Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place whereWikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specializeddeletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by anadministrator or kept, based on communityconsensus as evident from the discussion, consistent withpolicy, and with careful judgment of therough consensus if required.
Pages not covered by otherXFD venues, including pages in thesenamespaces:Draft:,Help:,Portal:,MediaWiki:,Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects),User:,TimedText:,MOS:,[a]Event: and the variousTalk: namespaces
File description pageswhen 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 atWikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia'sundeletion policy.
Notes
^The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed atRfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.
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. SeeWP: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}}.
Problematic userspace material is often addressed by theUser 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 atAfD and then moved to userspace are generallynot 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 onBiographies 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 considereddisruptive, and the ensuing discussionsclosed 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. Considerbeing 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 toretain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
It is generally preferable thatinactive 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 shouldnot 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, consideruserfication.
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 asmerging the page into another page orrenaming it, can often resolve problems.
Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply bemoved 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
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check thatyou 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:(replacePageName 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 onWikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
I.
EditPageName:
Enter the following text at thetop 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 asGroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarlytranscluded 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]] replacePageName 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}} ~~~~ replacingReason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Donot 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]] replacingPageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevantWikiProjects 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 thetop 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]] replacingPageName 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 thepage history ortalk page of the page and/or useTDS' Article Contribution Counter orWikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacingPageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacingPageName 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 atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.
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.
This is a bit of a weird MFD, but I don't think the text of the GNU Free Documentation License is compatible with the CC BY-SA (unlike the text of the CC BY-SA which is itself licensed under the CC BY). Thus I don't think we can host a copy of the GFDL on wiki (although we can link to it off wiki for people to read). At the top of the page, it states "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed," which implies NonDerivative (and thus not compatible with CC BY-SA).
Since there are a large number of links to this page (over 50,000), I would suggest weblank this page and direct users to the actual text hosted on gnu.org, orredirect toWikipedia:GFDL.Aasim (話す)16:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overthinking things. Our content is GFDL-licenced so we must distribute a copy of the GFDL with it. No real chance of people being confused into thinking the text of the GFDL is CC-BY-SA.Stifle (talk)16:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that can also be an issue.
Could we maybe transwiki to Foundation wiki and then alter the copyright footer on Foundation wiki to say "unless otherwise noted, text is available..."
I wonder what else could be done to ensure a copy of the GFDL is available while making clear it is not available under the same license as the rest of the wiki. For example the MW software has bundled the GPLhere. If there is a way to do something similar, maybe with a special page that has all the licenses, that would probably be better.Aasim (話す)16:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what might be the appropriate venue to discuss copyright of the text of the GFDL?Copyright problems?
If the license of the GFDL is GFDL before 2009, we can relicense it under CC BY-SA. But if not, then we should either transwiki the page or try to get the copyright footer hidden on license pages.Aasim (話す)17:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question forUser:Wikisteveb4 - What is your reason for moving a large amount of content from a (now-blank) sandbox to your user page, and what is your reason for having a large amount of material about competition shows that appears to be either copied or modified from article space? You are an experienced editor; what are you trying to do? How is this contributing to the encyclopedia?Robert McClenon (talk)16:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I request to close the deletion discussion; I have now eliminated all material previously on the sandbox. You have to understand I was unfamiliar with these guidelines I do not agree with. However, I did delete my thousands of hours worth of work off of my own pages so the issue shall be resolved.Wikisteveb4 (talk)16:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if an administrator suppresses those last edits to remove the inappropriate material from the edit history, as we have had too many users try to sneak these items back in after "blanking" a page leading to the AFD to be withdrawn.Bgsu98(Talk)16:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you being the first one to try to help me on this dilemma. I genuinely did not know another platform but with those links, I am more enlightened. Essentially I need to copy paste the codes anywhere else. I am sorry for all of the confusion, I understand why this is occurring but am concerned with an overall lack of empathy as a user who has made 30,000 plus edit and created several full pages on this website.Wikisteveb4 (talk)19:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppress edits between1318111040 and1318562471: This will be a slog because there's >130 intermediate edits in this range, but the content in question was added and edited between these ranges pretty much exclusively. -Umby 🌕🐶(talk)23:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unused and outdated maintenance subpage of a drafts collection that has not been editedsince February 1, 2022, and is counterintuitive whenCategory:The Walt Disney Company drafts suffices as the means of navigation with less manual maintenance required to befallen upon editors. There is no worthwhile history to maintain because much of the relevant content is available in the applicable drafts, most of which have either been abandoned or published in the mainspace since the subpage's creation in 2019.—Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss ·contribs)03:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page has extensive history, related to the article and connected to new articles, and so should not be deleted. There is no required maintenance work. Do not delete project history without good reason. Feel free to add an archive tag, if you think that it will help.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ridiculous to have a template and category for people who "don't" understand some language. This could possibly used by thousands (or more) editors who are ignorant of a subject. It's not a criteria that is definitive for an editor's work on the project.LizRead!Talk!01:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking to delete innocuous things due to potential for abuse is a negative, nonproductive mindset, and should not be encouraged. Wait for actual evidence.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been explained that this template is useful on a user page in the Afar Wikipedia, to inform others that they not only do not plan to edit the encyclopedia but will not understand any message that is added to their user talk page. So we should keep an en-0 userbox.Robert McClenon (talk)03:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Robert McClenon it is clear that these can have some use, as users who edit globally may direct people to their English Wikipedia userpage through soft redirects if this is their primary, and there are cases where someone may edit a Wikipedia where they do not understand the language, for example to add images. Moreover, there is an entire set of these. See for exampleTemplate:User fr-0, so this is not an isolated oddball, on the contrary -0 variants are actually quite common. Maybe these are not that useful but if we are going to get rid of them it should be through a batch nomination or RFC not by listing a single arbitrary template in the set for deletion.204.111.137.106 (talk)04:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather assumed that this was just an example, and that we were discussing deleting all the '-0' templates, rather than just the Afar one (which was presumably selected as the first, alphabetically?). Perhaps Liz can clarify?AndyTheGrump (talk)06:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is logic to babel Userboxes all beginning from zero. The zeros have use. The set, 0,1,2,3,4,5,N is establish and should be left alone. -SmokeyJoe (talk)21:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 0 categories have niche use cases. For example, if I edited a ton of articles on Croatia but did not speak the language, putting it on my userpage would let other editors know.Schützenpanzer(Talk)14:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant AI slop, zero chance of ever being accepted into mainspace, yet declined for CSD G15. Author has been pasting identical copies of this exact same content across multiple different titles too.Taking Out The Trash (talk)20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tone and writing style is quite obviously the output of ChatGPT or an identical program/software. I utilize these tools for legitimate purposes often enough that I can recognize their styles, especially when it's this blatant.Taking Out The Trash (talk)19:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another sandbox copy ofList of presidents of the United States, again existing solely to concoct an alternate history timeline different from reality. This time, everything appears to stay on track until January 6, 2021, at which point DJT's presidency ends prematurely for reasons unspecified (though one could hazard a guess given the date), with him being followed by Mike Pence for two weeks until Biden's inauguration, and then posits that the presidency has been completelyvacant since January of this year. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any science fiction (or wishful thinking) you want to for shits and giggles -- it's for working on real stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when you're done, which this obviously can't be. And, of course, yet again, the creator left this in the real article's mainspace categories for public consumption.Bearcat (talk)17:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the sandbox being blanked immediately. (I would blank it myself but this seems to be against policy when a deletion discussion has started?) I had assumed my user page's sandbox was more or less a free playground based on the name, and have now found the policy so I can act correctly in the future.
I definitely didn't intend it to be associated with the original page at any time. Is there a way to prevent that?
Keep for now, looks like a perfectly reasonable use of sandbox to develop content, don't think it should be considered a redundant fork. Will check with Solarbird to see if they have opinions.SarekOfVulcan (talk)02:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh wow, I forgot about this. I know we moved it over here to work on it for some reason. But I can't remember why right now. I wasn't trying to make some weird fork, though - we had some specific working reason. So I'd prefer to keep it until I remember why. My memory is strange and I don't like deleting things when I don't know why I have them. Even if it's really old.Solarbird (talk)03:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ was created due to several editors, likely fans of the YouTube group, constantly attempting to create articles for group membersMiniminter andWroetoshaw around 2022 when the other five members (KSI,Vikkstar123,Zerkaa,TBJZL, andBehzinga) did. Around the time, articles on the two were consistently deleted or sent to the draftspace as they didn't meet notability guidelines. Now that both members have their own articles that have since met those guidelines, meaning that all seven Sidemen have their own individual articles, this one-question FAQ is no longer necessary. –WPA (talk)21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Some useless trivia is that I started the article on Zerkaa in 2021 and I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for deletion as YouTuber pages often are.Sahaib (talk)22:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The author's other contributions wouldn't qualify this for a U5 speedy delete, but this definitely looks like a personal non-encyclopedic page and shouldn't be here. -Umby 🌕🐶(talk ·contribs)02:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toDivergent series per my comments in the RfD. Also, in the RfD, I do not see any consensus to restore the draft (though I suggested it as an alternative option), so ... I have no idea why we are here.Steel1943 (talk)04:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my rationale, redirection could be considered harmless, and could potentially prevent a draft at this title from being recreated. Also,WP:RFORK pertains to duplicate articles, not an article that had duplicate content in the "Draft:" namespace (which can happen if someone is trying to edit a version of an article before pipe creating a copy of the article to edit prior to making the new edits live.)Steel1943 (talk)14:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't hold up deletion here. Sometimes people start rewrites in draftspace instead of userspace, perhaps because it feels less exclusive. In theory these should only be retained while the rewrite is actively ongoing and then deleted, if singly authored so without attribution issues, or redirected to keep attribution if multiply authored. In practice there are many abandoned attempts at rewrites in userspace that while technically forks are not worth the bother of deleting. There is even less cause in draftspace due to the six month no activity retention limit. In sum my view ismeh, in hindsight I probably should have advocated letting G13 delete this, and in the future that would probably be best. Who knows maybe once in a blue moon someone will even show back up to finish the rewrite before the draft expires. However since this discussion has already started and the user has not edited in eight years there is not really a problem with ending this one now.204.111.137.106 (talk)17:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. I think that some of the deletions from draft space were correct and some were incorrect. It isn't always necessary to delete rogue drafts from draft space or user space. Deleting this will only cause the spelling to be changed. Just keep it out of article space.Robert McClenon (talk)04:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: In mainspace, the general rule is that most of the time, a merger is an editing decision that does not require XfD. Is this also true in draftspace, or should it be? Regards,Newyorkbrad (talk)21:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this instead as a deletion discussion, with merger and redirection as one possible alternative. For one thing, it's unlikely that the talk: page of a yet-uncreated article would have any audience.
(And obviously it is surprising that a URL that was allegedly accessed on 19 October does not exist on 21 October.)Additionally, there are two characteristics of the content that I have previously seen in other LLM generated articles:
Multiple references at the end of paragraphs, including the lead, few if any at the ends of sentenceswithin paragraphs
References that are formatted as one field per line, rather than space delimited
Notability. This is questionable, and there are several articles and sections hanging off this, such that sorting out Mr Freedom's notability first would simplify a lot of issues.
He's the author of two self-published books, which seem to have attracted no secondary interest. His press coverage is almost all about a bizarre armed siege.Andy Dingley (talk)11:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a draft, article standards do not apply to drafts. Every draft falls short of Wikipedia's standards, that's why they are drafts. It would have to be up to standard if and when it is resubmitted only.PaulHSAndrews (talk)11:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as drafts go, this one is better than most. It's just that - a draft - and according to Wikipedia standards, it is only after 6 months of abandonment that a draft can be deleted, excepting very special circumstances and multiple users agreeing to the deletion. This is a draft, not a published article.
Can you quote the part of the current draft which you believe requires non-standard, immediate deletion?
Please don't try and explain WP policy to us, that's likely to end badly. Both your understanding of policy and your judgement is seriously underdeveloped as yet, to the point where you're teetering on the edge of an indefinite CBAN (and worse than that, aninfamous CBAN, the sort that becomes so memorable that there's no return from it). So humility, not hubris, would be advisable.
WP:BLPN applies to both articles and drafts. Enforcement might not be so stringent on drafts, but that's a subtle distinction. Certainly a draft would be excused failing todemonstrate notability. But if an article's topic is 'just not notable' and shows no sign that notability could ever be demonstrated for that subject (and specifically, the subject as they are today – who knows what they might do tomorrow) then be assured that a draft can be deleted for that, just as easily as an article.Andy Dingley (talk)12:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't try to explain it, it's already explained here:
Repeatedly posting the same thing, or large chunks of the article itself, whilst also missing the whole point being made, is not a convincing debating technique. Your ANI posts also fell into the 'wall of text' trap andthat doesn't work well here on WP.
If you want to make a case for saving this article and coverage of Freedom Pollard, then do so byshowing independent sources arguing to his notability as an author. Because nothing else is likely to work.Andy Dingley (talk)13:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Moving an article to draftspace, like any action, requires consensus. It may initially be carried out as a bold move if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so is uncontroversial. But if another editor—including the creator of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest—objects to the move (for example by moving the page back to mainspace), then it is not uncontroversial. In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time."
As I have contested the deletion, this draft is now controversial.
“Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.”
BTW, I'm not permitted (perWP:OUTING) to ask if youare Max Freedom Pollard. But if you were, now would be a good time to make that known, rather than later. UndisclosedWP:COI goes very badly. Similarly if you haveany COI with this author, beyond a general reader's interest in the source of their books.Andy Dingley (talk)12:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is clearly not notable, to the degree that there's no realistic chance this draft could become a viable article in the foreseeable future; and it's reasonably likely to cause him harm in the meantime. I've removed the copy that was pasted into the middle of this discussion. —Cryptic17:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability borderline at best: the strongest claim in my view is the lawsuit by his employer becoming part of case law, but I can't find any reports of that other than the case documentation. I can't find published reviews of either book, the library positions do not confer notability, and the arrest is a negative event with no long-lasting coverage. No biographical info apart from the unsourced birth year. Largely concur withCryptic; rather than letting this languish as a borderline negative BLP of a non-notable person, better to delete the draft. Note toPaulHSAndrews: Deletion is not final. A new article can be created if Pollard achieves notability.Yngvadottir (talk)19:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Seven Hills library is known to only one source, updated/created on the day that content was added to the article and possibly reliant solely on a user submission; the library is otherwise unknown to search engines. The cited source does not say heserves on the University of Adelaide Library committee, only the far less significant Friends of the University of Adelaide Library committee. The books are self-published and no significant reviews are offered. The text in "2024 Sydney police operation" seems to breachWP:SYNTH as sources do not generally name the subject, and no coverage of any trial is offered. Only primary sources for "Supreme Court litigation" are provided; it seems to have gone unreported. Notability, however much the subject may desire it, is not established.NebY (talk)19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I sometimes forget what might be inaccessible to others."Bizarre videos emerge from inside 10-hour eastern suburbs siege" (23 October 2024)Tactical police were sent to Pollard's apartment building following his refusal to leave after being evicted. Pollard filmed the ten-hour incident and posted some of this to Instagram. He was finally arrested and unauthorised firearms were found in his home.The article says about his background:
Pollard claims on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for Harvard University in the US, as a staff member for the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission (ACIC), and as a “security equipment specialist”. He also wrote his own translation of the New Testament which “restores original meaning” to the text.
A spokesperson for the ACIC said Pollard “is not and never has been an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission staff member.”
Delete - Seriously questionable notability. While I would have waited until it was an article, given that it's already here, I don't think it's beneficial at this point to worry about a technicality. Refunds are free, should someone with the willingness to salvage the article who isn't about to be topic-banned and possibly community-banned desire to try and make this work.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I haven't seen a compelling argument for why this shouldn't be in draftspace. MFD discussions due not deal with notability.Esolo5002 (talk)01:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this would last five minutes in article space? (where it was, just a couple of days ago) 'Rules don't apply to drafts' is a very weak argument. When it inevitably went to AfD, would the outcome be to draftify it, or simply to delete it as unfixable non-notable BLP?
The point here isn't that the draft doesn'tdemonstrate notability, it's that the subject isnot notable as either an author, a defendant, or as an armed besiegee and (crucially) there is no conceivable situation where we might change that viewpoint. We've done as much investigation of the subject as is practical for an AfD, and it's just not convincing that this non-notability opinion might change.Andy Dingley (talk)01:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, as I've used the polite conventional "not established" formula above: there is no reasonable expectation that this draft could ever be developed to meet our standards for an article, andWP:NOTWEBHOST andWP:NOTPROMO apply to all pages.NebY (talk)13:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article is small enough at present that this new section could easily be added. The new part is aready questioned (AfC rejection) for being independently notable.Andy Dingley (talk)11:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: This is a duplicate of the Simple English wiki article with the same name, but the mainspace article here covers both ethology and psychology implicitly. There are no significant changes to the content of the draft, other than some typography and template changes. Anything that can be added from the Simple English wiki article can probably be done on the above mainspace article directly, no point in keeping this dupe around. -Umby 🌕🐶(talk ·contribs)00:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
First, you can be from another country ethnically and still not be mixed race - for example, your parents could be Irish, but you're brought up in Norway. Still white nonetheless. Second, it's of very niche use - there's a fixed German/Spanish flag. I feel like this template is kind of useless.jolielover♥talk05:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jolie, if you really want ask the maker of the template and ask if you can change the image, and the image is also depicting mixed race. But for me, I oppose. And even with your first explanation, they don't really even have to put the template.NediaWanna talk?Stalk me18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, the different flags were to represent different places. Also, you can make different types of this template linked as a see also link. Furthermore, this would be my situation, making me mixed race and others with similar ways like this.Wikiediter2029 (talk)20:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template conflates the concepts of race and nationality, as well as race and place of birth. Being born in one country and from another has nothing to do with being mixed race. --DB1729talk21:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began20:56,19 October 2025 (UTC) ended today on26 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 byLegobot and need no further action.
