Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP: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. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP: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	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	3	52	55
TfD	1	7	8
MfD	1	0	1
FfD	3	5	8
RfD	16	61	77
AfD	0	6	6

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.

February 18, 2025

MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote

The new formatting of the user rights log entries is better than the old formatting. So, this page should be deleted so that the log entries automatically adding "extended confirmed" rights follow the new formatting instead of the old one. GTrang (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 17, 2025

Draft:Srinivasan Narasimhan

This is not about biographic notability, although I don't think he is. A CFO for a red linked company where the draft solely talks about the scandal the firm was involved in. Speedy declined, with which I have no issue - it was borderline and with BLP I err on delete side of borderline. Article is summed up as "As of the latest available information, legal proceedings related to the alleged financial misconduct are ongoing. The case has drawn attention due to its complexity and the significant sums involved, highlighting the challenges of corporate governance and financial oversight in multinational organizations. " So we don't know if there's a confirmed scandal, nor Narasimhan's involvement. IMO, this should neither be an article nor a six month draft. Star Mississippi 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User kwi-1

The creator is a troll, so it is likely this is vandalism. Also delete:

-- Janhrach (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Mercury

Ten years ago, a troll complete changed the meaning of this userbox, so its usefullness is questionable. Janhrach (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Jupiter

Ten years ago, a troll complete changed the meaning of this userbox, so its usefullness is questionable. Janhrach (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ang-5

The creator is a troll, so unless this template is not confirmed to be valid (use correct grammar, etc.), it should be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spc10K/Omega with diaeresis

Hoax, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:User templates Iruc and all subcategories. Janhrach (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Iruc-N

Troll UBX, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Category:User templates Iruc and all subcategories. Janhrach (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete:

Janhrach (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User oca

The creator seems to be a troll, and it is very probable that this is a troll userbox. Janhrach (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User oca-4

The creator seems to be a troll, and it is very probable that this is a troll userbox. Janhrach (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete:

Janhrach (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also Template:User oca-∞. Janhrach (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 16, 2025

Draft:Alireza Jadidi (musician)

Repeatedly resubmitted with no effort made to address concerns, including one post-rejection submission. Draft also seems to be the focus of a sockfarm (master: Vikworker8 (talk · contribs)); practically all non-review-related edits are by presumed or confirmed sockpuppets after the initial edits by Vikworker. Note that the edit from 2023 is the draft acceptance for the unrelated volleyball player and should not be considered the start date of this particular draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Draft:Alireza—Jadidi and Draft:Alireza-Jadidi. qcne (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reason that this isn't G5 is that the puppeteer was blocked after the draft was created. Tendentiously resubmitted, and being a nuisance about the resubmission. I have reported the last submitter as a mallard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion:

Draft:Alireza—Jadidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Alireza-Jadidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jamal190009 (talk · contribs) moved the draft into mainspace while this discussion was ongoing. I've moved it back, with assistance from Writ Keeper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrotherEarth967/Turned P

Same topic as Turned P. Both articles started as translations from w:fr:P culbuté, indepently by two different users, this one a year earlier. Paradoctor (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turned P. Not problematic. Redirection to mainspace seems like the common sense option in the absence of a guideline that is on the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twodubjay

The user's only contribution, last edited 2017, delete per WP:STALEDRAFT #6. Blanking per #3 would require "some potential". This production has had less than 300 views over the past decade, no hope of ever becoming notable. Paradoctor (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the stale draft guidelines, #2. Not problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2025

User:Tuur Moens/sandbox

Abandonded BLP autobiography of non-notable musician last edited 2018 Paradoctor (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - None of those are reasons for deletion of a sandbox. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages created by MateuszKapicki10

Apparently created without knowledge of the editors in whose userspace these pages are. Kepler-1229b has confirmed this for an already deleted page in their userspace. Janhrach (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Janhrach; pages appear to consist of portions of copy-pasted articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also archived version of page made in my userspace. https://archive.is/Zg357 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't a criterion for speedy deletion for pages put into the space of a user without the knowledge of that user, probably because that is an infrequent occurrence. That should however be a reason for deletion after a deletion discussion (this deletion discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 14, 2025

Draft:Eagles–Packers rivalry

I have thought about this one for a while, and after that time, I do not see it meeting our notability guidelines. Consider:

The only standalone notable games between the two is 4th and 26 and 1960 NFL Championship Game.
They have only played each 48 times over 90 years and have never been in the same division.
They have only played each other in the playoffs four times, with one of those happening just a month ago.
A review of relevant sources does not show sustained use of the term "rivalry" to define the Packers and Eagles playing against each other, even thought they have been doing so for 90 years. Even playing against each other in high profile, recent games (like in Brazil and this year's playoff game), there is not much, if any, discussion on this being a true rivalry, above the normal interactions that two teams have against each other in the NFL.

The Packers are an old franchise and have many rivalries, but all of their rivalries meet at least one of the four bullets above. For those reasons, I believe deletion is justified now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a draft and as such notability doesn't really apply. If this were in pagespace, it would be possible to make such a case, but since this is a page in development, it's not normally expected to establish context or notability, translate, and make other adjustments and improvements. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- BusterD, the essay you reference specifically notes this very process. See WP:NMFD. In 3 months, this page would be eligible for speedy deletion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Inquirer did devote a full-page feature on the rivalry. There's also this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Just a serious lack of these type of references considering how long they have played against each other. I see these as the standard, local pieces that come out prior to games that they play against each other. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See Drafts are not reviewed for notability. In fact, articles that fail notability but are otherwise compliant are often moved to draft space as an alternative to deletion. By the way, this draft is now eligible for speedy deletion in 6 months, not 3 months, because MFD restarts the calendar, just like other edits do. See also Leave useless drafts alone. Do we really need 5 or 10 useless drafts reviewed daily by multiple reviewers because one editor thinks that one of them needs to have the expiration process rushed? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator has identified various reasons why this draft should not be in article space. It is not in article space. These are also reasons why this draft should be declined if submitted for AFC review. It has not been submitted for AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article were submitted for approval into the mainspace, I would not support it for a variety of reasons, most of which have been covered above. But since draftspace pages can remain drafts regardless of quality or the notability of their subject, I’m not going to say we should delete it. (If it were an article, however, I would!) – Pee Jay 23:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:KanyeWest2003/sandbox

Violation of WP:BLP and WP:UP#COPIES - Partial copy of Kanye West that claims he died in a car crash in 2002. SK2242 (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falsely reporting the death of a living person is as clear an example of what the biographies of living persons policy is meant to prohibit as we are likely to encounter. Some leeway should be allowed in sandboxes for questionable copies, but there are no exceptions for clear BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 13, 2025

User:Tammylyon/sandbox2

Four years stale unsourced promotional userspace biography draft of a non-notable journalist/photographer written by the subject's daughter. Same applies to User:Tammylyon/sandbox Paradoctor (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an abandoned unreferenced biography of a living person (with a conflict of interest). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. While I'm not a fan of ragpicking, the combination of factors here favours deleting. If this had been created in article space or draft space, it would be long gone. We do give latitude in user space, but that's for members of the community beavering away at writing an encyclopedia in their own idiosyncratic ways. That's not the case here: someone, doubtless well-intentioned, seems to have appeared solely with the intent of writing a COI biography of someone who doesn't seem to be notable. They kindly thought better of it and abandoned the effort, and haven't been seen since. There is no encyclopedic reason to keep this around. Martinp (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kilgore, Texas

Overly narrow portal, newly created for a small (pop. 13K) city without clear evidence that it's needed. As always, every topic that exists does not automatically get or need its own dedicated portal -- they're useful for really large and broad topics where there are a lot of related subtopics to highlight and a large group of editors to maintain them, like countries or sciences where novices might need help finding an entry point due to the topic's size and scope, but not for really narrow topics, like small communities, where the main article already links pretty much everything there is to link. Perusing Category:All portals clearly indicates that while there are a few portals for major metropolitan cities with populations in the millions, like Los Angeles, London, New York City, Chicago or Tokyo, there aren't any other portals for small communities in the 10-15K population range at all, and portals otherwise exist primarily for countries and broad concepts rather than individual towns or cities.
Note that there was also an attempt just a few months ago to create a full-on Kilgore-specific WikiProject, which got deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kilgore, Texas, as well as a history timeline that consisted solely of unsourced population estimates and the founding of one school, which got deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Kilgore, Texas -- although they were created by a different username than this, a small town is such a highly specialized and narrow topic that I honestly suspect sockpuppetry or active coordination rather than two different editors genuinely coming up with such similar and interconnected doses of overkill independently of each other. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the other Kilgore WikiProject content got deleted as well, and the small scope of this portal. Xeroctic (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Portals are a failed idea, and are moribund. They are a negative duplication of articles and WikiProjects. For readers, improve mainspace. For editor recruitment and engagement, work in WikiProjects. For the relevant, already existing WikiProjects, see the banners at the top of the main article talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d rather to keep this page as it presents the information in a cleaner, more readable format than the main article. It organizes the content in a way that improves visibility and prevents overwhelming the reader, with everything clearly labeled. Even if it gets deleted, can I keep it in my drafts for a while? I like the layout and how it structures the information, and I plan to use it as a reference for improving the main article if needed. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If any of your first two sentences is true, take it to the article, or raise it at the article talk page. Don’t fork content.

If there is value in it as a reference for improving the article, move it to the WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a portal on a specific, niche subject with no supporting WikiProject. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a newly created portal on a subject that is not a broad subject area, and was created within the past week by a new editor. There is no obvious reason why a portal should be created for this small city. This portal relies on transclusion of the selected 13 articles, rather than on the obsolete architecture of using subpages that are partial copies of selected articles. The question in this MFD is whether a newly created portal should be deleted because there is no identified need for it or because it is inconsistent with portal guidelines. I think that the answer is no. There is no pre-approval or review process for the creation of portals, and there are no portal guidelines. There was and is a page that is called Portal Guidelines, which was never adopted as a guideline, and which was commonly thought to be a guideline from 2006 to 2019, but had never been adopted as a guideline, and so was marked as a failed proposal. An RFC in 2019 to adopt it as a formal guideline failed. In my opinion, the proposal failed because the community was split over portals, and editors who favored portals did not want to restrict them, and editors who were skeptical about portals did not want to encourage them. There are no portal guidelines, and there has not been a hold on the creation of new portals. (There is a hold on the creation of new WikiProjects, by contrast.) There is no reason why this portal should have been created, but there is no sufficient reason at this time to delete an unnecessary portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reasons given above to delete. You may disagree with them, but it is disingenuous to deny their existence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are reasons to delete portals in general. Deleting portals when they are created is Whac-a-Mole, and some moles should be whacked, and some moles can be ignored. We can disagree on which moles need whacking when. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concluded seven years ago that all portals of any value should be archived into WikiProjects.

This Portal is ultra thin and the product of an experienced editor who problably is unaware of the history of portals, and idea thirty years ago that became redundant with the arrival of internet search engines.

This portal should be deleted for having now value for archiving, by any measure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Judy Garland

Recently created project about a single actress with no pre-creation discussion that I could find. The scope of this subject is so small it's in the task force zone, but even that isn't helpful if there isn't a group of editors actually interested in this. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, which states that the creation of new WikiProjects is on pause until new procedures are developed. The reason for the pause was to minimize the number of stillborn WikiProjects, and this would have been one even under the previous procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no place like the archive table (delete) per Robert McClenon. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 12:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maintenance script

This is a soft redirect to the script's Meta user page, requiring the user to click to view it. However, the script has a global user page, meaning that the soft redirect is not needed, and may be inefficient. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 05:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, for the category. I'm open to other ways of doing this though. This page was created in May 2015, *after* global user pages became available in February 2015. Graham87 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could add the category to the user talk page instead; there are no global user talk pages. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 14:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd work for me. Graham87 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes things actively worse for the sake of including a category of only questionable applicability and with thousands of other entries (so it's a needle in a haystack). No thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JJPMaster: Agreed. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 10, 2025

Wikipedia:Fully Protected Pages

almost completely empty page. Useless as there is a category for the subject already, and would be extremely difficult to maintain Gaismagorm (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pointless page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How'd you find this? Anyways, delete per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
was looking for the article about full protection Gaismagorm (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It consists of a comma-spliced sentence with two clauses, the first of which is true and is described in various guidelines and information pages, and the second of which is a lie. The originator is a one-edit wonder who created this page and did nothing else. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently written by a single-edit account. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don’t redirect. WP:Redirects are cheap, but, WP:Redirects are costly. This would be projectspace title clutter, redundant to the Wikipedia search engine, and is in discouraged title case. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages, which actually does what this page attempts to. 137.22.90.14 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Full_protection, or alternatively delete. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC) ended today on 18 February 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.

January 27, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship (2nd nomination)

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

The result of the discussion was: Move to Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship. Consensus appears to be that there is no harm in retaining it. (non-admin closure) silviaASH (inquire within) 09:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship

Do we still need this page? Inside joke of 2 decades ago. Proposal for a game that never actually took place. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent Championship. Polygnotus (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Wikipedia:Mornington Crescent Championship. The subject of the page appears not to be Wikipedia related, but, read WP:FUN. It’s sad that Wikipedians no longer value fun, and pages like this will probably be rapidly delete at WP:NOTWEBHOSTING, but this was not the case then, especially where Wikipedia pioneers were collectively involved. Keep as a record of the past culture of Wikipedia. ~~Add an~~ Keep the current appropriate and sufficient archived tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fun to store all failed attempts to have fun for decades? There is literally nothing fun about the page. And this is just an old signup page, the real thing is supposedly at Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent Championship but that has already been deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is subjective. What do you do for fun? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I annoy my wife. Polygnotus (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try to be more fun, more fun than seeking deletion of old attempts at fun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, the old attempt at fun, as you describe it, has already been deleted, see Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent Championship. If the consensus, for some reason, is to never clean up useless old trash then I am happy to accept that. But if that is the case then no one has mentioned that to me yet. — Polygnotus (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe in using deletion to clean up old things. I think archiving, including by redirection, is preferable, and that deletion should be reserved for things that should never have been created.

This page is on the edge. By todays Wikipedia culture, it would be deleted, but in the early years, it was ok, tolerated. The early Wikipedians were much more tolerant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - An MFD nomination requires volunteer time to review it. Before nominating anything useless for MFD, please consider whether any harm is done by keeping it, and whether the cost of getting rid of it exceeds any harm that is done by keeping it. This has already been tagged as historical. If the nominator can identify any reason to delete this expired game, we can consider the tradeoff of cost. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - User:SmokeyJoe says to add an archived tag. What does that mean? Does that mean to mark it as historical? This page has been marked as historical since September 2006, when a PROD tag was mistakenly applied to it and then the PROD tag was removed. Is there some other sort of "archived tag", or does this mean that User:SmokeyJoe replied before giving it a second more detailed reading? If the latter, an overly quick comment, then it also illustrates that nominating archaic stuff that is already tagged as historical is a waste of reviewer time. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mfd tag caused me partial hatnote blindness. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. These sorts of pages have historical value for researchers of (the history of) online collaboration and wiki communities. One man's irrelevant noise is another's cultural artifact. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 8 February 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates