Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFDWP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page 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 page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider moving it into the historical archive, or userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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	Jan	Total
CfD	1	129	16	146
TfD	0	21	1	22
MfD	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	11	12
RfD	0	69	13	82
AfD	0	0	5	5

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.

January 9, 2026

User:Perseus - Cepheus Line/sandbox

Wikipedia is not a web host for your fictional world writings. Whpq (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 8, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

I'm not sure if this counts as a deletion rationale, but this page has an excessively long title which clogs up the search when looking for the real MFD. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 22:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia:MfD/WP:MfD/WP:MfD/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan (2nd nom) also be added? I would, but I'm not sure how to format it. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 22:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1347

There is a dispute between me and another user on whether this is coherent Georgian or pure gibberish. Machine translation gives inconsistent results. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One additional draft has been added, purportedly in Armenian. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep All - I am able to machine-translate itthem from Google Chrome. See Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. When in doubt as to whether a draft should be kept or deleted, it should be kept because draft space is self-clearing after six months. Is there any harm in leaving this alone, whatever it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:StormyLBarnhill96/sandbox

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 per WP:G5. The editor who created the page did so in violation of a previous block. Mz7 (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:StormyLBarnhill96/sandbox

Yet another sandbox page that copies a real article to create a fake alternate history election result. This time it's in Venezuela, and flipping the 1998 election into a Hugo Chavez loss.
As usual, sandbox is not a free playground to write any alternate history you want to for the lulz, and is for working on stuff that's meant to be transferred back into articlespace when you're done with it -- and while Chavez himself is dead, the person this page pretends defeated him that year is still alive, so this violates WP:BLP by making false claims about a living person.
It also warrants note that the username "Stormy Barnhill" corresponds to the name of one of the fake candidates implicated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Buchananite25/sandbox when it tried to falsify the results of a US state gubernatorial election, and that user has already been blocked as WP:NOTHERE, so this user is very likely a new avatar of that one and I've filed an WP:SPI check on them accordingly. Stormy has also already been warned on his user talk page that this type of thing is not an acceptable use of sandbox space, because at least one prior use of this page for the same purpose has already been speedy deleted, but they proceeded to then create this after that warning anyway. And, of course, yet again they left this in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, in defiance of WP:USERNOCAT. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I forget where, but at some point a creator of one of these pages said there was some alternative history community that suggested creating pages on Wikipedia. It would be good to track that down -- I imagine these people aren't fond of their work just being deleted, and it comes up surprisingly often. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP violation, and as presenting fiction as fact. There is also discussion at WP:ANI about the corners of the Internet where these alternate history files are being developed, and where Wikipedia is being used for web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 9 January 2026 (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:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles

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

I see several similar nominations for ListeriaBot pages. On this one, while it looks like the bot is active, it has stopped updating this one. Maybe that means Will (Wiki Ed) no longer needs it? It looks like the duplication issue has been going on for some time, based on User_talk:ListeriaBot#List_duplication, but it's not happening on every page. e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Portugal. Broadly more an issue for the bot board, and if the issue is widespread enough the bot should be turned off until it's fixed. If the duplication weren't happening, I would see no problem with these lists requiring deletion, but yeah we don't need endlessly multiplying lists that become unusable (if anyone intended to still use them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. I figured it out. These lists don't have {{Wikidata list end}}. User error, not bot error. In that case keep and fix (unless we hear from the creator that they don't want it anymore). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creators never noticed that the list gets added, and added, and added, and added... Highly unlikely that they actually need it. Fram (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is a Quarry query that lists all the pages that use the template {{Wikidata list}} but not {{wikidata list end}} - presumably they're all expanding to infinity. This is a fix it, not delete it issue. If any of the creators don't want them anymore, I'm fine to delete, but default to keep. Also, sort of tangentially, I would hope we would have a standard practice of turning off bot activity for userspace jobs of long-inactive users. If not, I'd be more supportive of just removing the templates from those pages and leaving them a static list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, this is a delete it, don't fix it situation, as it is clear that none of the page creators (of the ones I MFd'ed at least) checked the results after the first day or so. If they don't even look at the page, then why should we host it? Fram (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because "the person who created it hasn't looked at it in a while" is not one of the deletion criteria (and nothing is gained by deletion). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        Why keep pages around that obviously (a shown by the evidence) have no interest to any editor, and have (as also shown) potential issues? Fixing the "append" issue still means that the bot will regularly update the page, but instead of appending it will overwrite. Why would we want to have a bot regularly update pages no one looks at? Fram (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, I agree with turning off bot tasks in userspace of long-inactive users. Also would support the ability of other users to turn off this sort of bot in other namespaces, using some banner that says "this bot-maintained list has been deactivated as of [date]. if you want to restart the bot, [instructions]". But just a static page sitting there with no bot activity is as at worst neutral-nothing, and we need a reason to delete (not just a weakness of a keep reason). At best, someone does actually use it. It's very low stakes, and we're only adding to the amount of space/attention it takes up by having this whole additional discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    - See also: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ListeriaBot_duplication_issue — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a fix it issue rather than delete it. I think that I have seen that deleting the sandbox that the bot is mindlessly (because it is a bat) dumping sand into will simply cause the bot to recreate the sandbox and resume dumping sand into it. I don't know the details of what the bot is doing, but the task entry for the bot needs to be deleted, rather than deleting the file that the bot is appending to. Just deleting this file will not solve the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Offering an update here that @Guettarda helped me by updating the template code to prevent list duplication. I'll keep an eye on these pages to make sure that they stop duplicating. @Fram @Robert McClenon. I shared this comment on a few other deletion nominations, but I won't do it for all of them. All of the nominated pages have been updated with code that should stop duplication. Thanks, all. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Qatar

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

Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Canada

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

Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Li Song/sandbox

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

Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Kazakhstan

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

Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prosperosity/Opotiki

Bot adds same 13K of content at the end every few days, page clearly not checked and becoming large rather rapidly. Fram (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I really don't want the page to keep adding a new table every time it updates either - I've added the 'Wikidata list end' template but I'm unsure if the placing on the page is right. Prosperosity (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Fiji

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

Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/States/Oregon/WD

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

Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Tuvalu

Page has had the exact same contents appended 19 times by bot since its creation in September. No need to let this create another megamassive page and consume more resources for no reason at all. Fram (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Armenia

Same contents get added by bot every few days, so after a few months you get a 1.8 Mb page of no use. Fram (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Saint Lucia

Same content gets added to this page every few days, more than 400K by now after a few months. Clearly not used. Fram (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Offering an update here that @Guettarda helped me by updating the template code to prevent list duplication. I'll keep an eye on these pages to make sure that they stop duplicating. @Fram @Robert McClenon. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Ethnicity

No longer maintained 2Mb list of 20 times duplicated partially BLP-sensitive data. Too long to easily clear out manually. Fram (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In this case, the bot appears to have stopped digging the hole, so the hole can be filled in. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has the nominator made an inquiry about the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Offering an update here that @Guettarda helped me by updating the template code to prevent list duplication. I'll keep an eye on these pages to make sure that they stop duplicating. @Fram @Robert McClenon. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Equity lists/Medical condition

2Mb page of bot-repeated data over and over again (bot has been disabled), with BLP issues (Wikidata items which no longer claim the medical condition, people of dubious notability), and too large for me to manually edit at the moment. Serves no purpose. Fram (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In this case, the bot appears to have stopped digging the hole, so the hole can be filled in. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has the nominator made an inquiry about the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Offering an update here that @Guettarda helped me by updating the template code to prevent list duplication. I'll keep an eye on these pages to make sure that they stop duplicating. @Fram @Robert McClenon. Thanks! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:ILovePianoTiles/Playground

User no longer edits, page is now 1.4 MB and gets longer every few days as a bot appends the same content again and again. The same applies to their other page User:ILovePianoTiles/Oldest NHL Players, but it's still a lot shorter at least. Fram (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I see that a bot is mindlessly (because it is a mindless bot) adding to this sandbox. But will deleting the sandbox stop this, or will the bot recreate the sandbox? Would a better idea be either to ask the bot operator what to do to stop this mindless appending, or to post an inquiry at the bot noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some I think that I have seen a similar issue in the past, and the bot recreated the sandbox and kept on adding to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy fix - Would've been helpful if all these identical nominations would just be bundled together (or, really, absent any valid deletion rationale, just withdrawn), but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles for the discussion. A bunch of people forgot the closing tag, making the bot append rather than update the list. Whether the bot should stop running on some of these pages is not a matter for MfD. As it stands, these are pretty typical Wikidata-based lists, built either to explore content gaps or for personal curiosity about topics, and not meeting any of the criteria for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 7, 2026

User:Endoheretic exoheretic

The User: space page resembling an article (→WP:FAKEARTICLE), but not promising any notability. It also looks like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Apart form that, it's been created in 2011 and its author/owner has been inactive since. CiaPan (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other than when a user is writing about themself, a user page that resembles an article is just called a userspace draft. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a deletion justification for articles, not user pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I used 'indiscrimitate' as a hint that the contents is not likely to ever become an article. --CiaPan (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete editor only made two edits on Wikipedia, and then never can back. Catfurball (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Catfurball: Did you mean 'never came back'...? --CiaPan (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Catfurball (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace drafts do not have an expiration date. Userspace is for experimenting and drafting without affecting the encyclopedia. That it is not extremely valuable is all the more reason to ignore it rather than create a discussion about it IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Berlin

This portal was created in January 2009, and was maintained until about 2018. It was nominated for deletion in September 2019, when hundreds of portals were nominated for deletion, after the stealth creation of hundreds of semi-automated portals in 2018. It was noted in 2019 that the portal had an average of 11 daily pageviews, while the lead article Berlin had an average of 4252 daily pageviews. The consensus at MFD was trending to Delete, but the originator of the portal, User:Bermicourt, said that they wanted to move the portal to project space. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Berlin. The portal was moved to project space on 24 September 2019. The history shows that the portal was moved back to portal space on 27 November 2022.

In 2023, after the portal was moved back to portal space, the portal had an average of 1 daily pageview, as contrasted with 5033 daily pageviews for the article. In 2025, the portal had an average of 1 daily pageview, as contrasted with 4645 daily pageviews for the article. This portal was not used much in 2019. It is used even less now that it was killed and was reincarnated. Maybe portals were obsolete in 2019 and are more obsolete in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the viewership of this portal is very low. Catfurball (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and detrimental to the WikiProject and the mainspace article. Portals have been made obsolete by the development of internet search engines, and they have never been a positive on Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a mess. The portal appears to have been translated from de:Portal:Berlin, and contains tons of links to articles that do not exist on this wiki, and badges for FA/GA status on articles which have not passed those assessments here. Some subpages are still written in German. Omphalographer (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons given above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion WP:G4. The previous discussion explicitly endorsed the page's removal from the portal namespace but provided a copy to its creator; the creator then moved it back having made no substantive changes at all. That's a clear end-run around a deletion process, and G4 applies. Also delete per the reasons given above and in the previous discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ankeli flourish

Wikipedia is not a web host for your creative writing. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be a usersubpage. The user responded at User talk:Ankeli flourish. WP:AGF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are plenty of places this user can post their romantic fan fiction; this isn't one of them. Omphalographer (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nonsensical. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 23:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iich1960/Userboxes/No Ukraine

This userbox is hostile, divisive, and inflammatory. See WP:UBCR. Instead of showing support for a country (presumably Russia judging by the creators page), it advocates the effective destruction of another. ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Raises WP:GS/RUSUKR concerns as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G10. Completely inappropriate userbox. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but it is not G10 eligible. It is a typical political userbox describing the user’s opinion, and thus potential bias. Arguably, all politics could be banned, but this one is not so special. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Answer — The userbox simply reflects a desire for demilitarization, not any hostility. What's wrong with demilitarization? After all, it's a copy of an existing, similar userbox - User:Hermes Thrice Great/Userboxes/Demilitarization of Russia. If they were to be deleted, it would be for the same reason. The userbox name is also not original, taken from here — Template:User No Russia. Iich1960 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other problematic userboxes does not justify the existence of this one. Ill be happy to nominate that for deletion as well. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G10 if applicable, if not delete as clear, blatant WP:POLEMIC and possible WP:GS/RUSUKR issues. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 23:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simranchotani21

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UP#NOT. Copy of the same content already exists in the user's sandbox, User:Simranchotani21/sandbox. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a combination of reasons:
- Appears to be the product of artificial intelligence.
- An unreferenced biography of a living person.
- Written promotionally.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Robert McClenon. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 23:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Berlin/Excellent Articles

This looks like a copy-paste of an old version of de:Portal:Berlin/Exzellente Artikel. It was created in 2011 and has not been updated since. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk • edits) 00:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Portals are a failed concept and there is no value in this page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but delete the portal itself also. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Berlin (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Untranslated content copied from the German wiki and not updated. We do not have a specific grouping of "Excellent Articles" on English Wikipedia. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Berlin/Very Good Articles

This looks like a copy-paste of an old version of de:Portal:Berlin/Sehr gute Artikel. It was created in 2011 and has not been updated since. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk • edits) 00:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but delete the portal itself also. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Berlin (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 6, 2026

Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/Hot articles

HotArticlesBot is now broken. It has been replaced in WP:SNOOKER, making this subpage defunct. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Replaced by Module:Database reports/Hot articles, in the spirit of CSD T5. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 5, 2026

Portal:Antarctica

A newly created portal by a very new editor with barely any edits. This portal, unsurprisingly, has red links and errors and has not seen any edits since been created in September. Additionally, this does not offer anything special that isn't covered by the parent article (and saves of from the need to maintain this extra space). Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possibly abandoned, as mostly unused, and as probably unneeded. Unlike the last portal to be nominated for deletion, this really is a portal. It has the "newer" portal architecture with a list of 43 articles. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the portal had an average of 2 pageviews daily, while the main article, Antarctica, had 3832 pageviews daily. If readers want to know about the continent at the bottom of the world, they look at the article, Antarctica, not at the portal. The portal originator has not edited sinced September 2025, so does not appear to be about to maintain the portal. For background information, there was a previous portal, which was deleted in August 2019. That portal had an average of 38 daily pageviews. The most likely explanation for the difference in daily pageviews of the portal is that fewer readers are looking at portals, because they are being seen as obsolete. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons given above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the above. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 23:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 4, 2026

Draft:Isha Malviya

Deleted three times at AfD. After the redirect was deleted per discussion on December 25th, OP (now blocked) creates this draft in an obvious attempt to override everything. Topic is still not notable. Would request protection of the mainspace. CNMall41 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the work of a disruptive blocked user. Normally deletions of a title in article space are not a reason to delete from draft space, but the two additional issues are that the author is blocked for disruption and the article space title is already locked. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:CNMall41 - It appears that the title in mainspace is already salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks for pointing it out. I now see it was done in December after the deletion discussion for the redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfDs were TOOSOON (2021), “rough” consensus (2024) and for a technical reason (duplication). These are weak indicators of “never”, and draftspace is appropriate for hosting it. It is understandable that someone feels aggrieved and is breaking behavioural rules. Warnings and blocking is the answer, not the deletion of a plausible draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainspace is already protected. It might be a useless and somewhat disruptive draft, see Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. I will admit I was heavily patrolling that now blocked user (Starting around February last year) because I thought some of their editing on Cricket articles was disruptive, and I ended up seeing more throughout the year such as unexplained mass changes (Such as X national team to just national team, with of course X representing whatever national team, as well as adding hosts to tournaments based on where some games were was played rather than official host, as well as changing from worded awards like winner and runner-up to gold 1 and sliver 2), and I'm not going to go on and list every single thing with me and other users, and creating costly redirects to a single snapshot of careers of people in like Badminton, and others) but see Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. She is also 22 years old. And if content is significantly different from what it was at deletion, it could be published. She is also only 22 years old. She might be notable in the future. And since the user that has repeatedly recreated it is now blocked so I don't see any potential for disruption in the future. Only possible way I see it in the future is sock puppetry and quite frankly, and that can easily be investigated, particularly with the actions and language used by OCDD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about drafts do no harm. I normally leave them alone, but the question becomes how many times do we have to keep reverting and blocking socks? As of now, the draft cannot be G5d, but if deleted here and then recreated by a sock, then G5 would apply. If an experienced editor wants to take on the project, there really isn't anything usable in the draft as it is just an opening line and then the filmography and awards which can be taken from IMDb. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G5 if applicable, if not, delete. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 23:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2026

User:Baxito

No longer active but still a promotional user page Gbawden (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This user page looks like a user page, and is not inconsistent with other user pages. User pages are not normally deleted when the user goes away. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This user page has more contact information than most, but it is not promotional. There is also nothing wrong with them saying that they have coding experience. This editor has more than a few contributions in mainspace, so they are a contributor, and therefore are not misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing screams WP:PROMO for me. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: this is not promotional at all. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 22:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SLMn475/sandbox

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 00:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:SLMn475/sandbox

Yet another sandbox page which exists solely to fictionalize the results of the 2014 Brazilian presidential election so that it was won by somebody different than in reality. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write any alternate history you want to for shits and giggles -- it is for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when you're done, which this obviously can't be.
And as usual, it violates WP:BLP to make false claims about living people, even in userspace. And also as usual, it was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is absolutely never acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as biographies of living persons violation, using the names and images of living persons in a manner contrary to fact, and a hoax. Also alternate history (but that is only an essay). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2026 (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.

Draft:Jack Sucks at Life

Jack is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and this one has nothing on it. Dylan Hackworth1 (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let it time out. No point bringing a draft to MfD unless it's been repeatedly resubmitted or there is a truly compelling reason; "blank draft" is neither. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There have been many attempts by fans of this YouTuber to create an article about them, to the point where the subject has been listed at WP:DEEPER. There is virtually no chance of this draft ever being approved. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also said that about Battle for Dream Island, did we not? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. That might be appropriate if their fans keep creating mainspace articles, but this is a blank draft that causes no harm. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 22:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lack of notability is a valid reason to delete an article, but it is not a valid reason to delete a draft. Being empty also isn't a valid reason to delete a draft, as draft space is meant for works in progress. If it were to get tendentiously resubmitted to AFC, that would be a good reason, but that hasn't happened yet. I see no reason to delete this, and every reason to leave this alone for now. Either G13 will take care of it, or someone will come along and develop it into an article (although that won't be easy). Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with Jéské Couriano & Chess enjoyer, I'd let AFC or G13 deal with it. Encoded Talk 💬 16:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Sugar Tax. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and salt per result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JackSucksAtLife TruenoCity (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly an attempt to prevent a non-notable article at Jack Sucks at Life, which would be an unwanted species of beans. This is a two-part nomination, to uproot the bean plant, and to salt the bean garden. I disagree with both efforts. First, we don't need to uproot a bean plant that isn't there, Deleting a blank draft is silly. Second, salting a bean garden is mistaken (and I was mistaken in my previous nomination) because it just causes the beans to be planted somewhere else. If there is an effort to create an article in article space, it can be dealt with by AFD, by salting as appropriate, by partial blocks, and by other techniques. We don't need to deal with this blank draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a blank draft. Also, notability rules do not apply for drafts. I'd let G13 deal with it. Do note that every time this draft is nominated for MfD, the G13 clock resets as it creates a new revision. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 22:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mark O'Leary (2nd nomination)

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 00:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mark O'Leary

Proposing deletion and salting of this draft which has been repeatedly pushed for by its subject, who has rejected the draft decline reasons. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and is an all around COI issue. This draft was previously deleted a decade ago, per a prior MfD, and this current iteration remains problematic. The subject and draft author in question rejected a G4 speedy deletion tag, and has also failed to communicate constructively. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice and protect against recreation I just indeffed the author as a compromised account since his assistant has been using it. I don't know why we are even bothering with this process; if I hadn't seen that this MfD was being held I would have dispensed with the draft on the spot. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator and admin. The question is what degree of create protection to put on it. I think that admin-protection of drafts is a bad idea (and admin-protection of articles is often a bad idea), but that semiprotection or ECP-protection is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeatedly resubmitted without improvement, and the author has also repeatedly removed the AfC declines, reviewer comments, and MfD notice. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Repeatedly resubmitting a draft with no improvements, removing declines, and removing the MFD notice wastes the community's time. Enough is enough. This was deleted in a previous MFD, so I agree that the page should be salted. Fully protecting the page from being created seems like a bit much, so I would recommend extended confirmed protection. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: while deleting seems reasonable here, I feel more inclined to let CSD G13 deal with it. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 23:00, 8 January 2026 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kerala Christianity

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 00:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kerala Christianity

Exact same scope as Christianity in Kerala (WP:DUP), LLM usage to create it from scratch; no regard for WP:MOS The Kora Person (come say hi!) 01:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G15. The nonsense revisions being made after nomination aren't helping either. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G15, LLM usage is screaming out! Encoded Talk 💬 16:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G15, not to mention LLM usage. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I haven't seen or looked for the evidence of artificial intelligence. If someone will point them out, I will strike the Weak. If there isn't any artificial intelligence, a Redirect to Christianity in Kerala is alternatively in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly AI generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 3 January 2026 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Historical archive/Template:Not a forum

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Historical archive/Template:Not a forum

This appears to have been unilaterally undeleted and moved to projectspace by an admin, Hex, after being deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Template:Not a forum. I don't see any reason for keeping this in projectspace given that it was deleted from template space. Sugar Tax (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really see much value in keeping this around nor did the participants at TfD. Despite this Hex clearly did and that's enough for me to feel like it's justified to keep itin this very unintrusive form. The barrier for keeping one of stuff in a historical archive should be very low imo. Trialpears (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient reasoning to keep. If this can be kept, why aren't we keeping the hundreds of superseded templates? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 01:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Because few templates have had someone specifically claim they want to see it archived and had tens of thousands of uses at one point. Iirc there was some discussion to remove not a forum when used in conjunction with talk header resulting in tons of uses being removed already before this deletion nomination but once upon a time I believe it was used on nearly every popular talk page for some reason. Trialpears (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any reason for keeping this in projectspace – I would counter that I don't see a good reason to delete the page. Historical pages are meant for obsolete material that doesn't have a place anywhere else. I used to see this template on a lot of article talk pages, which makes me believe that it's worth archiving, now that the community has decided that it's not useful. I'm also not convinced by the argument that other stuff does not exist. If an editor thought one of the hundreds of superseded templates was of historical interest, I fail to see why we shouldn't keep an archive of it. It's not like this page is wasting server space. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chess enjoyer. I'm one of the most active maintainers of the historical archive along with Hex. Graham87 (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no harm in keeping this copy of a deleted template, and minimal benefit in keeping it. That is a small net benefit. The TFD discussion was about whether to use it as a banner, not whether to destroy the record of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion has historically been understood as the way to take templates out of service, but they can also be archived, which has enduring value to historians of the project - even with a seemingly mundane item like this one. The existence of Wikipedia:Historical archive isn't well-known and perhaps this MfD will actually have some benefit by bringing it greater attention. Also, "it was deleted in one namespace so shouldn't exist in another" isn't a legitimate argument for deletion. If it was, userfication, which is an everyday activity, would cease to exist. — Hex • talk 12:43, 1 January 2026 (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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 05:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC) ended today on 9 January 2026. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

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

[a]