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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTOWP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	48	48
TfD	0	9	9
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	1	6	7
RfD	0	19	19
AfD	0	3	3

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.

October 26, 2025

Draft:Khanabad Sanatorium

Promotional page, non-notable issue GreenRedFlag (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 25, 2025

Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

This is a bit of a weird MFD, but I don't think the text of the GNU Free Documentation License is compatible with the CC BY-SA (unlike the text of the CC BY-SA which is itself licensed under the CC BY). Thus I don't think we can host a copy of the GFDL on wiki (although we can link to it off wiki for people to read). At the top of the page, it states "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed," which implies NonDerivative (and thus not compatible with CC BY-SA).

Since there are a large number of links to this page (over 50,000), I would suggest we blank this page and direct users to the actual text hosted on gnu.org, or redirect to Wikipedia:GFDL. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Overthinking things. Our content is GFDL-licenced so we must distribute a copy of the GFDL with it. No real chance of people being confused into thinking the text of the GFDL is CC-BY-SA. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that can also be an issue.

Could we maybe transwiki to Foundation wiki and then alter the copyright footer on Foundation wiki to say "unless otherwise noted, text is available..."

I wonder what else could be done to ensure a copy of the GFDL is available while making clear it is not available under the same license as the rest of the wiki. For example the MW software has bundled the GPL here. If there is a way to do something similar, maybe with a special page that has all the licenses, that would probably be better. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 16:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, the text was uploaded before the Wikipedia:Licensing update cutoff, so copyright-wise there's no need to redact or revdel. Neutral on whether we should have the page here in the first place. Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Wikipedia licensing question is very important to consider properly and is NOT appropriately dealt with by a one week MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what might be the appropriate venue to discuss copyright of the text of the GFDL? Copyright problems?

If the license of the GFDL is GFDL before 2009, we can relicense it under CC BY-SA. But if not, then we should either transwiki the page or try to get the copyright footer hidden on license pages. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has this been discussed - or even suggested - at WP:VPR? Are there any discussions or notices at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights or Wikipedia talk:Reusing Wikipedia content? Have WMF Legal been informed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing any reason why this should be deleted. If anything, this should probably be marked as {{historical}}. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:3FE5:17C1:B5AA:61D9 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laurent Antonoff/sandbox

The subject of this BLP has requested deletion. The appropriate VRT ticket is ticket:2025102410005778 where I have added notes for VRT agents. Please remember to courtesy blank the discussion after it is closed. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per subject request. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there here because of lack of proof that the subject is the user? It could be someone close, pretty close. I’d have deleted per WP:U1.

Delete per WP:BLPREQUEST, U1 and G7. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Xxavv

I attempt deletion for this autobiography through WP:G11 but this was declined. I am taking this to MfD to establish deletion for a different reason; this is an unsourced BLP. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced biography of a living person. The Heymann criterion is for the originator, who has been notified, to add reliable sources within seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ---Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 24, 2025

User:Wikisteveb4

User is attempting to sidestep this deletion discussion by moving the offending content onto their user page. Wikipedia is not a webhost for their fantasy games. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Wikisteveb4 - What is your reason for moving a large amount of content from a (now-blank) sandbox to your user page, and what is your reason for having a large amount of material about competition shows that appears to be either copied or modified from article space? You are an experienced editor; what are you trying to do? How is this contributing to the encyclopedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I request to close the deletion discussion; I have now eliminated all material previously on the sandbox. You have to understand I was unfamiliar with these guidelines I do not agree with. However, I did delete my thousands of hours worth of work off of my own pages so the issue shall be resolved. Wikisteveb4 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if an administrator suppresses those last edits to remove the inappropriate material from the edit history, as we have had too many users try to sneak these items back in after "blanking" a page leading to the AFD to be withdrawn. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is how the page is currently fine, it has been like this for months. Is there anything I need to do for this to be officially resolved? Wikisteveb4 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wikisteveb4, what would even be the point? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisteveb4: There are alternative platforms you can use to host this content. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you being the first one to try to help me on this dilemma. I genuinely did not know another platform but with those links, I am more enlightened. Essentially I need to copy paste the codes anywhere else. I am sorry for all of the confusion, I understand why this is occurring but am concerned with an overall lack of empathy as a user who has made 30,000 plus edit and created several full pages on this website. Wikisteveb4 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note - now they're really circumventing things by moving it to their userpage at Simple English Wikipedia. It's their only edit on that wiki so far. CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine, simplewiki can deal with itself. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppress edits between 1318111040 and 1318562471: This will be a slog because there's >130 intermediate edits in this range, but the content in question was added and edited between these ranges pretty much exclusively. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:MergeHistory is also an option. It allows you to completely remove revisions from page history (as opposed to revdel/supress) by moving them somewhere else. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as less work for the closing admin than redacting 130 intermediate edits. Moving this to [[1]] is cross-wiki abuse. There is no need to try to compromise with the originator when they are gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Drafts

This is an unused and outdated maintenance subpage of a drafts collection that has not been edited since February 1, 2022, and is counterintuitive when Category:The Walt Disney Company drafts suffices as the means of navigation with less manual maintenance required to befallen upon editors. There is no worthwhile history to maintain because much of the relevant content is available in the applicable drafts, most of which have either been abandoned or published in the mainspace since the subpage's creation in 2019. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has extensive history, related to the article and connected to new articles, and so should not be deleted. There is no required maintenance work. Do not delete project history without good reason. Feel free to add an archive tag, if you think that it will help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User aa-0

I think it's ridiculous to have a template and category for people who "don't" understand some language. This could possibly used by thousands (or more) editors who are ignorant of a subject. It's not a criteria that is definitive for an editor's work on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At best, pointless, and potentially open to abuse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking to delete innocuous things due to potential for abuse is a negative, nonproductive mindset, and should not be encouraged. Wait for actual evidence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been explained that this template is useful on a user page in the Afar Wikipedia, to inform others that they not only do not plan to edit the encyclopedia but will not understand any message that is added to their user talk page. So we should keep an en-0 userbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Robert McClenon it is clear that these can have some use, as users who edit globally may direct people to their English Wikipedia userpage through soft redirects if this is their primary, and there are cases where someone may edit a Wikipedia where they do not understand the language, for example to add images. Moreover, there is an entire set of these. See for example Template:User fr-0, so this is not an isolated oddball, on the contrary -0 variants are actually quite common. Maybe these are not that useful but if we are going to get rid of them it should be through a batch nomination or RFC not by listing a single arbitrary template in the set for deletion. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather assumed that this was just an example, and that we were discussing deleting all the '-0' templates, rather than just the Afar one (which was presumably selected as the first, alphabetically?). Perhaps Liz can clarify? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then as a procedural matter all of those templates should have been tagged for deletion and their creators notified. But just checking some easy ones, Template:User es-0, Template:User de-0, and Template:User zh-0 are not currently tagged. If the procedural issues are remedied and the nomination is made clear I am willing to strike and reconsider, though Template:User en-0 should of course be considered separately. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is logic to babel Userboxes all beginning from zero. The zeros have use. The set, 0,1,2,3,4,5,N is establish and should be left alone. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 0 categories have niche use cases. For example, if I edited a ton of articles on Croatia but did not speak the language, putting it on my userpage would let other editors know. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not completely pointless, it could be useful for someone who contributes to pages relating to the language but does not understand the language and does not plan on contributing to Afar Wikipedia. We have Template:User en-0 TruenoCity (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 23, 2025

User:Sofiad123/sandbox

2017 WP:RFORK of "Non-Stop" (Hamilton song), which originated from an unrelated 2023 draft. Paradoctor (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, this is a copy of a mainspace article. The originator came, created this, and went. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softpretzel/sandbox

Unsourced BLP. Paradoctor (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We should allow a reasonable amount of time for editors to provide the sources for biographies of living persons in work, but not five years. This is another case of an editor who came, left this coprolite, and departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Personal color analysis

Blatant AI slop, zero chance of ever being accepted into mainspace, yet declined for CSD G15. Author has been pasting identical copies of this exact same content across multiple different titles too. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the nominator, User:Taking Out The Trash - What are specific indications that this draft is the work of artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tone and writing style is quite obviously the output of ChatGPT or an identical program/software. I utilize these tools for legitimate purposes often enough that I can recognize their styles, especially when it's this blatant. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minivet/sandbox

Yet another sandbox copy of List of presidents of the United States, again existing solely to concoct an alternate history timeline different from reality. This time, everything appears to stay on track until January 6, 2021, at which point DJT's presidency ends prematurely for reasons unspecified (though one could hazard a guess given the date), with him being followed by Mike Pence for two weeks until Biden's inauguration, and then posits that the presidency has been completely vacant since January of this year.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any science fiction (or wishful thinking) you want to for shits and giggles -- it's for working on real stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when you're done, which this obviously can't be.
And, of course, yet again, the creator left this in the real article's mainspace categories for public consumption. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternate histories are subtle misleading information and it is offensive to Wikipedia to have anywhere on Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the sandbox being blanked immediately. (I would blank it myself but this seems to be against policy when a deletion discussion has started?) I had assumed my user page's sandbox was more or less a free playground based on the name, and have now found the policy so I can act correctly in the future.

I definitely didn't intend it to be associated with the original page at any time. Is there a way to prevent that?

Minivet (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to prevent that?

Never let it have any association with Wikipedia, not in your sandbox, not in any namespace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Also, this sandbox uses the names and images of living persons with information that is contrary to fact, which is a biographies of living persons violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alt history stuff is probably better off in your own machine or online personal workspace. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, for obvious reasons. It really amazes me how much POTUS-related alt-history crap exists here. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solarbird/sandbox

WP:RFORK, per special:diff/822752221: "added content taken from List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, see that page's history for attribution" Paradoctor (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, looks like a perfectly reasonable use of sandbox to develop content, don't think it should be considered a redundant fork. Will check with Solarbird to see if they have opinions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh wow, I forgot about this. I know we moved it over here to work on it for some reason. But I can't remember why right now. I wasn't trying to make some weird fork, though - we had some specific working reason. So I'd prefer to keep it until I remember why. My memory is strange and I don't like deleting things when I don't know why I have them. Even if it's really old. Solarbird (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This looks like a draft in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 22, 2025

Talk:Sidemen/FAQ

The FAQ was created due to several editors, likely fans of the YouTube group, constantly attempting to create articles for group members Miniminter and Wroetoshaw around 2022 when the other five members (KSI, Vikkstar123, Zerkaa, TBJZL, and Behzinga) did. Around the time, articles on the two were consistently deleted or sent to the draftspace as they didn't meet notability guidelines. Now that both members have their own articles that have since met those guidelines, meaning that all seven Sidemen have their own individual articles, this one-question FAQ is no longer necessary. –WPA (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. Some useless trivia is that I started the article on Zerkaa in 2021 and I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for deletion as YouTuber pages often are. Sahaib (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is still true. Or Mark Historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sahaib. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikisteveb4/sandbox

Blatant WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The author's other contributions wouldn't qualify this for a U5 speedy delete, but this definitely looks like a personal non-encyclopedic page and shouldn't be here. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as U1 - The author has blanked the page, which can be treated as a request to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under U1 per above. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They have moved the offending content to their user page. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate that for deletion, too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And they've now removed it from their user page at En. and dumped it onto a userpage at Simple English Wikipedia. CountryANDWestern (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant WP:WEBHOST violation. Delete per MfD consensus, with prejudice. Do not delete per U1, which is refundable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 21, 2025

Draft:Divergent series

Procedural follow-up to WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14#Draft:Divergent Mathematics with no opinion on merit. Pinging all RfD participants @Paradoctor, Steel1943, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, and 204.111.137.106:. Left guide (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WPMATH. Left guide (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RFORK of divergent series containing nothing of value. Paradoctor (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Divergent series per my comments in the RfD. Also, in the RfD, I do not see any consensus to restore the draft (though I suggested it as an alternative option), so ... I have no idea why we are here. Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my rationale, redirection could be considered harmless, and could potentially prevent a draft at this title from being recreated. Also, WP:RFORK pertains to duplicate articles, not an article that had duplicate content in the "Draft:" namespace (which can happen if someone is trying to edit a version of an article before pipe creating a copy of the article to edit prior to making the new edits live.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we redirected to divergent series, would that be an {{r from draft}}? Paradoctor (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, comparing the draft and Divergent series, IDC about the outcome of this discussion anymore. Doesn't seem as though the draft has anything exclusive from Divergent series that could enhance the existing article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Divergent series or Speedy Redirect to Divergent series. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to WP:RFORK of divergent series as mentioned above. This draft does not add anything of value and just confuses things. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless user:Sschatzberg shows up, in which event we could move it to user:Sschatzberg/Divergent mathematics, where it probably should have been in the first place. Given they haven't contributed since 2017 I wouldn't expect much though. See: Special:Contributions/Sschatzberg. –jacobolus (t) 08:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there's no reason to hold onto an incomplete and abandoned draft of a redundant content fork. There's no need to redirect from the the draft to the real article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly per speedy/snow. We already have an article on divergent series, vastly more developed than this draft. Tito Omburo (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't hold up deletion here. Sometimes people start rewrites in draftspace instead of userspace, perhaps because it feels less exclusive. In theory these should only be retained while the rewrite is actively ongoing and then deleted, if singly authored so without attribution issues, or redirected to keep attribution if multiply authored. In practice there are many abandoned attempts at rewrites in userspace that while technically forks are not worth the bother of deleting. There is even less cause in draftspace due to the six month no activity retention limit. In sum my view is meh, in hindsight I probably should have advocated letting G13 delete this, and in the future that would probably be best. Who knows maybe once in a blue moon someone will even show back up to finish the rewrite before the draft expires. However since this discussion has already started and the user has not edited in eight years there is not really a problem with ending this one now. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 20, 2025

User:Ibn Tahere/Mizanur Rahman Azhari

Article deleted countless times per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizanur Rahman Azhari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizanur Rahman Azhari (2nd nomination), also deleted at various other locations including Mizanur Rahman (preacher), Mizanur Rahman Azhari (Islamic scholar) and Mizanur Rahman Azhari (Preacher). Draft also deleted multiple times at Draft:Mizanur Rahman Azhari as recently at 10 October. FDW777 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. I think that some of the deletions from draft space were correct and some were incorrect. It isn't always necessary to delete rogue drafts from draft space or user space. Deleting this will only cause the spelling to be changed. Just keep it out of article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and title blacklist We should signal that we simply don't want attempts to create an article on this person, end of story. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and title blacklist as the only logical solution. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Western Regional Storage Trust

Merge to California Digital Library. Independent notability is tenuous, a merged article would strengthen both topics. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In mainspace, the general rule is that most of the time, a merger is an editing decision that does not require XfD. Is this also true in draftspace, or should it be? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this instead as a deletion discussion, with merger and redirection as one possible alternative. For one thing, it's unlikely that the talk: page of a yet-uncreated article would have any audience.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Big Ten Academic Alliance Print Program too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there evidence that this draft was generated by artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, not sufficient for WP:G15. There is one reference that 404s:
- "PAPR record example for WEST holdings". Center for Research Libraries. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
(And obviously it is surprising that a URL that was allegedly accessed on 19 October does not exist on 21 October.)
Additionally, there are two characteristics of the content that I have previously seen in other LLM generated articles:
- Multiple references at the end of paragraphs, including the lead, few if any at the ends of sentences within paragraphs
- References that are formatted as one field per line, rather than space delimited
But that is circumstantial at best. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge carefully to California Digital Library. I agree with Andy Dingley that some of the content in this draft would bolster the existing article nicely. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Max Freedom Pollard

Notability. This is questionable, and there are several articles and sections hanging off this, such that sorting out Mr Freedom's notability first would simplify a lot of issues.

He's the author of two self-published books, which seem to have attracted no secondary interest. His press coverage is almost all about a bizarre armed siege. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft, article standards do not apply to drafts. Every draft falls short of Wikipedia's standards, that's why they are drafts. It would have to be up to standard if and when it is resubmitted only. PaulHSAndrews (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as drafts go, this one is better than most. It's just that - a draft - and according to Wikipedia standards, it is only after 6 months of abandonment that a draft can be deleted, excepting very special circumstances and multiple users agreeing to the deletion. This is a draft, not a published article.

Can you quote the part of the current draft which you believe requires non-standard, immediate deletion?

PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"article standards do not apply to drafts"

Please don't try and explain WP policy to us, that's likely to end badly. Both your understanding of policy and your judgement is seriously underdeveloped as yet, to the point where you're teetering on the edge of an indefinite CBAN (and worse than that, an infamous CBAN, the sort that becomes so memorable that there's no return from it). So humility, not hubris, would be advisable.

WP:BLPN applies to both articles and drafts. Enforcement might not be so stringent on drafts, but that's a subtle distinction. Certainly a draft would be excused failing to demonstrate notability. But if an article's topic is 'just not notable' and shows no sign that notability could ever be demonstrated for that subject (and specifically, the subject as they are today – who knows what they might do tomorrow) then be assured that a draft can be deleted for that, just as easily as an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't try to explain it, it's already explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft

“Community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly posting the same thing, or large chunks of the article itself, whilst also missing the whole point being made, is not a convincing debating technique. Your ANI posts also fell into the 'wall of text' trap and that doesn't work well here on WP.

If you want to make a case for saving this article and coverage of Freedom Pollard, then do so by showing independent sources arguing to his notability as an author. Because nothing else is likely to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulHSAndrews: There's no need to clutter this discussion with a copy of the draft itself. That's what the links are for. It's alao quite unhelpful to remove the pointer to this discussion from the top of the draft. I will be restoring that now. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections

"Moving an article to draftspace, like any action, requires consensus. It may initially be carried out as a bold move if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so is uncontroversial. But if another editor—including the creator of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest—objects to the move (for example by moving the page back to mainspace), then it is not uncontroversial. In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time."

As I have contested the deletion, this draft is now controversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADrafts

“Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft

In an RfC … community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not permitted (per WP:OUTING) to ask if you are Max Freedom Pollard. But if you were, now would be a good time to make that known, rather than later. Undisclosed WP:COI goes very badly. Similarly if you have any COI with this author, beyond a general reader's interest in the source of their books. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft

“Community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm (the nomination was a hint, but not definitive) delete and now salt too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable author, at best known for WP:BLP1E, that is, his arrest. Creating editor probably has some sort of COI with the subject (see [2]), as yet undisclosed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seven Hills library reference looks like it might have been user-generated content, to some degree. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is clearly not notable, to the degree that there's no realistic chance this draft could become a viable article in the foreseeable future; and it's reasonably likely to cause him harm in the meantime. I've removed the copy that was pasted into the middle of this discussion. —Cryptic 17:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unhelpful to the project at this juncture. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability borderline at best: the strongest claim in my view is the lawsuit by his employer becoming part of case law, but I can't find any reports of that other than the case documentation. I can't find published reviews of either book, the library positions do not confer notability, and the arrest is a negative event with no long-lasting coverage. No biographical info apart from the unsourced birth year. Largely concur with Cryptic; rather than letting this languish as a borderline negative BLP of a non-notable person, better to delete the draft. Note to PaulHSAndrews: Deletion is not final. A new article can be created if Pollard achieves notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Seven Hills library is known to only one source, updated/created on the day that content was added to the article and possibly reliant solely on a user submission; the library is otherwise unknown to search engines. The cited source does not say he serves on the University of Adelaide Library committee, only the far less significant Friends of the University of Adelaide Library committee. The books are self-published and no significant reviews are offered. The text in "2024 Sydney police operation" seems to breach WP:SYNTH as sources do not generally name the subject, and no coverage of any trial is offered. Only primary sources for "Supreme Court litigation" are provided; it seems to have gone unreported. Notability, however much the subject may desire it, is not established. NebY (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just doesn't pass the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ironically, despite the COI concern, parts of this come close to an attack page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's one reason why I don't think there is any COI here. An odd fixation on the subject, maybe. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no COI, why would the subject link this page in the literal back cover of their book? Surely he desires this info being there for some reason. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but this edit on the same day as the creation of the source does make me suspect communication from subject to editor, and both that and this inflation of the subject's importance make me suspect editing in the subject's interest. NebY (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yesterday I was inclined to say that the draft, like its subject, seemed merely eccentric and mostly harmless. Following the direction that the related ANI thread has taken, I'm now open to the possibility that Pollard and/or PaulHSAndrews are attention-seekers who are pranking or trolling us. (I don’t know how else to characterise the behaviour documented in the draft's sole reliable news source.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClaudineChionh, that article is behind a paywall. Can you give a brief indication of the relevant points in it? JBW (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I sometimes forget what might be inaccessible to others.

"Bizarre videos emerge from inside 10-hour eastern suburbs siege" (23 October 2024)

Tactical police were sent to Pollard's apartment building following his refusal to leave after being evicted. Pollard filmed the ten-hour incident and posted some of this to Instagram. He was finally arrested and unauthorised firearms were found in his home.

The article says about his background:

Pollard claims on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for Harvard University in the US, as a staff member for the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission (ACIC), and as a “security equipment specialist”. He also wrote his own translation of the New Testament which “restores original meaning” to the text.
A spokesperson for the ACIC said Pollard “is not and never has been an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission staff member.”

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - See drafts are not deleted for notability or some other reasons. The arguments here look like a case to delete Max Freedom Pollard, but that article doesn't exist. I don't see a case for deleting a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seriously questionable notability. While I would have waited until it was an article, given that it's already here, I don't think it's beneficial at this point to worry about a technicality. Refunds are free, should someone with the willingness to salvage the article who isn't about to be topic-banned and possibly community-banned desire to try and make this work. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fais WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I haven't seen a compelling argument for why this shouldn't be in draftspace. MFD discussions due not deal with notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this would last five minutes in article space? (where it was, just a couple of days ago) 'Rules don't apply to drafts' is a very weak argument. When it inevitably went to AfD, would the outcome be to draftify it, or simply to delete it as unfixable non-notable BLP?

The point here isn't that the draft doesn't demonstrate notability, it's that the subject is not notable as either an author, a defendant, or as an armed besiegee and (crucially) there is no conceivable situation where we might change that viewpoint. We've done as much investigation of the subject as is practical for an AfD, and it's just not convincing that this non-notability opinion might change. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts do not need to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a simplistic reading of this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 58#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?

But as you can see by the !votes here, it doesn't carry too much weight in a situation like this.

If you think that Pollard is WP:BLPN, on which basis is that? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, as I've used the polite conventional "not established" formula above: there is no reasonable expectation that this draft could ever be developed to meet our standards for an article, and WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMO apply to all pages. NebY (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scope creep. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Big Ten Academic Alliance Print Program

Redirect and merge to a new section within Big Ten Academic Alliance.

That article is small enough at present that this new section could easily be added. The new part is aready questioned (AfC rejection) for being independently notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 19, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Imprinting (ethology)

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Imprinting (ethology)

Duplicates Imprinting (psychology) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a duplicate of the Simple English wiki article with the same name, but the mainspace article here covers both ethology and psychology implicitly. There are no significant changes to the content of the draft, other than some typography and template changes. Anything that can be added from the Simple English wiki article can probably be done on the above mainspace article directly, no point in keeping this dupe around. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 00:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article already exists and far better than draft. CNC (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading the report against the author at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article already exists so this is a duplicate. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per reasons given above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 14, 2025

Template:User Mixed race

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)

Salvio giuliano

06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can be from another country ethnically and still not be mixed race - for example, your parents could be Irish, but you're brought up in Norway. Still white nonetheless. Second, it's of very niche use - there's a fixed German/Spanish flag. I feel like this template is kind of useless. jolielover♥talk 05:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the user and help them introduce themself better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jolie, if you really want ask the maker of the template and ask if you can change the image, and the image is also depicting mixed race. But for me, I oppose. And even with your first explanation, they don't really even have to put the template. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk me 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, the different flags were to represent different places. Also, you can make different types of this template linked as a see also link. Furthermore, this would be my situation, making me mixed race and others with similar ways like this. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template conflates the concepts of race and nationality, as well as race and place of birth. Being born in one country and from another has nothing to do with being mixed race. --DB1729^talk 21:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DB1729. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 05:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC) ended today on 27 October 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

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

[a]