Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • 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[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If 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[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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.

Edit PageName:

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

for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}


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 transclued 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
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.
  • Save the page.
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
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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
  • 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[edit]

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 2 17 89 0 108
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 0 2 0 2
AfD 0 0 6 0 6

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

August 6, 2022[edit]

Template:User wikipedia/reply-link[edit]

Template:User wikipedia/reply-link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Enterprisey/reply-link has been superseded, and no editor is transcluding the userbox on their page Judekkan (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User:Beaneater00/Userboxes/Assorted/Breastcancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Nonsensical, inflammatory userbox that is not and likely never will be used, except maybe by trolls and even that’s generous. Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. I never thought that I'll see a userbox that opposes the fight against cancer, but here we are. Saying that this userbox is nonsensical and plain stupid would be a serous understatement. Not to mention the feelings of cancer patients, victims and their families... —Sundostund (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - The editor has been banned, which is not in itself reason to delete this userbox; but this userbox would be reason to ban the user. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Western Wind[edit]

Draft:Western Wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Published article exists at Western Wind (Carly Rae Jepsen song). QuietHere (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:It's Almost Dry[edit]

Draft:It's Almost Dry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Published article exists at It's Almost Dry QuietHere (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Unnotable political party. Deleted twice as India Greens Party. Furthermore, written in a way that is highly promotional. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 4, 2022[edit]


User:Iich1960/Userboxes/Novorossiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

“Novorossiya” was a short-lived confederation of two authoritarian Russian puppet states in what is internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory with very poor human rights records that are now the frontlines of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Could be construed as a an irredentist/pro-invasion/pro-authoritarian/pro-terrorist box. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: Seems fine imo. The box is careful in its wording, in that it supports the self-determination of the state, rather than saying the part is an integral part of Russia (i.e. irredentism). And looking at its few uses, it seems to not be being misused. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/to do[edit]

Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit/to do (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

To-do list created in 2006, no longer relevant to the current state of the article Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 3, 2022[edit]

Draft:Bohemian Rhapsody World Tour (Tribute Tour)[edit]

Draft:Bohemian Rhapsody World Tour (Tribute Tour) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Being a speculative concert tour article with no references, sources nor coverage to prove it will happen, it clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL and fails WP:NTOUR as notability is not asserted. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Ballbreaker World Tour (Tribute)[edit]

Draft:Ballbreaker World Tour (Tribute) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Being a speculative concert tour article with no references, sources nor coverage to prove it will happen, it clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL and fails WP:NTOUR as notability is not asserted. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft creator has moved it to Draft:Ballbreaker World Tour (Tribute Tour). However the discussion is still going to happen. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject[edit]

Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I propose merging and redirecting to Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject. This list has not been frequently maintained, and for example, it currently has a redlink. The category would not pretty much not need maintenance separate from the pages themselves. I suggest merging the "Shortcut" column into the individual pages, where it's more useful to the participants of the various WikiProjects. The "Category" column can either be dropped, or it can be used to create subcategories of "Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject". I'm not sure it's needed for people looking for articles to work on. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory would be a much better place to start, and active projects generally have some mechanism for highlighting the most needy articles, whether that's page views or assessment. -- Beland (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep: Archive if obsolete. It was used, and so is history. Deleting history confounds attempts to understand how stuff was done before. Reserve projectspace deletions for things that shouldn’t have been created in the first place, or explain why it is undesirable to allow wikiarcheologists to have access. Also, old stuff should be archived without the need for an xfd discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: I'm not proposing deleting the edit history...I thought simply turning the page into a redirect might be controversial, so I asked first. I'm not sure what you mean by "archive"? Would that include redirecting to the category and leaving the edit history in place? Or are you talking about just putting a template at the top of the page indicating it's not maintained and pointing to the category? I was trying to avoid people seeing a slightly outdated list and attempting to revive it, on the assumption it'll just fall into disuse later and isn't helpful if we already have the category. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you’re not proposing deletion, you shouldn’t be bringing it to MfD. Not only is it not deletion, the one-week deadline for input is not appropriate. If unsure, start with the talk page, and if no one answers consider Wikipedia:Publicising discussions.
    “Archive” can mean blank, or redirect, or put an archive template on top, content blanked or not. As these are ordinary edits, you may just do it, and if someone later disagrees they can revert. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per nom. Two pages with identical scope and near identical functionality, but with one that is not being maintained. An archive here would be disruptive because the content here is not "historical", it's still something that is actively done, just via categories, rather than manually updated lists. (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mark Historical, which may be what SmokeyJoe means by putting an archive template on top. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mark historical per above. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 1, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Zombie page[edit]

Wikipedia:Zombie page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not a very useful essay, the only substantial contributor was Robert McClenon. Should be in userspace if he will be the only contributor. FAdesdae378 02:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 28, 2022[edit]

Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification[edit]

Draft:MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * it has begun... 14:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This draft article submission isn't an article at all. This is one editor's interpretation of a discussion at MOS related talk page. It should be moved to the user space for Thinker78 (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely oppose the motion of NewsAndEventsGuy to delete my page from draft space. I provided them with the reason I created the draft, which is to seek community input to work on a modified guideline in the Manual of Style, so I think their proposal is not helpful to Wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy has had many disagreements in the past with me, this is not an editor who was just patrolling and decided to object to this inclusion. But I will assume they had good faith, even though I don't understand how their deletion proposal is helpful at all.
Further objections to the deletion are:
  1. They didn't cite any Wikipedia policy as a basis for their proposal.
  2. Even though the essay WP:DRAFT states, "Drafts are pages in the Draft namespace where new articles[note 1] may be created and developed, for a limited period of time.[note 2]", it is an essay, which is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Even a guideline is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
  3. WP:NOTBURO states, "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."
  4. As I stated previously, the reason why I moved the page from my personal sandbox into the draft space is to seek community input to work on a modified guideline in the Manual of Style. I found it to be a much better place fit for purpose than putting a work on progress in the talk page of the Manual of Style, specially if it has various formattings that are not compatible with the format of the talk page; regarding my sandbox, I know it can be viewed by others and is not exempt of Wikipedia's guidance, but I do various unrelated tests there and it wouldn't be the best place to have discussion on my talk page if my work on progress concerns the community as a whole. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easy now, I didn't call for outright deletion, only that this WP:PROPOSAL be developed like other WP:Policies and guidelines. It could be at the pump, or userspace, or an essay, or (best of all) at the MOS talk page that is the subject of the essay. At any rate, it isn't an article, and does not belong at articles for creation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to WP:PROPOSAL, "One path for proposals is developing them through steps [...]", it doesn't say proposals must go through those steps. And it points out to the policy I linked previously, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (WP:NOTBURO) and this in turn points to what I linked to also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I still don't understand why did you start this process to take out my page from draft space, because your request certainly looks like excessive bureaucracy pointing out to technicalities. I am using a lot of formatting in the draft I made—it is not just a simple idea with just text—and that is not compatible with putting it over at the Village Pump or the talk page of the Manual of Style. And I believe my proposal is best explained with the formatting I am using because it is a complicated idea that I intend to simplify as I progress in developing it, and for that progress I am hoping for community input as well. Thinker78 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, the draft is not in the process of article for creation, I am simply working on the page in the draft space and I won't submit it to review in said process. I am not cluttering the queue nor I am in the queue for article for creation. The input I seek from the community is mainly from those interested in the Manual of Style guideline discussions. I did not put the proposal in its talk page for the reasons I already stated, namely, the formatting of the draft is incompatible in a talk page, there is more liberty editing in a dedicated page in draft space than in a talk page, and that I wanted to present it there when it was more simplified. Thinker78 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to User:Thinker78/Draft MOS:LEADLENGTH table modification. It's entirely fine for editors to have drafts of stuff in their userspace (including things that will later be WP:PROPOSALs). The only issue of any kind here is that the "Draft:" namespace is for article drafts not for drafts of other things. Honestly, this should just have been manually moved instead of taken to MfD. We don't need to invoke tedious process to fix the obvious.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was never properly transcluded to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 14:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Userfy It's perfectly reasonable to work on something like this in Wikipedia – especially, there's no gain from deleting it – but most tools that work with Draft: space assume that drafts are drafts of articles, rather than drafts of something else. The User: space can also be used for drafts and has laxer rules/processes; it would make a lot of sense to host this draft there, rather than in Draft:. --ais523 08:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Including disambiguation pages; very rarely, new pages for non-article namespaces such as the Portal:, Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces are first incubated in the draftspace.
  2. ^ After six months have elapsed since its last substantive edit, the draft becomes eligible for deletion. See § Deletion of old drafts.

July 26, 2022[edit]

Old/sandbox MediaWiki CSS pages[edit]

MediaWiki:Gadget-wmfFR2011Style.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
MediaWiki:User:Edokter/Main Page2.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
MediaWiki:Main Page sandbox.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
MediaWiki:User:Nihiltres/NewMainPage.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
MediaWiki:User:Main Page/NewMainPage.css/sandbox.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPageTest.css (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

These are all old or sandboxy type CSS pages that are mostly search clutter. Because of the content of these pages (CSS), they cannot be edited by most users. Today, their replacement would probably be dealt with using WP:TemplateStyles. I am happy to see these deleted, or moved to the user space of the primary author for each page. Izno (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I G7'd the one relating to myself and generally endorse the deletion or userfication of the others. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 23:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Oppose userfying because the first two are by retired users and the third one is by an admin who can restore it to userfy themselves if necessary (and also isn't very active). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He can't restore that specific page as he is not an interface administrator, though he could view deleted. Izno (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    True, forgot that. Doesn't change my conclusion (and in an earlier draft of that comment I said "view the deleted content if necessary"). * Pppery * it has begun... 17:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete (no objection to userfying any that people want to keep) Normally, the correct namespace for site-CSS/global-CSS tests is userspace (because testing anywhere else would require intadmin powers). The only benefit to doing the tests in MediaWiki:-space instead is if a large number of people need to be able to participate in the test without manually copying the CSS over (this is probably the motivation behind the creation of MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPageTest.css – it would have allowed people to opt into the test in preferences rather than via manual CSS copying). Even if these tests had widespread participation once, they don't right now, so it doesn't make sense to have them in MediaWiki: space, and it's unlikely that anyone cares enough about them to userfy (but if anyone does, we should allow a userfication, either in this MfD or at WP:REFUND). --ais523 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ais523 being in MediaWiki space was necessary for others to load them with url parameters. I'm not arguing to keep them if they are no longer needed, just some background on why they had to be in that namespace. — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed – the advantage to putting them into MediaWiki space is that it's easier to share the tests among a large number of people. However, that reason is unlikely to be relevant for these pages nowadays, even if it made sense to have them there at the time. --ais523 09:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, those tests should be long over now. — xaosflux Talk 13:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 24, 2022[edit]

User:Chanrwy/The First Degree University Tour[edit]

User:Chanrwy/The First Degree University Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Stale draft from inactive editor. Seems commercial and not necessarily noteworthy. Beland (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Blank : Not enough of any problem to bring to mfd. blanking is sufficient. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 23, 2022[edit]


User:IWikepidsacusk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User:Kashment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User:Cobrafang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User talk:Kashment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User talk:Cobrafang (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Pointless user page for an account that hasn't edited in a while. Mori Calliope fan talk 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep Does not violate any user page guidelines. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, the nominator should have mentioned that it was created today by another user. Not sure of the correct procedure here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pawnkingthree and Mori Calliope fan: Well seeing that one account is Indef blocked, looks like we have a sockpuppet case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:I am Being Here to Help You may just be an enthusiastic newbie trying to help without understanding our guidelines, which is not uncommon. The simplest thing, per the discussion on their talk page, may be to just G7 tag the pages they created. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oops, yeah I forgot to mention that a new user created these pages. This discussion is why I think creating pages like what I've nominated are not appropriate. For the case of a sockpuppet account, I don't think it's likely, because this user appears to be a good faith user that doesn't want to cause trouble. Mori Calliope fan talk 16:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, I understand. :) I am Being Here to Help You (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - This should be mentioned at WP:SPI, WP:ANI or brought to the attention of a clerk for potential socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - How does "IWikepidsacusk is a Wikipedia user." run afoul of the user page guidelines? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 16:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. These pages include a totally pointless, information-free, user page for a vandalism-only account blocked since 2020, and another equally pointless one for an efitor who hasn't edited for eight years. Why on earth would anyone want to keep them? Also, even in the case of active editors, they have the right to decide whether to have a user page, and if so what it should contain, so under normal circumstances it is not acceptable to create user pages for other editors. JBW (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing inherently problematic in these pages. Refer to SPI, and do not delete unless requested or agreed by and SPI clerk or checkuser. MfD should not be used for shadow SPI clerking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural close to break the train into two trains. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all as not created by the user in question. None of the other reasons for deletion provided are convincing, however, as the amount to nothing more than a rehash of CAT:TEMP, which we stopped doing around 2010. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all - I'm sure it's just a total coincidence that the name is an anagram of "Wikipedia sucks", but mostly these pages just don't serve any purpose to keep around.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Beside finding the anagram in question as problematic, I see this as quite pointless and worthless in general. —Sundostund (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old business[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates