole thing. Also, just looking at the pictures is not enough. This essay is as relevant today as it was 9 years ago. Why was this essay written? It was in reaction to MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA RULES IN MAKING WAR MAPS. For example, people were copying from maps drawn by random social media users such as Fuzzyjuice99! They were also copying from WIKIMAPIA which anyone can edit without sources! Many other examples of Wikipedia rules violations are explained in detail in the essay. Those who want to delete the essay want to be freed from Wikipedia rules to make maps as they wish. They want to copy unreliable information that suit their POV pushing. Do not believe their bogus reasons to delete the essay. The essay applies Wikipedia rules to the making of war maps. If the essay is deleted, the reliability of war maps on Wikipedia will go to hell... Tradedia^talk 17:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suryajskd/sandbox

LLM-generated userspace draft by a blocked sock on a topic already covered at Solar System. Not eligible for G5 since it was created before the sockmaster (Pradip0016) was blocked. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AI-generated and lower quality than the article that's already live. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete due to a combination of being AI-generated and created by a now-blocked puppeteer. We should be tolerant of stuff in sandboxen, but there are limits to our tolerance. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 13, 2025

December 12, 2025

User:Adp0039/Hypocrites (1915 film)

Already exist in the mainspace. Wikipedia isn't a web host Felicia (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now because the copy has only existed for less than 24 hours. Give the originator time to see why they have made the copy before deciding whether to redirect it to Hypocrites (1915 film). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MirMdSharif

This is an unsourced BLP created by a non-contributor and this is my primary deletion reason. Further reasons are because the user page is promotional, but possibly not bad enough for WP:G11, and, lastly because the user page is AI slop. GPTZero says that there is a 100% chance that it was written by an LLM. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCV TruenoCity (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced BLP and as web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 11, 2025

User:MarkusJz/sandbox

A copy of a mainspace article. Wikipedia isn't a web host Felicia (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~This does not appear to be a copy of a mainspace article.~~ This appears to be alternate history. ~~Did the nominator, [[User:Felicia777], intend to nominate something else as a copy of a mainspace article? The nomination reason is incorrect, but this page should not be speedily kept, because~~ there is a valid reason to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is alternate history set in the future, and so is crystal balling. It also makes statements about living persons that are contrary to fact, which is a biographies of living persons violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The account of the fictitious coup in Germany appears to have been appended onto an article about events in Myanmar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Failing that, the misuse of Wikipedia as a crystal ball and the BLP violations are good enough reasons for regular deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shweta U Kalgutkar

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. WP:U5 is no long a speedy deletion, but it has always been a good reason for deletion. Please mention when the user is a non-contributor, because NOTWEBHOST violations alleged for contributors have always proven controversial, with the need to weigh reasonable leeway, and what the user could possibly be doing, and the importance of talking to respected contributors first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as web hosting. Weak delete because we don't yet know that the originator is a non-contributor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Should have been tagged under G11. Felicia (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/European English

Undiscussed advocacy page pushing Euro English, a disputed possible variant of English. Created by a now-vanished user whose other EU advocacy was reverted and/or disputed. See also this TFD. [Comment added later: This page has no incoming links or transclusions.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems more a single contributor's "personal project" than a community-backed element of an actual WikiProject. Guliolopez (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only contributor has invoked the right to vanish, and this paper can vanish also. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not seem to have been adopted or edited by anyone else in the WikiProject or in general, safe to delete. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dgp4004 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: speedy delete. WP:G3 hoax. ^Complex/_Rational 17:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stormoftherain459/sandbox

User sandbox making fictionalized claims about the results of the 2006 Brazilian general election. This same page title has been previously deleted as an alternate history hoaxification of the 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial election per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormoftherain459/sandbox, but can't just be speedied now as the content isn't the same as last time -- but it's still a WP:BLP violation making false claims about living people, as José Serra was not the winner of the real election and José Dirceu wasn't the runner up. (Neither of them, in fact, was even on the ballot at all that year, according to the real mainspace article.)
As usual, however, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any fiction you want to for the funsies -- it's for working on real stuff that's meant to be transferred back to mainspace as a real article when you're done, which obviously this can't be. The creator, further, has never made any edits to any other page on Wikipedia but this one, so they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. I've indef blocked the user as not here for creating two hoaxes in sandbox space. BusterD (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 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.

December 10, 2025

Portal:Phoenicia/box-header-tabs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G7 per WereSpielChequers Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates in portal namespace. Removing these unused templates helps save editor time in maintenance for the working parts, as it removes the "noise". Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 9, 2025

User:Fd5151

Purely an attack page. Enough said. Gommeh 📖 🎮 04:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 05:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure whether this should be called an attack page, but clearly unencyclopedic and intended to right a great wrong by a single-purpose account. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - forgot WP:RGW was a thing as well! Gommeh 📖 🎮 12:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and intended to WP:RGW. Note the edit by this user, at the article "Police brutality by country". Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 14:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 8, 2025

User:Labububinahmed3abbas/sandbox

Wikipedia isn't a web host Felicia (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not yet voting at this time, but I have a question for the nominator. Why are you reviewing newly created sandboxen? This looks like a class paper or artificial intelligence, having no encyclopedic value, but this was in a sandbox for less than 12 hours before being nominated for deletion. How long should an editor be allowed to have experimental junk in their sandbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I see no reason to try to 2nd guess exactly what experimentation a new user choses to do in a userspace sandbox, all of 10.5 hours after creating that sandbox. If there were evidence this was indeed being used as a webhost, i.e. for dissemination for others, then I might fall on the side of deleting this soon after creation. Otherwise, absent anything explicitly objectionable, I see no issues to let the user experiment in a sandbox. Martinp (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. If it is not a drive-by WEBHOST dump, they have seven days to explain, or to make some real contributions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC) ended today on 16 December 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.

December 7, 2025

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 03:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cirxt0/sandbox

Yet another sandbox copy of List of presidents of the United States, again fictionalized to provide a very different lists of presidents than the United States has actually had in reality. This one kind of flips back and forth between real presidents and pretend ones up until JFK, at which point it wanders completely off into science fiction never to return: JFK doesn't die in office and stays president until 1969, whereupon his successor is RFK, and is then followed by Walter Mondale, Teddy Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Anita Hill, John McCain, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro and an incumbent Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And naturally, as is so often the case with this sort of crap, it was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is an absolute no-no.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any bullshit you want to for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when you're done, which obviously this can't be. And as always, WP:BLP applies to all pages in Wikipedia, not just to mainspace content: anything that would be false information about a living person in a mainspace article, such as claiming that they had been president of the United States when they hadn't, is still false information about a living person in userspace too. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax (fictional timeline). User:Cirxt0 is welcome to write about this stuff, but they shouldn't expect Wikipedia to host it. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to multiple biographies of living persons violations. The list is contrary to fact about multiple living persons whose names and images are used. There are other reasons to delete, but when I see one of these lists of Presidents, I first look for and find BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious hoax per BusterD. Speaking of which: @BusterD, might I ask why you haven't done so yourself? Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, a deletion discussion is useful 1) to gain a wider understanding of community feeling, and 2) confirm the issues described in the context of a formal discussion. Bearcat is perfectly capable, empowered, and trusted by the community to make such speedy deletions themself. Why did they not speedy the page themself? They chose not to tag or delete, but instead to start a discussion; their reasons are on the record above. My assertion is one of many assertions here validating their nomination. This is a case where the new WP:U6 and WP:U7 speedy tags might be applied. BusterD (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: Okay. that makes sense to me _{Self-trout and let's just forget that I didn't know Bearcat was an admin...} But wouldn't we have to wait 6 months to use U6/U7? Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! On review you're correct. I misremembered this as an older draft. BusterD (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, yeah, Wikipedia has not established a universal consensus that articles which blend real information with fictionalized information qualify as straight-up hoaxes for the purposes of CSD G3. If the article comprised a completely fictionalized list of presidents across the board, without any real presidents mixed in, then I'd be on safe ground speedying it as a hoax — but if there are some real presidents in the mix, such that the creator could cover their ass by removing the fake information, then I'm on shakier ground and need to take it to a discussion no matter how speediable I personally think it should be. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a weird alt history project. Felicia (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to possibility of confusion. How this differs from other user sandboxes where I often !vote keep is that this one is a blatant alternate-universe version of an actual article, has misinformation/BLP issues, and has been around for over a week, so that the user has likely gained whatever evanescent but plausible benefit they might have sought from it in practicing their editing in their sandbox. Martinp (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Seriously, these POTUS-related alt-history lists are becoming tiresome. How many of them are actually out there? — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that there's a ton of uncaught ones at any given time, it's that new and/or under-the-radar users keep creating new ones at random (but leaving them in all of the real article's categories, so that Category:Presidents of the United States keeps recurring on the Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories cleanup report over and over again, which is how and why I keep finding them). A couple of years ago it wasn't so much this as it was reality shows with either fake contestants or falsified orders of finish, which I haven't seen nearly as much of lately — obviously now it's much more this and faked results of various elections, though I still don't know where anybody ever got the idea that such content was acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat You can find a lot more of these with searches such as [1], [2]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:09, 13 December 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.

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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GANESH SHRIRANG SATARKAR

Wikipedia isn't a publisher or webhost for promotional autobiographies Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 7 December 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.

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theme writer

Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original research. This is a journal article, or at least aspires to be one. I haven't found whether it has been previously published, but Wikipedia isn't the place to host turgid journal-style essays. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This quacks like an AI-written class paper. This is not a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AI-generated or not, Wikipedia is not a webhost, and this page misuses the site as one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a space for hosting journal or school essays. Google Docs and LibreOffice Writer are free. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:50, 10 December 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.

December 6, 2025

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: speedy delete. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adamsmith7/sandbox

Wikipedia isn't a web host. Felicia (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This would have been U5 when there was U5, and is still within the scope of what we should delete as web hosting. This is not a draft article, and reads like it was written by artificial intelligence. I can't be sure of that, but that is not the only reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11, bad attempt at SEO. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; that spam link is enough to push it over the edge of G11 as far as I'm concerned. Passenger pigeon (talk) 17:49, 10 December 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.

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) 20:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piouseditor/sandbox

Wikipedia isn't a web host Felicia (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s content drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious draft, not eligible for speedy deletion either. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 22:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sounds like it could be a valid article, and it is in a sandbox. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 18:01, 10 December 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.

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 00:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:RIPGavin1999-2011IMissYouBro

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 19:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial . Also would recommend a name change for said user Felicia (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL. It might be ok if the poster, or the deceased, were Wikipedians, but Wikipedia is not for non-Wikipedians to memorialise their late loved ones. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:48, 10 December 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.

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 00:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eduardo T. Batalla

Wikipedia isn't a webhost Felicia (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this were in article space it would be eligible for WP:A10 speedy deletion, since this is a copy of the existing History of Mexico article. BusterD (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As BusterD notes, this is a copy of an article in userspace, and these are explicitly not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:47, 10 December 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.

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 00:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justyc100

Wikipedia isn't a web host. I'm listing this as MfD because I'm personally not sure if this is a candidate for speedy deletion under G11. Felicia (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an attempt at drafting a biography.

I think it is more likely the posting of a memorial.

It is not G11-eligible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank for pointing that out. That is the reason I brought it here at MfD. Felicia (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial site. This is the only thing that the originator has done, and has made minor edits just before six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:46, 10 December 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.

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: speedy delete. IAR. Disruptive spam doesn't need seven days. Star Mississippi 16:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pradip0016

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I cannot be sure, but this appears to be an AI-written draft on Cyber Security, and cyber security already redirects to computer security. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:45, 10 December 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.

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Community/WikiHash

Unclear purpose or utility. -- Beland (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete - Could also be marked historical, but the history is that this coprolite has been occupying space and not viewed, for a long time. In other words, this is completely useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was related to Wikipedia:Community hash, an alternative to the Community Portal which was proposed in 2005, but never saw any real usage. Omphalographer (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep and mark historical. no solid reason for deletion. ltbdl (activate) 15:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as historical would make sense if this were a resource which saw some meaningful usage, or which was the subject of community discussion. I don't think that's the case here; this is just an old bit of junk which went unnoticed for twenty years. It wasn't even linked from anywhere before this MFD. Omphalographer (talk) 20:30, 8 December 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.

December 5, 2025

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryan162j/Luis jimenez

LLM-generated userspace draft on a topic that is already covered at Luis Jiménez (sculptor). Compare Luis jimenez, created by the same user and up for speedy deletion per A10. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have two more pages like it:

I'll have to go to WP:AINB for advice on other pages created in this user's userspace. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I don't see obvious tells of a large language model, but the style and tone are non-encyclopedic and appear to be AI-written, and we don't need questionable drafts on subjects that are already in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now, at least. A very recent new user finding their way with misplaced enthusiasm. It's right to delete their misplaced, duplicative, and therefore disruptive mainspace page creation (has been done, not subject of this nom). But these pages in user space are at worst harmless, and at best act as sandboxes for practice editing following which user might make productive additions to our actual existing article, or to other articles with more confidence. Or, of course, drop out and never be seen again -- which becomes all the more likely if we welcome them with a rash of CSD deletions and MfD deletion nominations. No objection to deleting such stuff as confusing duplicate drafts if abandoned for some time (weeks? months? I don't have an opinion), but there is no problem to be solved with urgency here. Martinp (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:41, 10 December 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.

December 4, 2025

User:Adisamanbek

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]

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: Wrong venue. No mainspace titles come to MfD for deletion. Disambiguation pages are treated like articles. User PROD of AfD. (non-admin closure) SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1960 NBA season

Putting this in Miscellany because I'm not sure where else it should go - if this is wrong please advise. I'm not sure where to put a mass deletion proposal.

This page and many like it (e.g. 1961 NBA season, 1962 NBA season... 2025 NBA season inclusive) are almost wholly useless two-outlet disambiguation pages. I say useless because they don't appear at the orphaned pages list entirely through linking to each other (they were all on it not long ago...). They are not linked in actual NBA articles, which properly pinpoint the link to the exact season where necessary (e.g. Boston Garden uses an inline link directly to 1986–87 NBA season). I'd argue they are improperly classified/tagged {{Set index article}} because in all cases there can only be two things to index. The pages simply add an unnecessary extra click-through in search engine results; and on top of that, they are all of them 50% inaccurate because in the vernacular, someone saying a single year + "season" - e.g. "Well, in the 1969 season..." they always or very nearly always mean the season for which the finals were played that year (in this case the 1968–1969 NBA season).^{[citation needed]} The long and short of it is that all of these pages should either be changed to hard redirects as described in the previous sentence (e.g. 1960 NBA season -> 1959–60 NBA season) or deleted outright. ZenSwashbuckler 20:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ZenSwashbuckler 20:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue: @Zenswashbuckler, Disambiguation pages should either be PRODed or taken to AFD, not here. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:13, 4 December 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marvin Kaye Valmores

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jean Lorraine Lubong. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the third version of this probable class project. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my already duplicated !vote here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:39, 10 December 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.

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. Star Mississippi 18:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/20th Century Studios

Unnecessary deletion sorting page for an overly narrow topic that is not linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact and only consists of a single AFD from 2023. Creator has been inactive since 2022. Sugar Tax (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This deletion sorting list, like all deletion sorting lists, states that it belongs to WikiProject Deletion sorting. Has this been discussed at WikiProject Deletion sorting? Also, should it be marked historical rather than deleted?Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to mark something that's been used exactly once as historical, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone at the WikiProject would care about a page that was created unilaterally, is much narrower than their usual scope, and isn't in use. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:02, 12 December 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sendator/sandbox

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?rev1=607323685&rev2=607323373 Paradoctor (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to above, the User:Sendator hasn't edited in over a decade, and the editor who created it on their behalf is indeffed, so there's no realistic prospect for it being used again anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPIES. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:38, 10 December 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.

December 3, 2025

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. Star Mississippi 16:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:El-Jazzy/sandbox

Abuse of the userspace as webhosting. It's a (large-language-model-generated) story. RandFreeman 21:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as web hosting. This is the same as Draft:Hakuna. This raises conduct and not here to be constructive issues about the originator, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. This could not be interpreted as a draft, but if it could it would be eligible for G3. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:37, 10 December 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aila Mae Abalos

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jean Lorraine Lubong. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy and guideline cited by the nominator. This is an essay by a non-contributor on a subject that we already have an article on. This would have been eligible for U5. (You're not seing double, this is very similar to User:Jean Lorraine Lubong). Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be some sort of class project. Whatever it is, we don't need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:37, 10 December 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.

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. Star Mississippi 16:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jean Lorraine Lubong

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy and guideline cited by the nominator. This is an essay by a non-contributor on a subject that we already have an article on. This would have been eligible for U5. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be some sort of class project. Whatever it is, we don't need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Robert McClenon that this could be a class project, a similar situation to the cluster of accounts I reported at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. These are the other accounts I suspect are part of this newest project (will add as needed):

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:36, 10 December 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Salt Lake City/FAQ

This FAQ page was created during an RFC on the inclusion on some additional flags in the infobox of Salt Lake City, and it was about why those flags were there. The RFC was closed with consensus to remove the flags. Therefore, I don't think this subpage is needed anymore. This may be eligible for an IAR G6, but I'm not sure, so I'm listing it here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we generally keep historical record of discussions, including RfCs and supplementary material, in this instance the whole content of this page (1 FAQ) is encompassed in the RfC's header, and no links point to this page except related to this deletion nomination. So this feels like noncontroverial cleanup, and kudos for someone thinking to do it now rather than in years when community memory is gone. Martinp (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp, no links point to this page – a slight correction: it was on Talk:Salt Lake City, but I removed it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not arguing again deletion, but “IAR G6” is offensive to deletion policy, and removing links from a talk page sounds like revisionism. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: What? I only mentioned G6 (how is that offensive?) because I heard about it somewhere else. Although, looking at that page again, I guess I should looked at the "specific misuses" section. What's more confusing to me is your labeling of my action as "revisionism." What do you mean by that? Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chess. So “IAR G6” was a joke? WP:!G6’s nutshell is “G6 is not WP:IAR”. This page should not be deleted under G6 or IAR. I guess that I’m having trouble reading your nuance.

Removing links, on an old talk page, sounds like revisionism? I think that was a poor word choice. It sounds like altering of records, making the record look different to what it was at the time of use. I looked for your removal of a link, but didn’t find it, and decided it is too unimportant. This page, Talk:Salt Lake City/FAQ, is quite odd, and probably. It worth my time trying to understand it.

Delete the FAQ before anyone else hurts themself trying to work it out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, I suggested an IAR G6 because deleting this subpage seems like uncontroversial cleanup (to me, anyway), but doesn't fit into the normal G6 reasons. If you feel that strongly against it, then I'll strike that part of my nomination.

On your second point: The talk page is old, but this subpage was created a little under two months ago. here is where I removed it from Talk:Salt Lake City. Since those flags aren't there anymore, it's an answer to a question no one will ask. I'm not trying to alter any records. Oh, and "Chess" is someone else's name, not mine. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that any talk subpage that was ever linked from or discussed at the talk page is definitely not G6 eligible.

This subpage can be deleted because it should never have been created. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 7 December 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.

December 2, 2025

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. Whpq (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Older consolidated

Not used in almost four years and likely will never be used again. If there is a need to list backlogged copyright problems again it can be done directly on Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than on a hard to find subpage that happens to be transcluded on the main page. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 07:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has useful history of past issues, similar to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings which also isn't used anymore. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question is if we lose previous copyright investigations by deleting this page, given that copyright investigations I noticed are transcluded by year month day. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They used to not be. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is information to be lost I would agree with the comments above and below marking historical rather than deleting. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is information that will be lost. We are currently clearing up old improper claims of permission and are relying on those old listings that were manually copied to that page for a period of time. I also object to old projectspace process pages being deleted just because they're currently unused - if you look at the /NewListings page, you can see it's nowikied and marked historical. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 21:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather this be marked as historical than deleted. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Mark Historical - The only effect of deleting this would be to make its history invisible to non-admins. Is there any reason why we need to hide its history? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon. Graham87 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 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.

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. Star Mississippi 16:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Observer33/sandbox

No point keeping this here as it already exist as a draft at Draft:Alternative Hypotheses. The author also has not been editing for a few months. Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 01:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A10 speedy tag was removed (by a temp user!) since not in article space. That is correct as far as rejecting that speedy. But there is no reason to (and some confusion arising from) retaining a userspace draft identical to, and probably recreated as a misunderstanding of, a draft moved to draftspace. Martinp (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's a sandbox. Sandboxen do not need to be deleted unless they contain seriously problematic material such as BLP violations, What Wikipedia is Not violations, or other troublesome material. This is only a fragment, and does not need deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author removed my redirect tag to the draft page, which contains similar content. Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, its going to be deleted anyways after 6 months. Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 00:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally tend to agree with Robert (and others) on not interfering with users' sandboxes, absent them being really objectionable. I was swayed to Delete in this instance since I interpret the author's reinstatement of the original text, essentially duplicated from the draftspace version, over your redirect as a mark of inexperience and confusion, rather than passive-aggressive disagreement with you. So I'm !voting Delete here purely as administrative clean-up of confused duplication. That said, part of the reason we let user sandboxes be, and let 6 months inactivity take care of Drafts that get abandoned, is that it's generally somewhere between a waste of time and an unnecessary microagression to be deleting this kind of stuff. Users come, try something, often depart. Abandoned stuff in Drafts gets recycled, and abandoned stuff in userspace is (generally) harmless. Martinp (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Martinp. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:34, 10 December 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.

December 1, 2025

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. If someone wishes to move it to User:BobT34655/sandbox, that does not require admin action. Star Mississippi 16:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BobT34655

Used as a sandbox. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the nominator says, this user page is being used as a sandbox. I have looked for, and not found, a guideline against the use of a user page as a sandbox. I don't see a guideline that would imply that this use is improper. I don't see any policy difference between a user page and a sandbox in user space (where sandboxen are). Does the nominator want to explain why this is improper? Otherwise a trout may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:BobT34655/sandbox. This new-ish user seems to have good intent, but have had some difficulty editing productively in mainspace. They seem to have internalized feedback given and are now trying out stuff in their userspace. It is true that it would be better to do so in a sandbox that in their actual user page, but let's not beat them up more for sorta doing what we want them to do, if imperfectly, when we can just as easily just fix it. Martinp (talk) 00:02, 2 December 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.

November 29, 2025

November 28, 2025

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samreet groups

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — ERcheck (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drm310. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 30 November 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.

November 27, 2025

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Time Reborn

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Appears to be a class project, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the others, listed below through User: Savi Tiwarna. Whatever is going on here, the purpose does not seem related to building an encyclopedia, and the lack of response by the contributors to any of these nominations makes it less likely this is someone finding their sea-legs with confused but encyclopedic intent. Martinp (talk) 23:55, 1 December 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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ridhamverma1234

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harjinder69

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Appears to be a class project, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mankirt group

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting. This is some sort of class project, but is not a class project whose purpose is focused on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my opinion, these nominations could have been bundled. However, many experienced editors have never had the unpleasant responsibility of having to learn how to bundle nominations, and bundling is not done by Twinkle. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

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 14:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randeepmaan490

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 30 November 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.

November 26, 2025

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. CoconutOctopus talk 18:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Savi Tiwana

WP:NOTWEBHOST content. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete User:Savi Tiwana/sandbox too, the same thing. Clear NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also appears to be AI-generated (90.76% ZeroGPT score). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I have tagged the sandbox. This would have been U5 before U5 was revised, but it still should be deleted. This appears to be some sort of promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a school project, judging by the section listing group members at the bottom of the page. This is more common than one might think. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are not the only ones, it seems. Look at these userpages as well:

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:ChildrenWillListen - You wrote: This is more common than one might think. Did you mean that there are other such school projects, or that there were other participants in this project? I see that you have nominated the other participants in this project? If there are other such projects, please nominate them if you know about them, or provide information. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other such school projects, yes. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1202 § Class project users and inappropriate userspace pages, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pashayat Jitendra/Archive, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pruthviraj Ranjane/Archive are some examples. I'm not sure if chasing them down is worth our time. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Class projects, whose instructors are either uninformed or ill-informed about Wikipedia, seem to recur at regular intervals. The students, of course, blindly follow the instructor's directions without question. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with class projects to create Wikipedia articles, in which the instructor may set unreasonable terms, such as a date for acceptance of the article into the encyclopedia. These projects are problematic, but are consistent with the purpose and concept of Wikipedia. This is a more serious problem because this class project is not about the encyclopedia. It apparently is just using Wikipedia as a web server, and there is a policy against that, in Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lot of users involved in those rogue projects. Ugh. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 November 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.

November 25, 2025

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 for now. While the content in this draft is inaccurate and poorly referenced, it does not rise to the level of a WP:FAKEARTICLE nor is it quite as bad as initially described. I see forward motion on improving it, and I assume good faith as to the intentions of the author. I am reluctant to pull the rug out from under an editor who was in the middle of drafting content.

Participants who argued for deletion had good points. @Rager7: An article on this topic would have to be pretty darn well-written to avoid deletion if it were moved directly into article space. Even then, it could easily be deleted as redundant to Arab–Israeli conflict. If the draft gets to the point where you are ready to publish it, I would definitely advise submitting it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation rather than trying to move it into article space directly; no doubt that would generate a lot of feedback. You may wish to move this into Draft: space to allay concerns about a poorly-written draft on a controversial subject laying around indefinitely. I'm closing this as "keep for now" and leaving the door open to revisiting deletion in 6 months, e.g. if the draft is abandoned in the meantime or it becomes more clearly problematic.

Unfortunately, given the feedback so far, I expect that a submission at AFC would fail for the same reasons voiced by the supporters of deletion, that it's redundant to an existing article. I would hate for you to put a lot of time and energy into something that's really difficult only to have it come to nothing, and have the project miss out on other improvements you could have made in that time. Because a draft can morph into something different before it's published, I am reluctant to close as "delete" on those grounds. However, if you decide to drop this project, I encourage you to either request deletion or blank the page if you're recycling it for a different draft. If you need more feedback on whether this is a good use of your time, you could ask more editors if an article with the scope of these four wars is needed, e.g. on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. -- Beland (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rager7/sandbox/draft2

WP:FAKEARTICLE with potentially highly offensive word substitutions, like "Is real" for "Israel" and "imagination" for "immigration". Not to mention that it's some weird sort of alternative/wished-for history, or something. Not what userspace is for, at any rate. Graham87 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not trying to do alternate history or anything like that. Those are just typos. Rager7 (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do, then? Graham87 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to compile a period of time (in this case a series of wars) in Middle Eastern history into one article, that's all. Typos and mistakes are bound to happen. Rager7 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the article Arab–Israeli conflict, which serves that purpose quite nicely. Graham87 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I'm trying to go more in depth and be specific. Like the article Arab–Israeli conflict is more about the general long term conflict. While I'm trying to explain more about the four major wars within the overall conflict. Does that make sense? Rager7 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me it doesn't. I'll leave others to comment further. Graham87 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recognize this is a very sensitive topic area, where unusual contributions provoke some concern. But I start from a presumption of significant latitude for potentially encyclopedia-related userspace sandbox content by a long-term, varied-topic editor. @Graham87:, can you elaborate what you found "potentially highly offensive"? I wasn't highly offended by anything based on a quick glance, and I hesitate to censor based on potentiality of offensiveness and second-guessing what some other editor might or might not find useful for their editing. But I'm also aware that some of these long-term contentious editing conflicts use coded language that those of us outside do not immediately recognize. Martinp (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Martinp: FWIW this was how the page was when it was nominated for deletion, with the incorrect words that I noted (not all have been fixed; and I honestly don't know what to think of the user's explanation, but autocorrect can be interesting). I barely edit in the topic area either. But stuff like "Israel for the most part have [sic] now cordial relations with the neighboring Arab countries despite past grievances" is flatly contradicted by the fact that both Lebanon and Syria, two countries that border Israel, don't recognise it, along with the very next sentence in the user page, "Relations are still tense despite the various peace deals and agreements.". The whole thing feels like an ill-thought-out mishmash of ideas that will be of little use to anyone and ignores Israel's incursions into universally recognised Arab sovereign states like the 2006 Lebanon War and the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Re the "potentially encyclopedia-related userspace sandbox content by a long-term, varied-topic editor" bit, I don't think this user has the bredth or depth of experience to overhaul a topic area like that; but then again, neither do I. I'd feel differently if the author was a recognised subject matter expert and/or had a strong reputation among editors in the topic area, but I don't think we have that here. Graham87 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The part where I wrote: "Israel for the most part have [sic] now cordial relations with the neighboring Arab countries despite past grievances" are place holders. Obviously, that's not accurate. After all, I will change it later on when I have better information to put down. Rager7 (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hmmm, there is the [[Arab–Israeli War disambiguation page (created relatively late in Wikipedia's history, in 2014) and this American University source seems to describe the early history of the Israel-Arab conflict this way. But my question is: would anyone else actually find a page like this in article space useful? To me it feels like a page on, say, World War I or World War II that only focuses on a few of the major battles/events. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive. Graham87 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Graham87 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re applying too high a bar in asking “could this as-is be useful in article space”. It’s a user sandbox. So I think the bar is more “could this be useful to this user in eventually making edits in article space”. And I’m disinclined to second guess that, absent actual disruption. There’s enough preamble on the subject age that it can’t be mistaken for an actual article.

As to factual accuracy, meh. If a sandbox claims the world population of kangaroos is 5 billion, I may have grave doubts about it, but I won’t advocate deleting the sandbox as a result (I’d ask for a source if put in article space though). I realize this is an oversimplification given the contentious area here but I think we just don’t need to police user sandboxes like this absent a real problem. Martinp (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we already have Arab–Israeli conflict which does the same thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep in the absence of a more specific reason by the nominator - This should be treated as a draft, and drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. However, this is not a draft that we need, because the article already exists. I will ask the usual annoying question, and that is why the nominator is reviewing user sandboxen. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this user page while briefly checking the creating user's contributions (their latest edit was to the nominated page at the time) and the combination of the unusual word usage, the odd-seeming slant/scope, and the controversial topic area prompted me to bring this user page here. Perhaps talking to the user about it (or consulting privately about what to do, as I was thinking of doing) might have been a better idea. I didn't think this was relevant enough to mention in the nomination statement but I have quite a fraught history with the user who created the page, which also led me to wonder whether views of it from other people besides me would be helpful. I don't usually patrol user pages and have no intentions of doing so in the future, either for this user or in general. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Blunt comment: Either your concern with this page is somehow related to your recent involvement with the arbitration motion related to this user (that you have now linked to above). In that case, that is a germane part of the discussion and it is impossible to evaluate whether intervention is needed without more context.
  
  Or it is not related. In that case, I would strongly suggest you avoid this type of investigation of users' edits and their own userspaces in particular, and especially of users with whom you already "have a fraught history". While ostensibly your failed re-RFA (I'm hoping you don't mind me linking to it here, given your own link under "fraught history" above leads to it) was about overzealous blocks, the underlying issue was a pattern where based on a minor issue, you made exaggeratedly negative interpretations of a user's editing pattern and intentions, and rushed into action on that basis. That pattern seems to have been repeated here, where for some reason something about this user's actions attracted your attention, and you've jumped to the most negative possible interpretation of their other edits.
  
  Reading between the lines in the discussion here, you're getting lukewarm agreement from all 3 uninvolved editors that we don't really see what usefulness this page brings. But that's not a standard we generally apply to deleting userspace sandboxes; it's whether the creator finds them useful that matters, absent some other major problem. You're getting pushback from me on why you find this page offensive (frankly, it seems to me a pretty strong failure of AGF to take a few typos and interpret them as a "highly offensive word substitution", absent some other evidence) and from Robert why you're poking around and making judgments about user sandboxes in the first place. And you're getting loud silence from others, who probably (I may be wrong) find your nomination unusual but scroll on, figuring there must be something they don't know about the situation.
  
  En.wp is a big community. If something feels questionable about a situation, one where you think your judgment might be off, it's a good idea to get a second opinion. Or if marginal, just let it be, since if it is a real problem, someone else will deal with it eventually. Nominating a page in someone's userspace for deletion is an aggressive act, less severe but similar to blocking them. Don't do it where in situations where you have a history with someone that might be impairing your judgment. Martinp (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Points well-taken; I don't mind the link at all ... it's part of Wikipedia's history. In this case, I just wanted to see what Rager7 was up to; my concern was not related to the arbitration motion. As for my comments about not patrolling userspace, just so they're not taken out of context, I think it's worth noting that I've since started doing so to prevent pages from being deleted due to bot-tagging, but that will almost certainly never bother MFD. Graham87 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Onceinawhile. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. I'm not convinced by any of the keep arguments here, or Rager7's stated purpose. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you're not convinced by the keep arguments, but "irrelevant noise" isn't exactly a policy compliant reason to delete a userspace sandbox. Not that I have any particular right to quiz you (more than anyone else has), but what harm is it causing? Martinp (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Irrelevant noise" is a good description for the reason CSD U6 has been implemented with its associated bot, which tags hundreds of such pages for deletion aday (mostly accurately). That criterion doesn't apply to this particular case at all because the page is new and its creator has made edits outside of their userspace, but regardless, it's still a policy statement that Wikipedia is not a free web host so we indeed don't want irrelevant noise anywhere on the site. Graham87 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 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.

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]