Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

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:MFDNPWP:MFDNP

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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 7 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
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.

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP: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	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	1	1
TfD	1	14	15
MfD	0	6	6
FfD	0	2	2
RfD	0	41	41
AfD	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

July 7, 2025

Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother

This page was created as a "task force" about a single television show (Pinoy Big Brother) without any authorization from, or even the knowledge of, the actual WikiProject.

In May 2025, Royiswariii proposed creating a task force at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother#Big Brother Philippines, but they rejected it.

Two weeks later, he asked at WT:COUNCIL about creating a different WikiProject, but was told not to do this unless and until he had other editors to work with him – as in any other editor. He couldn't name even a single other editor who was interested in working with him. (A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors who want to work together, not a collection of pages – no group, no WikiProject!)

Ten days later, he created Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Pinoy Big Brother without telling anyone at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines (or anywhere else) that he was doing this. He is the only editor of the page; there are no discussions on the talk page. He has not responded to multiple pings about this creation.

The creation is also screwed up; he added the task force page to the Philippines WikiProject but the template information is in {{WikiProject Big Brother}}. And then we'll have to deal with the category pages after that. WP:COUNCIL has been working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process to discourage editors from creating messes like this, but this editor did not accept the advice he was given. This is now a big mess. The first step in mopping up the mess is to delete this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything and reprimand creator. Clear antithesis on what WikiProjects are for specifically, and Wikipedia in general. Reprimand creator for creating a mess that can't be sorted out right away, unless everything is deleted as per my suggestion to prevent WP:BURO. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unwanted and improperly created — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 6, 2025

Talk:Grand Theft Auto V/FAQ

No longer relevant or necessary. Orphaned FAQ (not linked on the only relevant talk page) entirely about the "upcoming" release date of a game that was released almost 12 years ago. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tag historical: I don't see a reason to delete this. It's not causing any harm and may be of historical interest to other editors in the future. However it should be tagged as such. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as historical per SilviaASH. Graham87 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 4, 2025

User:AaronHot123/sandbox

Wikipedia is not an alt history site. Would be a U5 except they have too many edits outside userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is hard to determine whether this is a hoax or whether this is crystal balling. It is not hard to determine that this is misusing the pictures of living persons, and so is a biographies of living persons violation. Biographies of living persons policy should apply to any use of their name, image, and likeness. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This search is a good way to find alternate history sandboxes. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipod

Unrelated to Wikipedia policies. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Than why does WP:) and WP:BREAK exist? Artem's pages (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both connected to Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the creator only has one mainspace edit - creating Wikipod as a redirect to this page, which I've sent to RFD, I'm frankly not convinced they're WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:4839:F2ED:BF8F:52B8 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Humorous essays are allowed, but this doesn't connect to Wikipedia history, culture, or content. It's just a demonstration of an article linking to its own redirect. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication would also be appropriate. -insert valid name here- (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userify I've seen less detailed sandboxes in userspace before (look at mine for an example), and this definitely counts as a form of personal sandbox for testing creating an essay page. Also userify the redirect it mainly uses to prevent it from being affected once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_4#Wikipod gets deleted (this also means removing the shortcut box). I would also not object to a deletion but that seems kind of overboard IMO for such a non-issue as this page User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless nonsense. I don't see a point in userfying this. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SilviaASH. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:39, 6 July 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 redirect (soft) to 2027 ICC World Test Championship final. WP:SRED. (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2027 ICC World Test Championship final

Cannot be published to be an article as it is literally a duplicate of 2027 ICC World Test Championship final which is already a redirect. Speedy Delete Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid deletion argument. Redirects are routinely deleted to make way for accepted drafts. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CX Zoom Oh. I will also argue the current draft cannot be accepted as WP:TOOSOON. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Servite et contribuere - Too soon is a reason to decline a draft, but is not a reason to delete a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Robert McClenon. I was wondering if anyone is open to a Speedy Keep and a decline of the draft? The existing redirect 2027 ICC World Test Championship final should be the one converted into an article instead. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are reasons to decline the draft. Draft space is where an article in progress on this championship should go. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 1, 2025

Template:User SandBox Project

This userbox is for a project that never really got off the ground back in 2012. I ran into its main page (a User page) and then discovered this associated template. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Seems harmless, maybe potentially useful in the future to the user who created it, but certainly not something that should be in template space. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The project never got off the ground because the user just barely got off the ground. If the user comes back 13 years later, they can ask for a refund. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just delete it. It can always be recreated if it is ever needed. Bduke (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The project never went anywhere and the user has been inactive for 13 years. The only link to this userbox is from the associated user page. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2025

User talk:Jsonantenor

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Star Mississippi 01:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but unencyclopedic ramblings from the user (mostly in Filipino) and one random unintelligible comment from an IP who may be the same person or an offline acquaintance. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:DELTALK. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank the talk page with the exception of the block notice per Skynxnex and Cremastra. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - No benefit has been shown to deletion. We don't get rid of junk in non-article space except for reasons. No harm is shown to keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. WP:DELTALK doesn't apply here since this doesn't consist of comments by other users. Probably not worth bringing to MfD but might as well delete it since we're here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pppery. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think speedily deleting talk pages that contain zero talk page content can fall under speedy deletion criteria. But since there's a block notice, the deletion process needs to at least bring that back. So, probably weak delete in an ideal world but understand that's unlikely. If not deleted, blank/revdel(?) the noise. Skynxnex (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value of deleting and thus removing the block notice; just remove everything above that and we'll be fine. Cremastra (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per silviaASH. Partial blank if desired. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly gone and removed everything above the MfD and block notices. If it was not appropriate to do so, I won't object to being reverted. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 08:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC) ended today on 7 July 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

June 27, 2025

Draft:Sidewalk Clock, 783 Fifth Avenue

This is only tangentially about notability, because drafts don't need to meet notability. The issue is the disruptive creation and recreation by Henderson's sock and ToadetteEdit. Henderson's account and socks have been globally locked and Toadette has been site banned.

Epicgenius noted that this clock is unlikely to be notable, but the topic of sidewalk clocks is notable but there is no merger target in such article and Fifth_Avenue#Individual_landmarks could be an ATD along with the Sherry Netherland Article.

That said, I don't think we should reward disruptive creation. If someone wants to write an article on this clocks or clocks as a whole, theyc an do that. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 20:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This might be allowed to wither on the G13 vine, but infinitely preferable is to refuse to reward Greghenderson2006, a long term abuser of WMF sites, and also ToadetteEdit who made all sorts of wrong choices including furthering this draft. Salt main and draft spaces. Any future article may request unsalting. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the rationale in the nom. It's likely not a notable clock, there are a whole lotta street clocks in NYC, and it is doubtful they are all worthy of an encyclopedia article. The history of disruptive origins further complicates matters. Netherzone (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT makes sense as @The Grid suggests as a deletion rationale. I had also thought about a redirect or merge, but there is no acceptable target. If there was an article on the "Sidewalk clocks of New York City" based on the NRHP report, that would make sense, but I don't think that option exists. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore. Sockpuppety is a worse reason than notability to bring something to MfD. Creating this community discussion page is contrary to WP:DENY. Either G5 applies, or get a checkuser or SPI clerk to request deletion. Do not try to turn MfD into a shadow SPI forum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe not at all trying to create a shadow SPI forum. The G5 was declined because Toadette is not a sock. I happen to disagree with @Explicit (courtesy ping, no action needed) but that doesn't mean their decision was incorrect. I just see it differently since TE directly used the blocked sock's now deleted article to create theirs so IMO that's the same as socking. Explicit sees it differently. No SPI needed as there is already one for Greg and no one is arguing TE is a sock of Greg, just making some poor decisions in deciding to proxy as was discussed at ANI Star Mississippi 03:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any request for a page deletion due to sockpuppety should be made, or at least be supported, by an SPI clerk or a checkuser. MfD is not competent to judge without their advice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and leave for G13. We should not try to decide whether this draft subject is notable. There is nothing inherently wrong with this draft except its history. The fact that it was created by a later-banned editor after being created and deleted by a sockpuppet does not mean that this is inherently different from other useless drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really is an odd MfD. If the issue is the history and editors involved, wouldn't WP:TNT be sufficient? I see potential for the material to exist in Wikipedia under an article about NYC but not as its own article. – The Grid (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to TNT, but that ends up in the same place as deletion since with the source deleted for unrelated reasons, there's no attribution issue that I'm aware of.

If there was an ATD it would be easier and cleaner, but there isn't Star Mississippi 00:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is not deemed eligible for G5, then there is nothing to be done. The incinerator that is G13 will engulf it eventually if nothing arises from it. Such cases need not be aired here. Feel free to blank it in some manner if desired. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Nickelodeon task force/Nicktoons task force

An overly specific task force created by one participant in 2013, which has never been active since then, i.e. it never really worked as a task force. The only participant is placeholder. Solidest (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical - This task force had limited activity on its talk page. The talk page was then blanked and redirected to the parent task force. Revert the redirection. There was no need to hide the history, and redirecting a talk page is the wrong way to delete a dead task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Shannara task force/User Shannara task force

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox for defunct taskforce Solidest (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was it ever used? It is annoying to find deleted Userboxes in Userpage histories. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 25, 2025

Wikipedia:Not everything Hitler does deserves an article

I am usually rather inclusionist when it comes to humorous essays, because I would rather see someone rebut the premise of an essay with another, opposing, essay, than to delete it because it presents an unpopular viewpoint. However, this essay seems to me to be simply nonsensical, and it does not really offer anything potentially useful in terms of editing Wikipedia. It sounds to me like a riff on WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, mixed either with WP:No Nazis, or Godwin's law. But the Trump-related essay actually addresses an issue about content, whereas it's entirely unclear whether the nominated essay is criticizing the Trump essay, criticizing Trump, or criticizing editors who find fault with Nazis. It strikes me as just making a dumb joke. After all, it's not like we have too many users creating pages about things Hitler did. Ultimately, I think it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. I suggest that it should either be deleted, or moved (back) into userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion of Poland and the annexation of Austria are new events, they are very unlikely to have any lasting effect or significance. They are brief news stories that will be forgotten in a day.

This sentence in the essay should probably tell you that the essay is parodying speculative comments. See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The point of this page is clearly that it's riffing on WP:CRYSTAL, pointing out that if Wikipedia had existed in 1939, editors would have debated whether or not these events warranted articles. The (fairly salient) implication is that perhaps in the future the Trump essay will be out of date, and maybe, once we know how history will have shaken out, it'll look very funny that editors were arguing over whether or not events that may seem obviously significant in the future warranted inclusion. Same general stripe of humor as Before they were notable, but taken to an extreme. I found the joke funny. I think it should be kept. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy per Tryptofish's comments below. Another essay improving the core idea of this one may be written if someone would wish to; however, this one should be retained in some way given that it clearly has a credible claim of value to the project. However, given the issues identified with the way the argument is made, I think it's reasonable to say it shouldn't be in project space. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I have reservations with the underlying thesis of the essay, it's pretty clear that this is a counterexample to WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, used to demonstrate that sometimes the major headlines really are notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. 10:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: The challenge is to merge short similar essays. There is no justification of deletion. Maybe come back to MfD if the merge attempts are unreasonably blocked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t oppose re-userfying. I don’t understand Tryptofish’s strength of feeling here.

The essay doesn’t come close to a NOTWEBHOST criticism because it definitely is project related. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your giving thought to my comments, and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to explain in a way that makes sense to you. For what it's worth, I don't understand how you could have said that there "is no justification" for my view. I've clearly given justifications, even if you disagree with them. As I said at the beginning of my nominating statement, I'm usually inclined to give wide birth to essays that express views that I might not agree with. And I get the feeling that you and I have somewhat similar perspectives, in that something that is credibly project-related should be kept (and rebutted by another essay, if someone wants to). But I draw a line, based on whether or not the project relatedness is, in fact, credible. As I tried very hard to explain below, Hitler is the wrong vehicle for making this purported project-related argument. And it's not just that it's mistaken, in my opinion. It's that it's fundamentally wrong and offensive, to the point that I find the claim of project-relatedness preposterous. The fact that one can look at it and see parallels with the Trump-related essay does not make it a counterpoint to that other essay. It's just a sophomoric joke, based on a wildly offensive premise, hiding behind a mimicry of the other essay. Perhaps it offends me, more than it offends other people, but I just find that to be sad. I find nothing in the essay that serves an actual project-related purpose. There's no real rebuttal of the other essay, just a sophomoric imitation of it. It serves no good to keep it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“No justification” means that not one item of your criticism reaches the threshold for deletion of a Wikipedia essay. Userfy, yes, delete, no. “Nonsensical” is a reason to Userfy. A riff on another project space essay with a mix of another two? That’s a strong “keep in project space” rationale to me. Criticism and comparisons are excellent features of project space essays.

To my reading, this is a WP:Notability essay, written in satire, arguing that new event topics should get leeway with respect to notability tests.

Hitler is the wrong vehicle? I don’t think it fails WP:GODWIN; it does not connect new current affairs topics deletionists to Hitler. Further, as per the 2nd paragraph of Godwin's law, “In 2021, Harvard researchers published an article showing that the Nazi-comparison phenomenon does not occur with statistically meaningful frequency in Reddit discussions”, Godwin’s 1990 observation had faded. “Nazi”, like a “deletion Nazi” now means a “zealot”.

By “sophomoric”, do you mean juvenile? I think Wikipedia should welcome the sophomoric mindset in the backrooms.

What is wildly offensive? “Hold your horses mate” tells the reader that the author is an uncouth plain-speaking Aussie, with more baggage from the Burma Railway than Hitler.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been giving careful thought to the arguments in favor of keeping. I now understand that the intention is that this essay should provide a counterpoint to the Trump-related essay, in the context of WP:CRYSTAL: that some content related to Trump (and perhaps other kinds of content about recent events) should be kept because, who knows, with the passage of time we may come to see some things that appear trivial now, as actually having historical significance. I think that an essay making that case could be of value, and could be one well worth keeping.

But this isn't that essay. This essay says, in effect, that some content related to Trump should be kept because, who knows, with the passage of time we may come to see Trump the way we now see Hitler. Whaaat?

The Trump-related essay is framed in terms of "outrageous" things Trump says or does, and the lead image gives the example of not needing to have a page about every golf game he plays. The nominated page, on the other hand, is framed in terms of the events that began World War Two. A logical counterpoint would have used examples of things that seemed trivial at the time, but are now seen as historic. The examples chosen by the nominated essay do not illustrate what the essay claims to show.

Even more importantly, Hitler is simply the wrong choice to make the case the essay intends to make. Most people do not think "notable historic figure" when they first think of him. More likely, they first think "archetype of the personification of evil". Although it's possible to make humor about Hitler, it's very, very difficult to do that successfully, and this essay isn't funny. It's arguably offensive, and that gets in the way of understanding the point the essay tries to make. There's an abundant supply of notable figures who have done things that might have seemed trivial at the time, but which have come to be widely agreed to have been history-making. Hitler simply is not one of those.

I can easily think of examples that would work. The Boston Tea Party might have seemed, at the time, to just be some rowdy trouble-makers doing nothing of historical importance. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry might have seemed to be some crank making trouble, and no more. Rosa Parks might have seemed some woman who sat on the wrong seat on a bus. The anonymous Tank Man of Tiananmen Square might have seemed to just be some random guy who stood in the wrong place. And on and on. There are so many ways to illustrate how something that might look insignificant today could come, with the passage of time, to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes. And without seeming like a tasteless and offensive joke.

The solution is not a matter of merging. Maybe there are other essays that should be merged. This essay needs a WP:TNT rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as a compromise between doing nothing (keeping) and deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep, with no objection to a rewrite or later merge, though even the rewrite would have to keep the point of the essay intact. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2025

Draft:PubKey

Subject does not meet GNG, and someone keeps on submitting the draft for review after it got rejected without making any actually significant changes. I'd support userfying this too. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Inherently promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Clearly has become a waste of time with no hope of salvation. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for WP:G13. User:Gommeh misleads, the draft has not be resubmitted following its only rejection. Rejection and decline are different.

Support for Userfying is asserting of plausible notability and is a reason for keeping, subject to G13. Don’t Userfy if they don’t ask. They are welcome to Userfy, see WP:DUD.

AfC has good processes. Learn them and follow them. Don’t skip ahead. MfD is misused by drawing attention to bad drafts. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts where they don’t waste others time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what the difference is then? I'm still new to AFC. But for these purposes I'm probably going to treat them as if they were the same. » Gommeh (he/him) 22:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the question at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This draft has not been resubmitted after it was rejected. Rejection was the proper action on the eighth submission after seven declines. There is no need to nominate a draft for deletion immediately after it is rejected. Stopping the resubmission is what rejection is for. If a draft is resubmitted after rejection without discussion, deletion is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patience, i.e. Keep for now and just let standard AFC and Draft policies deal with it. Creators(s) were slow to learn from declines, and it does seem unlikely this will ever pass muster as an article. Hence the most recent rejection. No need to do anything else now. Absent disruption, either WP:G13 or more focused editorial effort to improve the article significantly and demonstrate suitability (seems unlikely, but it is possible) will take care of the matter. Martinp (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, G13 exists for a reason and taking drafts to MFD is always best avoided. If a user were to continue to keep submitting after a reject, that's a different matter, but that hasn't happened here.

CoconutOctopus talk 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to expressly disagree with WP:NDRAFT; keeping drafts that have zero hope of becoming articles, as we have assumed this had (since it was rejected) merely provides false hope that should be stamped out. It probably wasn't worth bringing this to MfD, but since we're here I'd rather stamp out that hope rather than signaling that there's some glimmer of a chance that this should be tried again and again and again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This will sink into the shifting sands of G13 at some point if it does not develop into anything useful. No action is necessary here because it is not of a problematic enough nature to warrant it. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2025

Wikipedia:What's a forint?

No connection with the goals and processes of Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia.—Alalch E. 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought by the title this would be some essay about wikilinking obscure currencies or whatever, but nope. Violates Wikipedia namespace guidelines of "They should... not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." Also contains a random promotional bio of some YouTuber in the middle of it. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the nutshell note saying don't assume the whole world uses either dollars, pound sterling, or bananas stuck on panes of glass, I assume that this essay may have initially been inspired by the notion that an article may have an undue regional bias if it specifies monetary value in only one currency, which is the sort of problem that led to the deletion of Orders of magnitude (currency), which only listed values in US dollars. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having encyclopedic value and very little humorous value. Userfy is a second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia due to the lack of encyclopedic value. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 02:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A transwiki to Uncyclopedia may not be viable, given its CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license. CC BY-SA 4.0: "You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on [...] Adapted Material". Maybe the author could dual-license the page under both licenses. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ObserveOwl I cannot do any dual-licensing because I cannot access the account that I used to create this article. Long story short, my old tablet’s battery decided it had enough after however many times I’ve used the tablet with it charging, and now I can’t get it to charge, so now I’m using my other tablet that my parents bought me for Christmas to do editing and all. Melissza1692 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Melissza1692 Can you prove that that’s your account? Because you can still license it under CC-BY-NC-SA, as long as you can prove you are the owner of the account Kangaroologic17721.

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 08:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian Yes, I am the owner of the Kangaroologic17721 account. I just can’t acess the account (as mentioned, see here). Melissza’s page Have a talk! My contributions 09:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you’re the person that created this essay, you can just license it under CC-BY-NC-SA with your current account. You can do this simply by stating it at the bottom of the essay. _{(also, your current signature is unreadable)}

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 08:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Schützenpanzer. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above, soft redirect to Uncyclopedia. drinks or coffee ~ ♪ 17:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/opinion Hello. This is Melissza1692. I created this article under my other, now abandoned, account, Kangaroologic17721. I don’t know why I decided to create this useless article. I was being just a really bored 12 year old being bored, and one average early April day, I thought “let’s create a silly article that I bet nobody will ever pay attention to because of course they won’t!” I seriously regret that. I feel like I should have really kept my impulses under more control than I did when I thought of making the article. And yes, my humour is bad. Badly bad. Sorry. I wouldn’t mind it being Uncyclopediarised, deleted, userified. Just do anything you all feel is necessary. Melissza1692 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, either on-wiki or the dedicated website. This seems like what said pages were made for. The BJAODN website says content is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 unless otherwise noted, which means we could place it on a subpage and place a CC BY-SA 4.0 license on that. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN or transwiki to Uncyclopedia without the promotional bio. The page is not an essay but a distorted version of the article on the forint, including changed years, reversion jokes etc. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, as said before. As the other arguments say, I feel like this would fit more in Uncyclopedia, since this has very little relation to Wikipedia. 16kTheFox 21:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates