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	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	1	10	20	31
TfD	0	6	12	18
MfD	0	1	0	1
FfD	1	21	5	27
RfD	0	19	12	31
AfD	0	0	2	2

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 11, 2025

User:WikiEditPS/SB/FB/2046 FIFA World Cup

Hoax and misinformation. The page is about a future football World Cup wherein Bharat (not a country) will participate as the host. Whether it is believeable or not, it's completely false. I can't possibly see how it contributes to building Wikipedia in any way. I know that for some, userspace is "untouchable"; I will always want to delete false information regardless of article space - it might show up for some Internet user somewhere, and tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. Geschichte (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiEditPS/SB/FB/2046 FIFA World Cup group tables

Same reason as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WikiEditPS/SB/FB/2046 FIFA World Cup, false rubbish. Geschichte (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiEditPS/Sandboooooxes/2029 SCAFF International Championship

Hoax and misinformation. The page is about a future, albeit non-existing football tournament organized by a non-existing governing body. Whether the hoax is believeable or not, it's completely false. I can't possibly see how it contributes to building Wikipedia in any way. I know that for some, userspace is "untouchable"; I will always want to delete false information regardless of article space - it might show up for some Internet user somewhere, and blight Wikipedia's reputation. Geschichte (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Case against LLM-generated articles

In December 2023, an editor created Wikipedia:Why you shouldn't write articles with ChatGPT, according to ChatGPT. The concept of this essay is for it to be an LLM-outputted text about why not to post LLM outputs on Wikipedia.

In October 2025, another editor created Wikipedia:Case against LLM-generated articles (the page nominated in this MfD), also an LLM-outputted "essay" about the same thing. The editor did so apparently unaware that the concept had already been used.

So now we have two AI-generated essays with the (frankly juvenile) "I made the AI write about how bad it is" punchline.

The reason for this MfD nomination is that the first essay, from 2023, is good for what it is, and the second one is not good and is redundant and confusing.

It is confusing because it is a partly unattributed paraphrase of the real human-written essay Wikipedia:Large language models. In two places it explicitly quotes it. It is not legitimately novel AI-generated text but is very closely derived from an existing human-written text. So the concept is muddled, because this simply labels a paraphrase of an existing serious essay as humorous, which it is not intended to be, and the paraphrase conveys the same message and is not funny in any way. (The 2023 essay at least has "ongoing improveability" as an example of a hallucinated word.) And if someone believes that there is something funny about the content of the 2025 essay because of the humor tag, that person would only be misled.

This appears to have happened because LLM chatbots have gained the ability to perform web searches and read web pages in the meantime, and the essay "Wikipedia:Large language models" has been cited in various places. This gives chatbots the ability to closely paraphrase it. Whereas the original 2023 essay with this concept is "authentic" AI slop, this 2025 attempt is a more competent attempt to generate a text on this topic by closely sticking to something created by humans, enabled by these new capabilities which did not exist in 2023. —Alalch E. 03:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of overlapping humor pages. Deleting it sounds too excessive when we could simply merge it or keep it. Redundancy and confusion aren't exactly fatal flaws when it comes to an essay. Gommeh 📖 🎮 04:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 10, 2025

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Unreferenced BLPs

Created by a bot blocked in 2013 that was also supposed to maintain this page, this page hasn't received any edits since and has apparently served no purpose Dan the Animator 18:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not archive? Are you a member of this WikiProject? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe what part to archive/it seems empty? From my understanding, the page was to help with locating unref'd BLPs but the bot malfunctioned and it hasn't been updated since. Don't think keeping the page or it's history has much usefulness and at best would be questionable considering the bot did malfunction/outputted false positives though open to hearing other reasoning. Also, kind of yes, I've contributed a lot to WP:Ukraine the past few years though not sure if I ever added myself as a member. Dan the Animator 22:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Requests/Archive

Created in 2011 as an archive page for closed/completed requests from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Requests, this page has only 4 edits from two users in 2011 & 2012 and has not been updated since. No need to have an archive page like this imo, and no will to maintain it Dan the Animator 18:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Megacane

Draft on non-real subject by now-blocked vandal only account. No need to keep here at all. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed deleting this when i indef blocked. Done now under G3. Mfield (Oi!) 15:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral turpitude

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. Request by author so taken as G7 KylieTastic (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral turpitude

Cringe and unfunny as the creator of this page. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{G7}}, which I have tagged the page with. Xeroctic (talk) 15:08, 10 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.

Draft:Bella The Wolf

BLP draft article containing unsourced personal details, no non-self published reliable sources, and biased point of view giving undue weight to controversies concerning the subject, the vast majority of which is coverage from YouTube drama videos, bordering on an attack page (but not to the point where I think it's covered by CSD G10). I wasn't able to find a revision of the article with a more neutral POV. If the current draft was to be cleaned up to remove BLPPRIVACY, non-NPOV content, inappropriate external links, and content where the only source is self-published, there would be almost nothing encyclopedic left. Additionally, while I'm aware of NMFD, the draft has been rejected from AfC since September 2024 for lack of notability, and notability hasn't been established in intervening edits. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 06:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a combination of reasons:
- This is a rejected draft that has been preserved from G13 by diddly edits without material improvement.
- As per nominator, too much BLP violating content and too little real content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and due to all sources being unreliable. You cannot build an article from TikTok, youtube and fandom sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spy-cicle/drafts/List of Grand Theft Auto V characters

Per WP:COPIES: Created in 2020 with the comment "Created draft imported from List of Grand Theft Auto V characters see there for intial attribution", never edited after. Paradoctor (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One can argue over whether this is still a copy of a mainspace article, because the article was deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Theft Auto V characters. This would be deleted if the article existed, and the deletion of the original article should not change that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 9, 2025

Draft:A.R. Sindhu

Not notable by any mean SaTnamZIN (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the creator was blocked for being disruptive. Catfurball (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator was blocked for disruption from a single article (not this one). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Keep the draft as it is under work. Besides I don't get whether User:Catfurball has problem with the article or with me. Wikipedia has many article whose creator have been blocked. So what is the problem in the article / draft? Sorry if I said something harsh. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability doesn’t apply to drafts. Why are you really deleting this article? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NDRAFT. It clearly mentions that drafts, in general, are not judged for notability. I don't get why has this been nominated. BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. Drafts may be declined for lack of notability when submitted for review. The purpose of draft space is to review and improve drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - New New Page Patrol reviewers sometimes make the mistake of applying the same standards to new drafts as should be applied to new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author of this draft removed the MFD tag, which should not be removed while deletion is being discussed. I have restored the tag. The nomination of the draft was a mistake, but the tag should be removed when the closer closes the MFD discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per NDRAFT. The subject is even possibly Wikipedia-notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NDRAFT drafts are not checked for notability. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 8, 2025

User:Kaanaeli Kaale/Bashiru Aremu

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashiru Aremu, no need to keep this 2021 version of the same article around. Fram (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~, but this vote is tentative based on whether I understand correctly what this is~~. This appears to be a copy in user space of an article that was deleted after a deletion discussion. This is no longer exactly a redundant fork, but is ready to be Rejected in draft space because it was already deleted in article space. If my understanding is incorrect, please ping me. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the sandbox for the now deleted article. An hour after finishing editing the page at MfD, they created the article (no issue there, I often create articles the same way). But it makes no sense to keep a 4 year old BLP draft for a now AfD deleted article (and by an editor who hasn't edited since). Fram (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary restrictions UBX

These are described as "Dietary restrictions and stuff that I just bloomin' hate" on indefinitely blocked and TPA blocked former editor's personal Userboxes page. These violate UBCR, as they target and attack users with these dietary restrictions in a vulgar, rude manner, as well as arguably promoting FRINGE views about those dietary restrictions. I would also like to note that seemingly no one is using these userboxen and so they're just lying around gathering dust on our servers. They are inflammatory and not very useful, and multiple other userboxen by this user seemingly were already deleted, with the exception of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is getting some use, so I'm not nominating it. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Needlessly imflammatory/divisive. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not conducive to Wiki collaboration --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't normally get involved with userbox deletion discussion, but these smell bad. On examination, the difference between these and coprolites is that they have not fossilized, and so they still stink. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the kosher one could actually be offensive, and the vegan/vegetarian ones just aren't helpful either. '"Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessively inflammatory and potentially offensive. Day Creature (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these these hate userboxes, created by an editor who was blocked. Catfurball (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the userbox is inflamtory and divisive. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2025

Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

AI-generated hoohah. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this draft article is unsalvageable. I found some sources were valid. I think it would be worth keeping this draft in case other editors besides the page creator want to improve it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unless the nominator or another editor explains how the draft is rendered toxic by the use of artificial intelligence. Note that this draft was just rejected immediately before being nominated for deletion. Rejected drafts should normally be ignored for six months, unless they are either improved by a good-standing editor, as suggested by Liz, or are resubmitted or otherwise reworked, in which case they should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This draft has far to go to be ready for mainspace, if it ever will be, but is not unsalvageable. That is precisely what Draft space is for. Likely AI source hallucinations in its earliest incarnations seem to have been addressed, so that's neither here nor there now. Martinp (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future months 2026 to 2036

All those future months have not begun yet, so there is no point in having those pages that say nothing besides what day of the week those months begin and end on and how many days they have. The "Events by month" template should then be removed from all year pages from 2026 to 2032 to avoid redlinks. GTrang (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but only from January 2027 and onward. 2026 is right around the corner so what's the point of the 2026 ones when it'll be recreated again in nearly the same format? 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The portal is being actively maintained and viewed. The pages appear to have been recently created by editors who are probably involved in maintenance of the portal. I see no argument for deletion of these pages as long as the portal exists, and I do not see an argument at this time to delete this extremely active portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2028 and later Mass creation of nonsense should be discouraged. It looks like most have been created recently by 5120North15thStreet (talk · contribs) (222 edits; account created on 27 September 2025). Have they been notified? See WP:CRYSTAL. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That editor looks like an enthusiastic newbie. We should carefully direct him to something more useful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GTrang, please post a notification at Portal talk:Current events. This is firstly a question for editors involved with the portal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason why current events pages need to be created over a decade in advance. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:B5DA:AC06:5749:A86A (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes no sense to create pages so many years in advance. Catfurball (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least the ones 2030 and after. We can discuss those when we get there. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 6, 2025

User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

Apparently orphaned userfied version of an article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) and salted in mainspace (Involuntary celibacy). Valoem has not edited since 2020. Fails WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Pinging userfying admin GorillaWarfare for her input. Sandstein 15:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an abandoned draft. I userfied it at the request of Valoem, who never ended up editing it, and hasn't edited since 2020. Thylacoop5 did edit the draft in 2018, but was checkuserblocked in 2019 and hasn't edited since. The draft hasn't been substantively edited since 2018, and could always be undeleted again if someone decided they need it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Treat this as if it had been in draft space, or as an attempt to game the deletion of the topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was actually looking in to the history of this page just over a year ago, because I knew that how and whether to cover this topic had been a matter of extreme controversy in the past, and was toying with the idea of asking GorillaWarfare whether it would be worth moving the userspace history behind a main namespace redirect or something for historical interest. Yes, if this discussion closes as delete, the page can almost definitely be undeleted if necessary in the foreseeable future, but Deleted history can be theoretically cleared at any time though it's vanishingly unlikely these days (see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages). I also wouldn't be surprised if, with a topic as controversial as this, there are plenty of things in the edit history that are much better off being deleted. So I'm not certain enough about this to cast a !vote either way, but I'll take this chance to note the one thing that I was looking for when checking out the early history of this page, the earliest date when someone tried to write a page about this concept, which was 13 March 2004. Graham87 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the concern about deleted history being cleared, can you clarify? I'm skeptical of the value of maintaining this draft, as it's essentially a userspace POVFORK. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Unlike normal page history, deleted history isn't backed up anywhere externally (for good reasons) so on the highly unlikely event that it's ever erased from the Wikimedia servers, there'll be absolutely no way to get it back except old database dumps. My user subpage about page history observations shows the consequences of deletion of this history (mostly in 2003 and 2004) on various articles. But (a) the software is very different now, so this is much much less likely for many reasons, (b) old Wayback Machine versions might be good enough for whatever research people want to do, and (c) as you said, the topic's scope has changed dramatically over the years. My problem is with the idea that undeletion would be a relatively permanent solution if someone did want to retrieve the content in the future; it is in practice now, but it is and was never meant to be that way. Graham87 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Incel, to err on the side of history being available. The current article appears to be stable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, but we don't do cross-namespace redirects, right? Involuntary celibacy already redirects to Incel. And given that we have an uncontested "delete and salt" AfD, I see no grounds to undelete the history of the deleted article in mainspace. That would need to go through WP:DRV as an appeal against the AfD closure. Sandstein 12:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do cross-namespace redirects all the time. Userspace to mainspace and draftspace to mainspace routinely happen when a draft is mainspaced, and the redirect persists indefinitely. It is routinely the solution for draft forks, WP:SRE. It’s just mainspace outgoing redirects that we don’t do.

The SALTing having been sidestepped by the writing of a stable version at Incel is clear evidence that the SALT is unwarranted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that these are different topics. Incel is about an online subculture. The subject of this draft is about a supposed condition men who can't get sex have. That is the topic that was deemed inappropriate for inclusion and salted. I see no grounds to overturn that determination here. Sandstein 19:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are they different topics?

I am reading Talk:Incel/Archive 1#Recreated despite salt? for the first time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ciolyl/sandbox

Fantasy election sandbox for a fictional country. This basically copies 2025 German federal election and then mucks around with the introduction and infobox to present a 2023 election in "Yorn", while leaving the bulk of the body text as the real German election -- and while the infobox uses fictionalized names of party leaders, it uses the photos of Jacinda Ardern, Bill Clinton, Julia Gillard, AOC and Shinzo Abe to represent them. But even if you're changing names to not misrepresent the real people in words, it still violates WP:BIO rules to misuse images of real people by pretending that they're somebody different than they are.
As always, sandbox is for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when it's done, not for writing any random science fiction you want to for the funsies. And, as usual for this sort of thing, it was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is an absolute and total no-no. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are three problems with this page:
- The lede section is contrary to fact.
- The images are those of living persons and are being used contrary to fact, which is a biographies of living persons violation.
- Most of the body of the article is a copy of a mainspace article.

Any one of those problems would probably be sufficient to delete, and three problems is more than enough for the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daubmir/Old Daubmir page

Rejected G10, I don't think "fuck him" next to a person's name should be allowed to continue in user space. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(G10 decliner here) Then just remove that, which can be done without deleting the page. Otherwise, this is a (boring) humorous Uncyclopedia style page filled with stereotypical joke vandalism like we had it before we had antivandalbots and edit filters. It isn't particularly worth keeping around, but doesn't clearly meet any deletion criteria so it certainly isn't worth spending a lot of effort discussing. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not yet decided whether this warrants a Weak Keep or a Weak Delete. It is an unfunny attempt at humor that is, in my opinion, a slight net negative to the encyclopedia. It is not U5 (while there is U5) only because the originator did make 900 edits in 2011. Our guidelines are not clear about what to do with ugly pages by departed users. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The page was actually a copy from Uncyclopedia, not simply "Uncyclopedia style", and thus is a copyvio (Uncyclopedia's license is non-commercial and incompatible with ours). I've restored a previous version of the page (which is clearly acceptable) and requested revdel in the meantime. OutsideNormality (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 5, 2025

User:Mwmwali

This is an unsourced autobiography of a living person, which alone is a good enough reason for deletion at MfD. To provide further context, the user in question has been editing here for over 19 years yet has made no constructive edits to date, only self-promotion, including the now-deleted Masood Waseque. Their user page has been used as an unsourced CV for 13 years, despite Wikipedia not being a webhost. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. This is no better and no worse, in my opinion, from other unreferenced autobiographies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We shouldn't be policing userboxes based on whether they're expressing fringe political viewpoints, as long as they aren't excessively inflammatory or likely to cause disruption (which this one isn't). WP:PROFRINGE is more of a concern for article space. Day Creature (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 4, 2025

User:Starchild33/sandbox

Unsourced BLP from 2016 Paradoctor (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP, unless a reliable source is added within seven days. I.e WP:BLPPROD. It doesn’t matter when the page was written, the writing of unsourced BLP material is not in support of the Wikipedia project. This sort of stuff is not “wrong”, and you can find the content at fandom, but it is not what Wikipedia supports. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no acceptable sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. This has been an unreferenced draft BLP for nine years, by an editor who only came to create this page and go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Our approach to BLPs has (rightly) evolved. This is stale, abandoned, and runs counter. No objection to restore if user re-appears and shows willingness to speedily add sources and work on this. Martinp (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maybelle Peralta

per WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion/vanity article, similar to User:Mqperalta94/sandbox. 0x0a (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not so promotional as to be G11. Notability is not a reason to delete drafts. See Drafts are not deleted for notability. It is a reason to decline drafts, and this draft has been declined. This draft is inadequately sourced, but is new. Unsourced biographies of living persons are deleted, but an originator should have a reasonable amount of time to add sources. Leave this alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Draft space is a good place for figuring out whether this has potential for an article. It feels unlikely, but that is not a reason to short-circuit unless this draft is tendentiously resubmitted or similar. Martinp (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not a good reason to delete a draft. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Homosexualist/three-state

Was already really insensitive when it was created in 2009 and now it'd infuriate people. Distracting to the purpose of the website and userboxes. We're not a social media or shock site grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah shoot this should be in templates for discussion instead, my bad. How should this be fixed? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD is the correct venue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are we looking at the same userbox?? It's no sillier than any number of other silly userboxen. I don't see who this is supposed to be insensitive to. Nationalists? Homophobes? And the lack of an MfD in 16 years suggest it is not actually "infuriat[ing]" anyone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC), inflammatory second question mark struck 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind tone, it reads excessively dismissive. I don't think I'm a fool for suggesting this, contrary to your tone. It's offensive to both sides of that conflict. If the Korean War or large-scale violence related to the Korean conflict was still fresh or going on, and I saw foreigners making cracks about how a third division of Korea should be made for gay people, I'd think they were insensitive jackasses when there's still so much bloodshed. Of course people do make cracks about the Korean conflict now, but that's because the worst of it is long long past. But when stuff is going on literally now? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lack of deletion in 16 years is most likely due to obscurity; this template has only been used a few times. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you're a fool, grapesurgeon. I was bemused at this nomination because it's a bemusing nomination. The userbox is about as mild a joke as it is possible to make about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and off the bat you're saying it "was already really insensitive"; that's the kind of assessment that, yeah, makes me wonder if we're looking at the same userbox. Maybe the issue here is one of values. Maybe to you it's categorically offensive to joke about wars. It's your right to see things that way, but that's not a universal value, and in particular it's not a value you'll generally find among Israelis or Palestinians, two cultures known for morbid humor. You haven't cited any policies here, but the actual standard for deleting this kind of thing is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or ... to give widespread offense. If you say this offends you, I believe you, but I don't believe it would cause "widespread offense". And while the 'box might irk some nationalists or religious conservatives out there, I also don't think it meets the standard of likely disrepute, which traditionally has been a pretty high bar at MfD, usually reserved for outright advocacy of hate or restrictions on civil rights, or offensive images. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved discussion about tone

*:::Then agree to disagree; my read on the situation is not aligned with yours at all. I wouldn't disrespect you by laughing at your opinion and then doubling down on it. Do some of them make morbid jokes? Absolutely, but I imagine many are fuming. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I said your tone implied you thought I was a fool for nominating, and your latter comment confirmed that's what you think. There's really no feasible excuse for this, your tone was just rude.

To be clear, disagreement is normal; I'm ok with that. Being rude is not. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grapesurgeon, I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth, especially words I've explicitly rejected. I didn't say you're a fool, and I don't think you're a fool. I didn't laugh at your opinion, and I wouldn't laugh at your opinion. It's not really possible to critique a nomination that is based on the nominator's personal impression of something without getting into whether that impression is a reasonable one, but I made clear above that, while I don't think your impression is reasonable, I think it comes from a place of an honestly-held opinion as to what's okay to joke about. That's not foolish. It's just idiosyncratic, and probably not something to base an MfD nomination on. If you want to avoid this kind of feedback on nominations, I'd encourage you to stick more to policy and facts rather than personal opinion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to stick more to policy and facts rather than personal opinion this is putting words in my mouth. I made this nom to my understanding of the policy pages you linked; I already knew about those. We just disagree on whether or not it triggers policy.

didn't laugh at your opinion, and I wouldn't laugh at your opinion compare to I was bemused at this nomination because it's a bemusing nomination. Definition of bemuse, [1], to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement. Literally your message. If you didn't intend the rudeness, that's ok, but you need to be more careful about tone. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? First sense, "To make confused". I was confused, because what you said didn't line up with what I was looking at. I don't know what I've done here to cause you to look for the worst meaning in everything I write, but I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[2] What prompted it is the sarcastic jab mentioned here. And that's not an uncommon definition for bemused; google "definition of bemused" and generally the top hits include the dry sarcastic amusement bit. It's a common definition for it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we chose to take a more charitable interpretation to your tone, it's still "I think your opinion is bad to the point of being strange"; that's still rude. I never treated your opinion like that.

Again, I don't know how why/how you're still trying to spin this and make it like I'm the issue here. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad. It is strange. That's not rude. Anyways, if you really feel that the problem here is someone other than the person badgering the first !vote against their position in an XfD, you're welcome to take this to AN/I. I'll be asleep, but I'm fine letting my comments here speak for themselves. Good night. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No desire to take this to AN/I, common rudeness doesn't pass that line. Of course, no acknowledgement of the sarcastic jab you made. Good night. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My second question mark was unnecessary for getting across the otherwise valid point that your description of the userbox seemed inconsistent with its actual contents. I apologize for that. Apologies aren't transactional, so I'm happy to leave it at that, but I do hope you can think over this interaction over the next day or few and consider whether this was an appropriate way for an XfD nominator to respond to a slightly-too-pointed criticism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology, I'm willing to move past it too. The reason I escalated was because you kept denying tone instead of just apologizing up front. I'm very quick to forgive, but doubling down annoys me. Granted, I should have been more direct about pointing out what specifically had bothered me, but I feel like sarcasm is easy to spot. Water under the bridge though. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely wasn't denying anything. I just didn't realize that's the part that was causing you to read in that tone. And maybe I should have! But I didn't, and I'd rather you think of me as naïve than malicious. Tomorrow when I'm awake I'll send you a recording of the tone I had in mind with the double question-mark, but till then, at the risk of switching from one unclear medium to the other, think 😝, not 🙄 or 😠 or 🤭.
Feel free to collapse this exchange if you want. Totally up to you: I don't mind it staying up, but I also don't want this MWOT to scare people away from !voting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, with that in mind I apologize for coming off strong, no need for recording. I'll collapse this bit grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on this, It's not really possible to critique a nomination that is based on the nominator's personal impression of something without getting into whether that impression is a reasonable one You're acting like Are we looking at the same userbox?? was a necessary quip to include, as if the argument would've fallen apart without it. It's condescending, I'm not sure how you can deny that. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of Israelis have died and even more Palestinians have died too. I don't think it would be appropriate to say that Germany should have had a 3 state solution with one for the west, one for east, and one for the gays soon after the holocaust occurred. Humor about a contentious topic doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia since there is no free speech nor is Wikipedia a social network. Are people not going to be affected by this just because some Palestinians and some Israelis have thick skin and love dark humor? Sure that could happen, but they could also get triggered. Alternatively, people from other countries who feel passionately would get triggered. And even if no one is triggered, doing something bad and having it ignored doesn't mean what you did is bad. Also I have no idea how opposition to queer nationalism is homophobia, is opposition to maoism sinophobia, ba'aathism islamophobia and zionism antisemitism? 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 05:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Not likely to cause widespread offence. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was familiar with that userbox, and it never occurred to me that it could be divisive. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given the timing of its creation, this userbox was presumably created in response to Tel Aviv gay centre shooting in 2009. We may debate the wisdom of the sentiment, but it was an understandable and human response to a traumatic event at the time. The userbox was then removed by the user from their userpage a week later in [3]. It sounds like the nominator finds it offensive with a current-day lens, presumably assuming it is somehow intending to make light of the conflict as it stands now. That could be addressed noncontroversially by merely removing this userbox from the category where it was added in 2023 [4], and retaining it as part of the random flotsam of departed-user-space which we otherwise choose to do. Martinp (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this causing much offence. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supekolo/sandbox

Sandbox "article" about a fictional war that "occurred" in the future, principally online, over competing maritime EEZ claims by two countries much too far apart for there to ever be any possibility of competing maritime EEZ claims.
As always, sandbox is not a free playground to write any science fiction you want to for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be transferred to mainspace as a real article when you're done, which obviously this can't be, and just throwing the word "fictional" around in the body text a lot doesn't protect sandbox pages from having to be about encyclopedic real things. Bearcat (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as web hosting and crystal balling.
- This differs slightly from other alternate history because the originator has stated in the lede paragraph and in the infobox that it is fictional. That doesn't make this a permitted use of the sandbox. Wikipedia has articles about fiction, but they are about fiction that has been published so that the publisher is a reliable source as to the content of the fiction, and has been commented on as fiction by reliable sources. That is, saying that this is fiction doesn't make its coverage permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 2025

Draft:V. kuipers

Foreign-language draft that has the author's name but actually talks about the behaviors of baboons. Not written in an encyclopedic manner. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being in Dutch is not a reason to delete a draft but is a reason to decline a draft. Will expire in 6 months unless translated to English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:V. Kuipers/sandbox. This seems to be an initial step in a user preparing to add material to an existing article (about baboons?); it seems unlikely it was ever intended as a draft of a standalone article and probably created in draftspace using the New article wizard in error. Let the user continue working on it in their user space, and if and when they choose to introduce the material (translated) into an article, editorial proceses can determine if it is adequately sourced and not undue weight. It is worth noting that the study of homosexual behaviour in nonhumans (this fragment is about lesbianism in baboons, apparently) has a long history, for instance such behaviour in stickebacks was the Ph.D. disssertation of well-known zoologist Desmond Morris. Martinp (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaafar1

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaafar1

Unsourced & promotional BLP in userspace from a user with few good-faith edits. The WP:FAKEARTICLE also makes false claims, for example it says he captained Australia at the 2000 Olympics, which is obviously not true. Statements like "Jaafar's talent is unquestionable" and "Jaafar can just as easily now grace the cover of any fashion magazine as he can a soccer magazine. He is credited with instilling a new "chic" factor in Dulwich Hill's dressing room." push this close to a WP:G11. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas an unreferenced BLP or Speedy Delete as G11. This isn't close to G11 because it is G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MZXKUWR/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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MZXKUWR/sandbox

Unsourced autobiography. The prose also borders on being a WP:G11 candidate. To date, the creator has made no edits outside of their own autobiography. Please delete as an unsourced BLP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas an unreferenced BLP or Speedy Delete as G11. This isn't close to G11 because it is G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Burke Files

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 14:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Burke Files

User has repeatedly resubmitted this draft despite being told many times that they have not shown the subject’s notability. Despite the draft being rejected, they figured out how to manually resubmit. And what did they change since last time? They added one source. Rejection hasn’t stopped the disruption, so let’s try this instead. Oh, and I still think it might be LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source they did add was another piece written by the subject so didn't even remotely help the case towards notability. This has now become disruptive. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib)
Delete Tendentious resubmission. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I disagree with the rejection. I will agree with the rejection if I see specific tells of generation by a large language model. Although I disagree with the rejection, resubmission after rejection is disruptive. Discussion would have been an appropriate response to rejection. Resubmission after rejection is never constructive. A partial block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon see more history at DRAFT:L. Burke Files McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mcmatter - I did see the history, and I don't see specific evidence of the use of an LLM, and I disagree with the rejection, but disagree more with the attempt to resubmit after the rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This deletion nomination is unfair, I have made significant improvements to the original draft and continued to add credible and relevant sources. Please do not conflate content issues with innocent conduct errors - my resubmission was based on the improvements I had made. If you believe the draft still does not meet the notability bar - which I would strongly argue it does given the voluminous sources relating to this active journalist - please remember WP:DRAFTSPACE exists precisely to allow for the gradual improvement of potential articles. The allegation that the content is LLM generated is untrue however I did use it to assist in formatting, as I have done with this edit! Please keep the draft. Pete Peterviddle (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterviddle This is not the case, the only improvement you have made to the article was to add more primary sources even after I informed you on your talk page what was required and provided feedback on the sources you thought were the best ones. I would be happy to revoke the rejection if actual effort to find some sources that met the criteria was attempted. So I will say it here again. The sources to prove notability need to be independent of the subject, this mean no interviews, not written by the subject in any way and not a press release. They need to be published in a reliable source known for editorial oversight and fact checking. The last thing required of the sources proving notability is significant coverage, meaning it needs to provide in depth coverage of the subject beyond the scope of "Joe is CEO of ABC Company and has this to say about the....". The reason for the rejection was your continued submittal without actually improving issues with the draft. If you find sources these criteria and base the draft off of them you will probably very quickly see this discussion change. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have citations from Burke Files in prominent news outlets:

Report: Russia Laundered Millions via Danske Bank Estonia | OCCRP

Recent coverage about his upcoming book:

Trump-Linked Political Fundraiser Writes Book on How to Launder Money

More details on six other books he has published and his career to date.

L. Burke Files DDP CACM | IFC Review

I understand the point about sources but it seems here the argument is that LBF does not meet notability requirements - this is clearly unfair, there are far more fringe published authors than LBF with Wikipedia pages at the moment Peterviddle (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterviddle, you're right there probably are, and if they don't demonstrate proper notability they should also be flagged and possibly removed. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each draft and article is always looked at on it's own we don't compare any other existing article or draft to any other when it comes to the inclusion criteria. Fair or not fair has no weight in almost any discussion here. Looking at your 3 sources here, the first is just a quote from him and offers no significant coverage of him, it confirms he exists and has some expertise, nothing else. The second only mentions him once as a co writer but spend more time discussing the other author making them almost more notable then Files, again no significant coverage on Files. The last is a profile page from a publisher, so not independent and potentially not reliable as it is most likely written by Files or his team. Don't take anything happening here as an insult to you, writing an article on Wikipedia can be one of the most difficult tasks to undertake, there are a lot of policies, guidelines and nuances that can be difficult to understand and get at first. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:51, 5 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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 05:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC) ended today on 11 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.

September 22, 2025

User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/NoTankies

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)

Salvio giuliano

06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UBDIVISIVE; divisive userboxes are not wanted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The box's creator has pointed out that they are under an ban on participating in XFD discussions. In fairness, please see their comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dronebogus' talk page response. I'm usually against "divisive" userboxes, but this one is perfectly acceptable, and not much worse, than, say, {{User stop autocracy}}, {{User:FormalDude/Userboxes/ETR}}, or {{User:Pitsarotta/Userboxes/Anti-Stalin}}. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm not much into policing userspace, but a userbox reading "This user doesn't like (pejorative term for people with certain beliefs)" is pretty much a textbook example of the type of divisive wording we've chosen to not allow in userboxes. I note the user has said on their userpage that they didn't think this particular point of view would be that controversial, and I agree most of us would agree with it. But we can't let "it's the majority view" excuse divisive *wording*. Though it might be considered more staid and boring, the same point could be made less divisively by expressing support (or opposition to) a worldview rather than dislike for certain people. Martinp (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: Are you against a userbox expressing disdain for Fascists? jp×g 🗯️ 01:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am against userboxes that are divisive (people against people) and use pejorative labels to boot. That includes situations where I might endorse the underlying opinion. Specifically, I would not be against a userbox saying "This user is against authoritative communism" or even "This user thinks we need to be vigilant against authoritative communists". Martinp (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: Fair enough; thank you for taking the time to respond. jp×g 🗯️ 01:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dronebogus' talk page response and Cremastra. I myself have this userbox on my user page, and I don't see anything controversial or problematic about stating opposition to tankies and what they stand for. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is any different from userboxes that say they don't like fascists. It may be divisive to some, but I think saying you don't like authoritarian communist regimes and their supporters is similar to saying you don't like authoritarian fascist regimes and their supporters. BootsED (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even without touching on the fact that the term itself is derogatory and therefore problematic for use on personal pages, its formulation itself is very vague and ambiguous, which is why, returning to the nature of derogatory political labels, anyone can understand it as a hidden attack on left-wing participants. Do you remember any "propaganda of totalitarian regimes on Wikipedia"? Was it really a disguised attack on users who argued against anti-Soviet or anti-socialist narratives in any articles? If this userbox is considered acceptable, does that mean other users will also be able to create derogatory userboxes like "this user is against woke propaganda on Wikipedia" or "this user is against neo-Marxist propaganda on Wikipedia"? Even a superficial study yields too many uncomfortable questions. I am against any things that could potentially create tension or antagonism among users. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that being anti-Stalin is indistinguishable from being a Democrat, then you are (Personal attack removed). I feel like e.g. Holodomor denial is pretty clearly morally reprehensible, and if you cannot understand the difference between that and being vaguely left-leaning, there is a competence issue. jp×g 🗯️ 22:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EuanHolewicz432: This is a very confusing use of {{RPA}}; I explicitly did not claim the editor thought this (see "IF definition". Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved 2025-10-04.), and I do not think that accusing a hypothetical interlocutor of "behaving in a very strange or silly way" is a personal attack (see "OFF YOUR ROCKER definition". Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved 2025-10-04.). jp×g 🗯️ 02:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you didn't use our homegrown Wiktionary to define that idiom because of its clear pejorative implications. And it truly stretches credibility that you do not consider "if you think so and so, then you are (pejorative)" to be a barely veiled personal attack. If you are going to argue formalities, then formally this userbox is divisive and should be deleted without question, therefore I expect you to withdraw your keep argumentation shortly. To be clear, I do not actually expect that - I expect another passive aggressive non-response instead. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can be modified, but it is too inflammatory or divisive at the moment. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio giuliano

06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Tankie" is a pejorative term for a group of people with certain political beliefs, one which is common in toxic online discourse. There's nothing wrong with expressing an ideological position, but labeling people as "tankies" is not the kind of discourse we want on Wikipedia. Day Creature (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am admittedly a bit stricter on my interpretation of the userbox guidelines than some, but this seems too divisive for my liking. Userboxes expressing opposition to political groups using derogatory terms are a bad idea, and I agree with Solaire's arguments as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By strict construction of policy as written, then yes, an anti-Stalinite userbox is divisive, as well as an anti-Hitlerite userbox, but by the basic principle of common sense, I would bet fifty dollars against ten that an anti-Hitlerite userbox would be kept at MfD, which would make the selective deletion of this one in particular an asinine and grotesque mockery of the project. jp×g 🗯️ 22:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're seriously comparing the defense of Hitler and the Nazis to the defense of various communist countries in response to criticism, then you're only proving that the userbos in question should be removed as it antagonizes users against each other. Not to mention that the USSR wasn't limited to the Stalinist regime, and the term "tankie" isn't directed solely at that. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit joking around. There were many Fascists and they were all scum. I hope you will permit me to say that without demanding an apology. I realize that the comparison may offend you, but the fact of the matter is that the totalitarian dictators of the 20th century were all enemies of freedom, and they were all murderers. We are able to write freely on the Internet because they failed, and their bloody plans defeated. Anybody who seeks to rewrite the historical record to declare them heroes (whether they are Mao, Pinochet, Franco or Stalin) is in the disgusting company of racists, pseudoscience cranks and malware spammers: people whose presence here is a strict detriment. jp×g 🗯️ 08:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more you make it clear that Wikipedia is a platform for you to express your own political views, the closer you are to the removal of this userbox. You can write about anything on the internet. But please, in appropriate places. Wikipedia is not a political forum. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not troll. jp×g 🗯️ 23:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like you are now? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to the MfD? EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking — you can see what the MfD is about by navigating to the top of the page, where there is a link to the page under discussion. jp×g 🗯️ 00:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the question that was asked. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This specific user has, in the past, gone on to argue at length why userboxes far less directly divisive should be deleted and therefore I consider the assumption of good faith to be broken with regards to their argumentation against deletion. Furthermore, the extent of wiki-political activism of this user approaches not-there levels (consider their XFD topic ban). This (clearly divisive) userbox serves as not much more than an extension of this disruptive activity. As a side note, implicitly equating fascism with (Soviet or otherwise) socialism is political soapboxing and not policy discussion.

EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not familiar with the concept of an analogy, I would recommend consulting the Wikipedia article, as it may prove helpful (rather than arguing about which dictator was worse — see WP:NOTFORUM). jp×g 🗯️ 09:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be discussing dictators here at all. As you yourself wrote, but somehow don't fully grasp, Wikipedia is not a political forum or a political platform. I also have my own political opinions and views, but Wikipedia is not the place for them. If I want to discuss politics with someone or express my opinion, I'll go to Twitter, YouTube, or even Facebook. On Wikipedia, we're writing an encyclopedia, not expressing our sympathies or dislikes for any politicians or regimes. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to strike your own !vote further up the page, I won't stop you. jp×g 🗯️ 00:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware an analogy is being made - my point being that making that analogy in this context is political soapboxing. I would also like to point out the obvious: your tone and conduct throughout this MfD is wholly inappropriate and certainly not befitting of an administrator. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open an ANI thread about my disapproval of the Khmer Rouge, or about my mentioning politics in a MfD about a political userbox. Otherwise, please do not cast aspersions or falsely accuse me of claims I have not made.

The ignorance of the userbox's creator should not be a consideration in establishing sitewide precedent. jp×g 🗯️ 23:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any eventual ANI thread that was to be made would pertain to exceeding lack of civility all throughout, indicative of an emotional involvement that reaches further than civil discussion of site policy, and not whatever persecution you seem to have imagined. Almost nothing you have said has actually pertained to said policy, and certainly nothing you are saying in the various responses that you have made all throughout this MfD actually relates to what the other party is saying. You are talking through people, at least insofar as you're not belittling them at that moment.

Why exactly this specific MfD is creating sitewide precedent that many other similar deletions have yet to establish remains another mystery. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my position is pretty easy to understand, both in terms of its relevance and in terms of its factual basis, if you read the actual things I wrote. jp×g 🗯️ 02:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you think so. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]