This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
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.
Deletions in draftspace
Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context.
Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletionG13 and do not need nomination here.
Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. SeeWP:SRE.
For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, seeWP:NMFD
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~ to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using{{db-userreq}}.
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.
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.
You're explaining compliance withWP:NFCC#1, notWP:NFCC#8 ie how the imagesignificantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. The grainy image of two men with guns on a footbridge (which we have a better, free photo of anyway) does not add anything that cannot be described with words.orangesclub🍊17:23, 15 December 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.
Weak Delete as an unreferencedBLP and asweb hosting by a non-contributor. But please do not nominate pages as non-contributorweb hosting during the first 24 hours of the originating account. The posting of resumes does not require a rush to judgment about new accounts.Robert McClenon (talk)17:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike Trump for obvious reasons; a user box strongly implying that he has mental health issues and needs psychiatric care is, I suppose, a still BLP issue. And, more importantly, stigmatizing of those with psychiatric disabilities who actually do need mental health care. Either way, tooWP:POLEMIC for a userbox.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸03:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this political opinion, rudely put, is out of scope of the purpose of Wikipedia, and could lead Wikipedia into political conflict.SmokeyJoe (talk)06:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a Republican, many of us will find inflammatory. Outside of politics, it has seriousBLP issues. I don't want to political here, so the latter is my main reason for deletion.Felicia(talk)14:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm puzzled by the nomination statement, not seeing anything alluding to mental health issues, or psychiatric care, and therefore don't see any stigmatization of anyone. However, it is divisive and inflammatory, and so unhelpful. I suppose the nominator may be assuming the userbox is discussingPsychiatric rehabilitation as opposed toRehabilitation (penology), though that possibility didn't occur to me until reading Robert's comment above.Martinp (talk)18:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also perWP:LUDA. Since the nominator has nominated multiple drafts for deletion today where this applies (I'm only commenting here on the first one), I will drop them a note on their talk page.Martinp (talk)02:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some new reviewers make thegood faith error of thinking that drafts should be reviewed in the same way as articles. A note will be useful, regardless of whether the draft is useful or useless.Robert McClenon (talk)18:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep perWP:LUDA. I have no idea what's happening here, but if it's not clearly speediable (responding to the "likely LLM-generated but not conclusive for G15") it's not worth spending time figuring it out or discussing here, versus letting it be either improved or expire after 6 months harmlessly.Martinp (talk)15:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:LUDA. Unlike Tenshi, absent a clear G15 case, I see no reason to spend effort discussing how likely this is LLM generated, and whether someone will improve it with human effort. Either they will or they won't, and draft processes will take care of it regardless.Martinp (talk)15:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me to what extent that's meant to apply in draftspace, where all sorts of things we discourage in articles do happen (unsourced writing, nonnotable subjects, COI) and get cleaned up afterwards. Or not, and the draft just dies away harmlessly. It's just not worth policing drafts for this kind of stuff absent more direct and active disruption.Martinp (talk)16:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft should be deleted until it is ready for admin review. This is possible also a test page. These should be in sandboxes before they move to admin approval draft 🍃I use Nookipedia 😊 (talk page) ✈️00:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete. On the one hand,WP:LUDA. On the other hand, there is literally no content here, just a placeholder. I debated nominating just now as a G2 myself, but I don't think it's sufficiently unambiguously a test page to qualify. Bottom line is if we're going to spend time discussing it, let's delete it. But I've also approached the nominator on their user page outlining that I think all of these nominations of drafts on the same day are not a good use of community time. Should they decide to withdraw, no objection to keeping this as a result.Martinp (talk)15:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not to mention that the talk page comment was made by the nominator of this MFD. would've been deleted years ago if it it was in the template namespace, whichdidn't exist when this page was created in April 2004. (I wonder if there was a technical reason that this page wasn't created in the MediaWiki namespace, the predecessor to templates)? Despite working on these old logs myself, I'd never heard of this page. I'm OK with this page being kept around as a historical curio but am also OK with deletion.Graham87 (talk)04:15, 7 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
Original deletion reason: "This humorous essay and its content violate strict Wikipedia policies such asWP:OR. And editors are linking this essay to remove citations from map files, and then replace them with original research content, in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. I suggest its deletion since it is being used to abuse and violate Wikipedia policies."I am bad at usernames (talk·contribs)14:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, being humorous instead of serious is not really a valid deletion reason. Humorous essays are allowed. However, to be honest, this essay is not that funny, and it also has a long title. It was created 9 years ago, with most content written by one person. Perhaps it'd make sense touserfy it, leaving a redirect. –Novem Linguae(talk)15:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the nominator has been copying map data from demonstrably inaccurate external sources on Commons (File:Yemeni Civil War.svg). When other editors pointed out these issues and corrected the map based on alternative reliable sources and the sourcedTemplate:Yemeni Civil War detailed map, the nominator continued to insist on using the incorrect sources, repeatedly reverted other editors’ corrections, and accused them of WP:OR, while ignoring the fact that their own edits relied on erroneous sources. （Link:Commons:File_talk:Yemeni_Civil_War.svg#This_file_is_not_citing_any_sources)
When I directed the nominator to this essay, which explicitly explains why such practices are problematic, they instead chose to nominate it for deletion. I do not wish to assume bad faith, but I cannot regard this course of action as a normal or constructive way of resolving the underlying issue.Nebulatria (talk)15:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I cited this essay in that discussion to explain why directly copying problematic maps from media sources is inappropriate, you responded by nominating the essay for deletion instead of engaging with the substance of the issue. That sequence of actions speaks for itself.Nebulatria (talk)10:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to respond to you at all. I nominated this page for deletion because I find it problematic. If you're concerned about my sequences, you can take your complaints to the appropriate place.Ecrusized (talk)11:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The objective of this essay is not to be funny. The humour is just a way to make people read the whole thing. Also, just looking at the pictures is not enough. This essay is as relevant today as it was 9 years ago. Why was this essay written? It was in reaction to MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA RULES IN MAKING WAR MAPS. For example, people were copying from maps drawn by random social media users such as Fuzzyjuice99! They were also copying from WIKIMAPIA which anyone can edit without sources! Many other examples of Wikipedia rules violations are explained in detail in the essay. Those who want to delete the essay want to be freed from Wikipedia rules to make maps as they wish. They want to copy unreliable information that suit their POV pushing. Do not believe their bogus reasons to delete the essay. The essay applies Wikipedia rules to the making of war maps. If the essay is deleted, the reliability of war maps on Wikipedia will go to hell...Tradediatalk17:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete due to a combination of being AI-generated and created by a now-blocked puppeteer. We should be tolerant of stuff in sandboxen, but there are limits to our tolerance.Robert McClenon (talk)21:34, 14 December 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete.WP:SNOW, since I would otherwise be !voting to delete both. I stand by my initial decline and re-decline since there's very little room for interpretation inWP:G15. Perhaps I could've gone viaWP:IAR if the reinstatement of the CSD tag had mentioned the socking, but if we're not going to wait forWP:G13/WP:U6 then we might as well deal with it now --Patar knight -chat/contributions04:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IARspeedy delete which I'd have done if not for@Patar knight: reinstating their decline. We do not need to waste seven days of community time on a disruptive creation. This isnot biting a newbie.StarMississippi12:44, 14 December 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.
This is a procedural nomination on behalf of an editor who is blocked from editing the article, and therefore cannot make this nomination. I may or may not weigh in on retention, but this nomination isneutral.
"I would like to reaffirm my position regarding the draft “Amaruk Kayshapanta” and propose its deletion for the following reasons, in accordance with Wikipedia policies:Lack of encyclopedic relevance (notability): the draft does not have sufficient coverage in independent and reliable sources that support its significance.Promotional tone: the content resembles a résumé or promotional material rather than an encyclopedic article.Third-party edits with promotional intent: these modifications reinforce the perception of self-promotion, which is relevant according to Wikipedia guidelines.For these reasons, I consider that the draft clearly does not meet the criteria for encyclopedic relevance, and the appropriate course of action is to propose it at WP:MFD so that the community can evaluate its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policies.Since this is my deletion request, I prefer that no further edits or developments be made to the draft while the proposal is being evaluated, to avoid confusion or complications during the process. This request is made respectfully and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and it does not imply vandalism or conflict with other editors"
Hello, I am currently working on improving and properly sourcing this draft article. I kindly ask that it not be deleted while I continue to make corrections and optimizations. I would greatly appreciate any advice from experienced editors on how to improve its quality and ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.
Regarding the suggestion to create the draft in Spanish: I am editing this draft in English because it was the only version available. Could someone please clarify the recommended process for creating a version in the Spanish Wikipedia? Should a new draft be created there, or can the existing draft be moved or linked? Any guidance would be very helpful.
Keep. Plausibly notable actor. Not clearly meeting inclusion criteria is a reason for it to be in draftspace, and is not a reason to delete from draftspace. If you don’t support developing a draft, walk away from it. Leave it for others, orWP:G13. For proponents, I advise them to link to the native language Wikipedia article, and to create the native language Wikipedia article first if it does not already exist. Unless it was deleted, in which case you should link to the deletion discussion.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:LUDA. BTW, the nomination appears to be LLM-assisted, but assuming this is a human who has formed their opinion and is using an LLM to articulate it more clearly, I see no problem with that.Martinp (talk)14:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp I think it's probably google translate or similar as most of their communication has been in Spanish until I asked @Gatita Estrella10 to switch. When they replied to me on the Talk, the reply also called me Estrella. In this case I think it's helpful translation tools vs. problematic LLM.StarMississippi19:06, 14 December 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.
Keep. Harmless, though not exactly promising. We don't need to police draftspace in this way. If no one doing anything meaningful here, it will expire in a few months and be deleted.Martinp (talk)17:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useless draft, and we shouldLeave Useless Drafts Alone. Submitting useless drafts to MFD because they are useless will clutter MFD up with junk that should be taken care of by expiring asG13. This has not been submitted for review yet, and can beRejected if submitted.Robert McClenon (talk)21:04, 13 December 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.
Completely unreferenced draft about a film script that died in the development pipeline and was never completed.WP:NFILM requires films to bereleased andreviewed, however, so films that were never completed are not notable at all under most circumstances -- a never-completed and never-released film would have to make really, really compelling and really, really well-referenced claims of "remains notable as a failed project because X, Y and Z" to be exempted from normal NFILM criteria, but this isn't claiming or sourcing anything of the sort. In addition, a big portion of the draft is taken up by a "gallery" of redlinked image files that don't exist to be galleried, except for two images that don't actually have anything to do with this film at all: one is just a contextless photo of a number and one is a photo of three members of an air hockey team, and both have been sitting on Commons sincebefore this film even existed as aproposal, which means they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an animated DreamWorks film that never was. Note as well that the creator has already tried to remove the MFD template from the draft, so this may require monitoring.Bearcat (talk)14:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unreferenced drafts are only deleted if they arebiographies of living persons. I have warned the editor about removing the MFD tag. There isn't a template for removing an MFD tag, but I used the template for removing an AFD tag. The nominator has presented one of the strongest arguments I have seen for deleting a useless draft, but it is still best toLeave Useless Drafts Alone rather than setting a precedent for sending several useless drafts through MFD every day.Robert McClenon (talk)21:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:LUDA. While I understand the nominator's conviction this is unlikely to see the light of day, the nomination doesn't make a case for how this goes beyond likely-useless to actually disruptive.Martinp (talk)14:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP that has been submitted multiple times over the last 13 months; I am counting it as unsourced as the 3 'references' make no mention of Alturas. There are further problems with this as well. It has always been written extremely promotionally (e.g. "This achievement underscores his dedication and commitment to his goals, showcasing a disciplined work ethic that extends beyond the realm of entertainment. But the pull of his acting dreams remained strong") and I think it's dangerously close to aWP:G11, the only thing stopping me doing this is the fact that it's long-standing. It also appears to be a hoax. The article falsely claims that Alturas participated in Big Brother andhis IMDb page says that this was thePinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition 4, which I believe to be completely false. Actually, I believe the whole draft to be a work of fiction and the only thing preventing theWP:G3 tag is the fact that it's long-standing.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While we shouldn't rush to delete drafts, tedentious resubmittal and unsourced BLP issues on this one make deletion the right choice.Martinp (talk)17:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My favourite part wasHis story is a compelling narrative of resilience, ambition, and the pursuit of dreams, a story that's just beginning to unfold. The cameras are rolling, and Julian Alturas is ready for his close-up. Pure spam.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)21:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the end, and sums it all up. When I see anything like that, I read the whole page critically to see if there is anything worth keeping, and often there isn't. I have written an essay,Marketing Buzzspeak, about such language. In 2025, such language is sometimes thought to be a sign ofartificial intelligence, butLLMs write this way because they are imitating the way marketeers have written since long before the invention ofartificial intelligence.Robert McClenon (talk)04:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misleading nomination. The draft has not been rejected. The topic looks possibly notable.WP:COI is in play, and the page is in the right place. The conversation should be allowed to continue in the talk page. Independent sources commenting on the company are needed. TheWP:CORP threshold is high.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tankishguy "Rejection" is a specific option that reviewers can use at Articles for Creation to indicate that the draft cannot be resubmitted. The default option is to "decline" a draft, which allows resubmission.Helpful Raccoon (talk)23:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator saysconsistently declined. What does that mnean? It was only declined once. Do they mean correctly declined? If so, that is what declining is for.Robert McClenon (talk)01:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like aconflict of interest problem that can be taken care of bydeleting or draftifying any articles, decliningor rejecting any drafts, and maybetopic-banning or even blocking editors. That doesn't sound like a reason to throw away a draft that a neutral editor might be able to rework or review.Robert McClenon (talk)06:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as draft. Draftspace is a great place for keen, including COI, editors to explore whether an encyclopedic article about a topic can be written. We do not generally delete drafts on notability or COI grounds, only if in some way actually disruptive, e.g. tendentiously resubmitted. And if an entity A has been found to not be notable, it is not a priori impossible for a related entity B to be notable. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I see at worst misplaced and futile enthusiasm that the draft review process is handling as intended, not disruption requiring draft deletion.Martinp (talk)17:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree. For dubious topics, keeping everything in one known and proper place is efficient, and it is one big reason for existence for draftspace.SmokeyJoe (talk)07:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggested asking an admin to SALT the title (I should have clarified I meant the Minus33 title) in response tothis comment at COIN:This is the fifth attempt to get a Minus33 article and a pretty clear coatrack, which implies a more substantial history of PROMO than discussed in the nom. The most recentAfD of Minus33 has more background.JoelleJay (talk)18:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JoelleJay for the context. No opinion on whether salting Minus33 is appropriate, I'm sure COIN can decide, though I'd say that 5 attempts over 11 years (the latest being a recreation 10 years after a speedy) is far from the most egregious attempt to "get into Wikipedia" that we've seen. It seems there is one self-admitted COI editor working on this draft for the parent company, and one anon/temp getting very bothered about this being a continuation of the pattern. What I don't see (yet) is why we need to do more than let AfC processes do their thing. If the COIN discussion were to reach a conclusion that delete-everything-with-fire is the best solution here for dealing with a pernicious COI pattern, then I'd see my way to accepting that conclusion and therefore deleting this too. But the current tone there is one more of confusion regarding why the temp/anon is so troubled, so I don't see any need to act here.Martinp (talk)19:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m the temp account in question: there have been 8 employee accounts, two deleted-as-not-free commons files, and five attempts to get Minus33 on wikipedia. The draft that was original nominated for publishing cited sources that cited Wikipedia or press releases. Salting feels appropriate considering the decade long attempt to get the article made and the pseudo-application of policies, which will eventually mislead a reviewer.
I spent about twelve hours looking into the history of the company to help rewrite the article only to learn it was all bullshit all the way down, so I proceeded with prejudice.~2025-34841-09 (talk)00:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Minus33logs, and the AfD, do not in my opinion come close to justify SALT. SALTing, in encourage title variants to evade the SALT, and future trouble with managing UNSALT requests, are negatives. If it were to be SALTed, for what duration would you propose?SmokeyJoe (talk)07:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced BLP created by a non-contributor and this is my primary deletion reason. Further reasons are because the user page is promotional, but possibly not bad enough forWP:G11, and, lastly because the user page is AI slop. GPTZero says that there is a 100% chance that it was written by an LLM.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)15:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -This does not appear to be a copy of a mainspace article. This appears to bealternate history.Did the nominator, [[User:Felicia777], intend to nominate something else as a copy of a mainspace article? The nomination reason is incorrect, but this page should not be speedily kept, because there is a valid reason to delete it.Robert McClenon (talk)00:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject of this draft and respectfully request its deletion.
Reason: I have no connection to the English-speaking world and do not wish to have an article in the English Wikipedia. The draft was not created by me, and I have no intention to promote myself here. In other language editions (German, Russian, Ukrainian), the article exists after community review, but I do not see relevance for the English version.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Rescuing lost MfD subpage. I am so sorry that your request was ignored here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,* Pppery *it has begun...20:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:BLPREQUEST, noting the sources fall short of notability, and that if anyone thinks this is a missing biography, their should link to the native language Wikipedia article first.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears notable, but this draft should be deleted. An en Wikipedia article can be made by translation of the German Wikipedia article.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject has articles in3 other languages, but the current state of the draft on English Wikipedia is only sourced to the subject's own website. Some content could be transferred from the articles in other languages,but I am neutral on this for now as the subject is requesting deletion of the draft.TruenoCity (talk)22:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The situation here seems to be a bit more complex than a standard application of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, in that 1) reviewing the German article suggests the subject may actually be notable, 2) appellant earlier this year participated in editing this article draft as well as then requesting deletion, 3) at the time, admins were not adequately convinced appellant was actually the subject. However, given this draft fails to assert notability, unlike the other language articles is poorly referenced, and the subject's notability (especially with an Englsh language lens on) is borderline, I think the spirit of BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. If someone does want to try to write a GNG-compliant BLP draft, they will absolutely do better to start from the other language wikiarticles, so the downside here of AGF regarding the appellant's self-identification as subject is low.Martinp (talk)17:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore perWP:NDRAFT. The issues mentioned can be addressed by redirection. The AI writing is a problem, but you need to present a more compelling case that deletion is required. The purpose of draftspace is to keep junk from wasting time, and bringing suspected AI writing to MfD is contrary to that purpose.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Was entirely a crystal balling page when it was created (there is no iPhone 17 Plus released for instance). But creator has been indef'd for spam.TruenoCity (talk)16:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as aWP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor.WP:U5 is no long a speedy deletion, but it has always been a good reason for deletion. Please mention when the user is a non-contributor, because NOTWEBHOST violations alleged for contributors have always proven controversial, with the need to weigh reasonable leeway, and what the user could possibly be doing, and the importance of talking to respected contributors first.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:04, 11 December 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.
User sandbox making fictionalized claims about the results of the2006 Brazilian general election. This same page title has been previously deleted as an alternate history hoaxification of the2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial election perWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormoftherain459/sandbox, but can't just be speedied now as the content isn't the same as last time -- but it's still aWP:BLP violation making false claims about living people, asJosé Serra was not the winner of the real election andJosé Dirceu wasn't the runner up. (Neither of them, in fact, was even on the ballotat all that year, according to the real mainspace article.) As usual, however, sandbox isnot a free playground to just write any fiction you want to for the funsies -- it's for working on real stuff that's meant to be transferred back to mainspace as a real article when you're done, which obviously this can't be. The creator, further, hasnever madeany edits toany other page on Wikipedia but this one, so they're clearlyWP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia.Bearcat (talk)15:35, 11 December 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.
Questions - Are there any hallucinated references in this draft? Can you provide any examples of LLM grammar? I agree that clearly unreviewed LLM-generated material in draft space should be deleted, but I think that doubtful material should be retained in draft space, while material that is doubtful as to LLM generation in article space should be either deleted or draftified. What is the reason why this draft should be deleted rather than reviewed by humans?Robert McClenon (talk)10:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On "LLM-language/grammar"—what specifically? Technical subjects need precise vocabulary. If there are actual style problems, point them out and I'll fix them.
The "31,230 bytes from a new editor" argument assumes editors don't research offline. I spent weeks on this before posting, working through government reports, archival documents, and news coverage. That's normal for complex policy topics.
If there are real concerns regarding neutrality, synthesis, or sourcing, let's discuss them. But just wholesale labeling everything as "looks like AI" without evidence isn't a deletion rationale.Thetransitguru (talk)19:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth,only one of these references comes up as a 404 error (https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/1981/download).toolforge:feverfew shows a few other 402 links, but when I checked them, they all went to the correct targets. There may be legitimate issues with this draft (e.g.WP:POVFORK orWP:COATRACK concerns - projects like Center City and the Elizabeth line are only tangentially related to the subject of this page), but as far as I can tell, the references do work.No comment on the text for now, though I will say that I ran the text through a few AI detectors, which indicated that large parts of the article (e.g. the entire lead section) were probably AI-generated. –Epicgenius (talk)22:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's definitely plenty of LLM use in there. The references may not be purely hallucinated, but the content may not be correct; unfortunately, where LLMs are involved, there's plenty of extra make-work for the rest of us with verification and so on. It's a long piece, so it might bear more incubation for now. I will say that I'm roundly unconvinced by the rationale of precise language necessitating an LLM. One can write and take care with what one writes.Iseult Δxtalk to me08:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Comment: Thank you to everyone for the detailed review.
@Epicgenius: I appreciate you verifying the links. I believe that ORR report is indeed a persistent issue with that agency's archiving, but I think I can replace it with a direct archive.org link to ensure stability.
@Robert McClenon: Thanks for clarifying the purpose of Draft space. My goal is to build an accurate, sourced article for this complex topic.
@Iseult: I accept your point about incubation. I'm happy to keep this in Draft space to refine the tone and tighten the sourcing line-by-line.
I believe the consensus here supportsKeeping the draft to allow for this improvement rather than deletion. I'm ready to get to work on those refinements as soon as this discussion concludes.Thetransitguru (talk)04:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Unused templates in portal namespace. Removing these unused templates helps save editor time in maintenance for the working parts, as it removes the "noise".Gonnym (talk)13:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment - I am not yet voting at this time, but I have a question for the nominator. Why are you reviewing newly created sandboxen? This looks like a class paper or artificial intelligence, having no encyclopedic value, but this was in a sandbox for less than 12 hours before being nominated for deletion. How long should an editor be allowed to have experimental junk in their sandbox?Robert McClenon (talk)02:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I see no reason to try to 2nd guess exactly what experimentation a new user choses to do in a userspace sandbox, all of 10.5 hours after creating that sandbox. If there were evidence this was indeed being used as a webhost, i.e. for dissemination for others, then I might fall on the side of deleting this soon after creation. Otherwise, absent anything explicitly objectionable, I see no issues to let the user experiment in a sandbox.Martinp (talk)03:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began22:27,8 December 2025 (UTC) ended today on15 December 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.
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.
Yet another sandbox copy ofList of presidents of the United States, again fictionalized to provide a very different lists of presidents than the United States has actually had in reality. This one kind of flips back and forth between real presidents and pretend ones up until JFK, at which point it wanders completely off into science fiction never to return: JFK doesn't die in office and stays president until 1969, whereupon his successor is RFK, and is then followed by Walter Mondale,Teddy Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Anita Hill, John McCain, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro and an incumbent Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And naturally, as is so often the case with this sort of crap, it was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption, which is an absolute no-no. As always, sandbox is not a free playground to just write any bullshit you want to for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace when you're done, which obviously this can't be. And as always,WP:BLP applies to all pages in Wikipedia, not just to mainspace content: anything that would be false information about a living person in a mainspace article, such as claiming that they had been president of the United States when they hadn't, is still false information about a living person in userspace too.Bearcat (talk)17:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax (fictional timeline). User:Cirxt0 is welcome to write about this stuff, but they shouldn't expect Wikipedia to host it.BusterD (talk)18:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to multiplebiographies of living persons violations. The list is contrary to fact about multiple living persons whose names and images are used. There are other reasons to delete, but when I see one of these lists of Presidents, I first look for and findBLP violations.Robert McClenon (talk)18:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, a deletion discussion is useful 1) to gain a wider understanding of community feeling, and 2) confirm the issues described in the context of a formal discussion. Bearcat is perfectly capable, empowered, and trusted by the community to make such speedy deletions themself. Why did they not speedy the page themself? Theychose not to tag or delete, but instead to start a discussion; their reasons are on the record above. My assertion is one of many assertions herevalidating their nomination. This is a case where the newWP:U6 andWP:U7 speedy tags might be applied.BusterD (talk)12:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yeah, Wikipedia has not established a universal consensus that articles whichblend real information with fictionalized information qualify as straight-up hoaxes for the purposes of CSD G3. If the article comprised acompletely fictionalized list of presidents across the board, without any real presidents mixed in, then I'd be on safe ground speedying it as a hoax — but if there are some real presidents in the mix, such that the creator could cover their ass by removing the fake information, then I'm on shakier ground and need to take it to a discussion no matter how speediable I personally think it should be.Bearcat (talk)13:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to possibility of confusion. How this differs from other user sandboxes where I often !vote keep is that this one is a blatant alternate-universe version of an actual article, has misinformation/BLP issues, and has been around for over a week, so that the user has likely gained whatever evanescent but plausible benefit they might have sought from it in practicing their editing in their sandbox.Martinp (talk)03:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that there's a ton of uncaught ones at any given time, it's that new and/or under-the-radar users keep creatingnew ones at random (but leaving them in all of the real article's categories, so thatCategory:Presidents of the United States keeps recurring on theWikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories cleanup report over and over again, which is how and why I keep finding them). A couple of years ago it wasn't so much this as it was reality shows with either fake contestants or falsified orders of finish, which I haven't seen nearly as much of lately — obviously now it's much more this and faked results of various elections, though I still don't know where anybody ever got the idea that such content was acceptable.Bearcat (talk)15:50, 12 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original research. This is a journal article, or at least aspires to be one. I haven't found whether it has been previously published, but Wikipedia isn't the place to host turgid journal-style essays.Acroterion(talk)13:49, 7 December 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.
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.
The sources used in this article are almost exclusively from regular publicity, interviews, and events and brand-related information. The sources do not provide enough independent scholarly content to support notability according toWP:GNG. A large amount of the article's content is presented in a promotional style, which indicates that the subject of this article does not currently qualify for inclusion according to Wikipedia's criteria for stand-alone biographies.Molems (talk) 🇳🇿08:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / userfy – The draft now relies on independent sources such as the biographical entry inSlovenska biografija (Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts) and several articles and obituaries in theAmerican Alpine Journal. These are standard independent sources for mountaineering biographies, not publicity or brand material. The earlier version had issues with tone and sourcing, but the draft has since been trimmed and rewritten to summarise those independent sources in a neutral way. Even if further improvements are needed, the subject himself is clearly notable, and the page can be improved or moved to userspace rather than deleted outright. ~~~~MJermol (talk)10:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit to the draft was a substantial improvement. I am leaning to accepting the draft. I just want to check the references, given a previous comment about LLM and hallucinated references.SmokeyJoe (talk)10:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This is a draft in draft space. It appears that some editors start reviewing drafts using the criteria for reviewing articles. Do we need to provide better instructions to new reviewers?Robert McClenon (talk)19:00, 7 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marking as historical would make sense if this were a resource which saw some meaningful usage, or which was the subject of community discussion. I don't think that's the case here; this is just an old bit of junk which went unnoticed for twenty years. It wasn't even linked from anywhere before this MFD.Omphalographer (talk)20:30, 8 December 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.
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.
Keep all for now, at least. A very recent new user finding their way with misplaced enthusiasm. It's right to delete their misplaced, duplicative, and therefore disruptive mainspace page creation (has been done, not subject of this nom). But these pages in user space are at worst harmless, and at best act as sandboxes for practice editing following which user might make productive additions to our actual existing article, or to other articles with more confidence. Or, of course, drop out and never be seen again -- which becomes all the more likely if we welcome them with a rash of CSD deletions and MfD deletion nominations. No objection to deleting such stuff as confusing duplicate drafts if abandoned for some time (weeks? months? I don't have an opinion), but there is no problem to be solved with urgency here.Martinp (talk)13:31, 7 December 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.
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.
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.
User:SmokeyJoe - No. Did you have banner blindness? Did you see the template that says:You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress? You broke the link back from the page to the MFD, among other things. That was notall that needs doing and was not permitted.Robert McClenon (talk)04:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion provided. There is some forking, but it is not copying, and temporarily forks in userspace are perfectly ok. This page is recent. No one has tried talking to the newcomer, so this mfd is premature (even if there is a deletion reason) and bitey (WP:BITE. The only WP:UPNOT issue is drafting on the main Userpage, which is trivially fixed by moving to a subpage.SmokeyJoe (talk)23:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in its new home as a sandbox subpage in userspace, per SmokeyJoe. Yes, their move technically violated the banner that got placed by the deletion nomination. However, as an IAR satisfactory resolution to a situation that obviates the need for a deletion, and corrects a minor error by a new user rather than biting them, I endorse it.Martinp (talk)13:13, 7 December 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.
SeeWP:NMFD. This was a web series inspired by Battle for Dream Island back when it was still niche. Considering how it's effectively "lost media", I fail to see any sources cropping up for this, and thus its inclusion on Wikipedia ever solidifying.Jurtatalk/contribs22:05, 4 December 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.
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.
Putting this in Miscellany because I'm not sure where else it should go - if this is wrong please advise. I'm not sure where to put a mass deletion proposal.
This page and many like it (e.g.1961 NBA season,1962 NBA season...2025 NBA season inclusive) are almost wholly useless two-outlet disambiguation pages. I say useless because they don't appear atthe orphaned pages listentirely through linking to each other (they were all on it not long ago...). They are not linked in actual NBA articles, which properly pinpoint the link to the exact season where necessary (e.g.Boston Garden uses an inline link directly to1986–87 NBA season). I'd argue they are improperly classified/tagged{{Set index article}} because in all cases there can only be two things to index. The pages simply add an unnecessary extra click-through in search engine results; and on top of that, they are all of them 50% inaccurate because in the vernacular, someone saying a single year + "season" - e.g. "Well, in the 1969 season..." they always or very nearly always mean the season for which the finals were played that year (in this case the1968–1969 NBA season).[citation needed] The long and short of it is that all of these pages should either be changed to hard redirects as described in the previous sentence (e.g.1960 NBA season ->1959–60 NBA season) or deleted outright.ZenSwashbuckler20:12, 4 December 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.
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.
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.
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 per nom. No need to mark something that's been usedexactly once as historical, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone at the WikiProject would care about a page that was created unilaterally, is much narrower than their usual scope, and isn't in use.Extraordinary Writ (talk)01:02, 12 December 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.
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 - LP is probably correct that G15 doesn't apply given there are no hallucinated references and no signs of LLM markup in the version prior to my blanking. However, this is an blatant BLP violation which relies on theHerald Sun for half of it's references to push a conspiracy theory about a living person. The Herald Sun has been caught out distorting facts about political rivals of the Liberal Party of Australia, which the subject Daniel Andrews—Former Victorian Premier and Labor Party Member—most definitely is. Even that aside the Herald Sun is a tabloid and it should never be used for statements of facts about living persons. Beside from the usage of the Herald Sun, there was also two instances of court documents being used in the article—a statement from a witness to a Victorian Supreme Court defamation trial and a court filing—WP:BLPPRIMARY is unequivocal in this matter stating "Donot use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." To make sure there is no misunderstanding of this policy the word "not" is deliberately bolded. Please see discussion atWikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 58#Published judicial documents where there was clear consensus in support of maintaining the current widespread understanding of BLPPRIMARY. In short this article should not exist and its writing is a large part of the reason why its author copped an indef.TarnishedPathtalk11:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The reasons stated by the nom are some of the very few reasons that a draft is likely to be deleted at MfD. The creating editor is indeffed, thus unlikely to return to the draft, and it has the potential of being viewed unfavourably by people referred to in it. It is well on the way to being an attack page, if not over the boundary line. An abundance of caution might suggest it be speedily deleted as an attack page. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸23:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that this qualifies for speedy deletion, but it comes close to being an attack page and is a case where several reasons should add up to a basis for deletion.Robert McClenon (talk)03:24, 6 December 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.
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 - in addition to above, the User:Sendator hasn't edited in over a decade, and the editor who created it on their behalf is indeffed, so there's no realistic prospect for it being used again anyways.Sergecross73msg me23:17, 5 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment Agree withRobert McClenon that this could be a class project, a similar situation to the cluster of accounts I reported atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savi Tiwana. These are the other accounts I suspect are part of this newest project (will add as needed):
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.
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.
Beemaah Cantürk was moved to draft three times, and has sat unreferenced and virtually unchanged for over a year, apart from minor edits to avoid deletion G13. AfC templates have been removed without comment, and clearly there's no intention to publish this, as it would fail an AFD on notability grounds.WP:NOTWEBHOST.Wikishovel (talk)19:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I count five moves from draft space to article space, four moves from article space back to draft space, and oneA7 deletion from article space. Enough is enough. Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons, but they are deleted for misuse of draft space.Robert McClenon (talk)06:52, 4 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
This FAQ page was created during anRFC on the inclusion on some additional flags in the infobox ofSalt Lake City, and it was about why those flags were there. The RFC was closed with consensus to remove the flags. Therefore, I don't think this subpage is needed anymore.This may be eligible for anIARG6, but I'm not sure, so I'm listing it here.Chess enjoyer (talk)05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While we generally keep historical record of discussions, including RfCs and supplementary material, in this instance the whole content of this page (1 FAQ) is encompassed in the RfC's header, and no links point to this page except related to this deletion nomination. So this feels like noncontroverial cleanup, and kudos for someone thinking to do it now rather than in years when community memory is gone.Martinp (talk)17:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not arguing again deletion, but “IAR G6” is offensive to deletion policy, and removing links from a talk page sounds like revisionism.SmokeyJoe (talk)23:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: What? I only mentioned G6 (how is that offensive?) because I heard about itsomewhere else. Although, looking at that page again, I guess I should looked at the "specific misuses" section. What's more confusing to me is your labeling of my action as "revisionism." What do you mean by that?Chess enjoyer (talk)01:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chess. So “IAR G6” was a joke?WP:!G6’s nutshell is “G6 is notWP:IAR”. This page should not be deleted under G6 or IAR. I guess that I’m having trouble reading your nuance.
Removing links, on an old talk page, sounds like revisionism? I think that was a poor word choice. It sounds like altering of records, making the record look different to what it was at the time of use. I looked for your removal of a link, but didn’t find it, and decided it is too unimportant. This page,Talk:Salt Lake City/FAQ, is quite odd, and probably. It worth my time trying to understand it.
@SmokeyJoe, I suggested an IAR G6 because deleting this subpage seems like uncontroversial cleanup (to me, anyway), but doesn't fit into the normal G6 reasons. If you feel that strongly against it, then I'll strike that part of my nomination.
On your second point: The talk page is old, but this subpage was created a little under two months ago.here is where I removed it fromTalk:Salt Lake City. Since those flags aren't there anymore, it's an answer to a question no one will ask. I'm not trying to alter any records.Oh, and "Chess" issomeone else's name, not mine.Chess enjoyer (talk)20:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that any talk subpage that was ever linked from or discussed at the talk page is definitely not G6 eligible.
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.
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.
Not used in almost four years and likely will never be used again. If there is a need to list backlogged copyright problems again it can be done directly onWikipedia:Copyright problems rather than on a hard to find subpage that happens to be transcluded on the main page.Aasim (話す)07:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question is if we lose previous copyright investigations by deleting this page, given that copyright investigations I noticed are transcluded by year month day.Aasim (話す)17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is information to be lost I would agree with the comments above and below marking historical rather than deleting.Aasim (話す)19:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is information that will be lost. We are currently clearing up old improper claims of permission and are relying on those old listings that were manually copied to that page for a period of time. I also object to old projectspace process pages being deleted just because they're currently unused - if you look at the /NewListings page, you can see it's nowikied and marked historical.Pennecaster (Chat with Senne)21:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orMark Historical - The only effect of deleting this would be to make its history invisible to non-admins. Is there any reason why we need to hide its history?Robert McClenon (talk)17:48, 2 December 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.
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. A10 speedy tag was removed (by a temp user!) since not in article space. That is correct as far as rejecting that speedy. But there is no reason to (and some confusion arising from) retaining a userspace draft identical to, and probably recreated as a misunderstanding of, a draft moved to draftspace.Martinp (talk)15:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally tend to agree with Robert (and others) on not interfering with users' sandboxes, absent them being really objectionable. I was swayed to Delete in this instance since I interpret the author's reinstatement of the original text, essentially duplicated from the draftspace version, over your redirect as a mark of inexperience and confusion, rather than passive-aggressive disagreement with you. So I'm !voting Delete here purely as administrative clean-up of confused duplication. That said, part of the reason we let user sandboxes be, and let 6 months inactivity take care of Drafts that get abandoned, is that it's generally somewhere between a waste of time and an unnecessary microagression to be deleting this kind of stuff. Users come, try something, often depart. Abandoned stuff in Drafts gets recycled, and abandoned stuff in userspace is (generally) harmless.Martinp (talk)14:23, 3 December 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.
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.
Procedural nomination. This was tagged in September for RFD, despite not being a redirect -- and the RFD tagger (who was also the page creator) did that incorrectly, so that it never actually got added to the RFD queue at all, and was still sitting in an RFD error-catcher category today, as it never got dealt with either way. Their rationale was that "The draft contents have already been ported to the article itself and this is only consuming disk space", for what it's worth -- I have no opinion on whether that's a valid reason to delete it or not, and am simply acting to fix an unresolved four-month-old mistake.Bearcat (talk)20:51, 1 December 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.
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.
Keep - As the nominator says, this user page is being used as a sandbox. I have looked for, and not found, a guideline against the use of a user page as a sandbox. I don't see a guideline that would imply that this use is improper. I don't see any policy difference between a user page and a sandbox in user space (where sandboxen are). Does the nominator want to explain why this is improper? Otherwise atrout may be in order.Robert McClenon (talk)19:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:BobT34655/sandbox. This new-ish user seems to have good intent, but have had some difficulty editing productively in mainspace. They seem to have internalized feedback given and are now trying out stuff in their userspace. It is true that it would be better to do so in a sandbox that in their actual user page, but let's not beat them up more for sorta doing what we want them to do, if imperfectly, when we can just as easily just fix it.Martinp (talk)00:02, 2 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Keep - The article cited by the nominator,Lists of films released by Disney, is a list of lists. This draft is a candidate to be included in that list of lists, except that it has no references. It should be kept in draft space until references are added, and then promoted to article space, and added to the list of lists.Robert McClenon (talk)04:29, 29 November 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.
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 and the others, listed below through User: Savi Tiwarna. Whatever is going on here, the purpose does not seem related to building an encyclopedia, and the lack of response by the contributors to any of these nominations makes it less likely this is someone finding their sea-legs with confused but encyclopedic intent.Martinp (talk)23:55, 1 December 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment - In my opinion, these nominations could have been bundled. However, many experienced editors have never had the unpleasant responsibility of having to learn how to bundle nominations, and bundling is not done by Twinkle.Robert McClenon (talk)04:16, 29 November 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.
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.
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.
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.
Question forUser:ChildrenWillListen - You wrote:This is more common than one might think. Did you mean that there are other such school projects, or that there were other participants in this project? I see that you have nominated the other participants in this project? If there are other such projects, please nominate them if you know about them, or provide information.Robert McClenon (talk)04:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Class projects, whose instructors are either uninformed or ill-informed about Wikipedia, seem to recur at regular intervals. The students, of course, blindly follow the instructor's directions without question. --Drm310🍁 (talk)05:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with class projects to create Wikipedia articles, in which the instructor may set unreasonable terms, such as a date for acceptance of the article into the encyclopedia. These projects are problematic, but are consistent with the purpose and concept of Wikipedia. This is a more serious problem because this class project is not about the encyclopedia. It apparently is just using Wikipedia as a web server, and there is a policy against that, inWikipedia is not a web host.Robert McClenon (talk)05:38, 29 November 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.
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.
The result of the discussion was:keep for now. While the content in this draft is inaccurate and poorly referenced, it does not rise to the level of aWP:FAKEARTICLE nor is it quite as bad as initially described. I see forward motion on improving it, and I assume good faith as to the intentions of the author. I am reluctant to pull the rug out from under an editor who was in the middle of drafting content.
Participants who argued for deletion had good points.@Rager7: An article on this topic would have to be pretty darn well-written to avoid deletion if it were moved directly into article space. Even then, it could easily be deleted as redundant toArab–Israeli conflict. If the draft gets to the point where you are ready to publish it, I would definitely advise submitting it toWikipedia:Articles for creation rather than trying to move it into article space directly; no doubt that would generate a lot of feedback. You may wish to move this into Draft: space to allay concerns about a poorly-written draft on a controversial subject laying around indefinitely. I'm closing this as "keep for now" and leaving the door open to revisiting deletion in 6 months, e.g. if the draft is abandoned in the meantime or it becomes more clearly problematic.
Unfortunately, given the feedback so far, I expect that a submission at AFC would fail for the same reasons voiced by the supporters of deletion, that it's redundant to an existing article. I would hate for you to put a lot of time and energy into something that's really difficult only to have it come to nothing, and have the project miss out on other improvements you could have made in that time. Because a draft can morph into something different before it's published, I am reluctant to close as "delete" on those grounds. However, if you decide to drop this project, I encourage you to either request deletion or blank the page if you're recycling it for a different draft. If you need more feedback on whether this is a good use of your time, you could ask more editors if an article with the scope of these four wars is needed, e.g. onTalk:Arab–Israeli conflict orWikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Beland (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Beland (talk)08:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAKEARTICLE with potentially highly offensive word substitutions, like "Is real" for "Israel" and "imagination" for "immigration". Not to mention that it's some weird sort of alternative/wished-for history, or something. Not what userspace is for, at any rate.Graham87 (talk)05:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to compile a period of time (in this case a series of wars) in Middle Eastern history into one article, that's all. Typos and mistakes are bound to happen.Rager7 (talk)05:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I'm trying to go more in depth and be specific. Like the articleArab–Israeli conflict is more about the general long term conflict. While I'm trying to explain more about the four major wars within the overall conflict. Does that make sense?Rager7 (talk)05:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recognize this is a very sensitive topic area, where unusual contributions provoke some concern. But I start from a presumption of significant latitude for potentially encyclopedia-related userspace sandbox content by a long-term, varied-topic editor.@Graham87:, can you elaborate what you found "potentially highly offensive"? I wasn't highly offended by anything based on a quick glance, and I hesitate to censor based on potentiality of offensiveness and second-guessing what some other editor might or might not find useful for their editing. But I'm also aware that some of these long-term contentious editing conflicts use coded language that those of us outside do not immediately recognize.Martinp (talk)11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinp: FWIWthis was how the page was when it was nominated for deletion, with the incorrect words that I noted (not all have been fixed; and I honestly don't know what to think of the user's explanation, but autocorrect can be interesting). I barely edit in the topic area either. But stuff like "Israel for the most part have [sic] now cordial relations with the neighboring Arab countries despite past grievances" is flatly contradicted by the fact that both Lebanon and Syria, two countries that border Israel,don't recognise it, along with the very next sentence in the user page, "Relations are still tense despite the various peace deals and agreements.". The whole thing feels like an ill-thought-out mishmash of ideas that will be of little use to anyone and ignores Israel's incursions into universally recognised Arab sovereign states like the2006 Lebanon War and the2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Re the "potentially encyclopedia-related userspace sandbox content by a long-term, varied-topic editor" bit, I don't think this user has the bredth or depth of experience to overhaul a topic area like that; but then again, neither do I. I'd feel differently if the author was a recognised subject matter expert and/or had a strong reputation among editors in the topic area, but I don't think we have that here.Graham87 (talk)13:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The part where I wrote: "Israel for the most part have [sic] now cordial relations with the neighboring Arab countries despite past grievances" areplace holders. Obviously, that's not accurate. After all, I will change it later on when I have better information to put down.Rager7 (talk)14:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hmmm, there is the [[Arab–Israeli War disambiguation page (created relatively late in Wikipedia's history,in 2014) andthis American University source seems to describe the early history of the Israel-Arab conflict this way. But my question is: would anyone else actually find a page like this in article space useful? To me it feels like a page on, say, World War I or World War II that only focuses on a few of the major battles/events. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive.Graham87 (talk)13:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re applying too high a bar in asking “could this as-is be useful in article space”. It’s a user sandbox. So I think the bar is more “could this be useful to this user in eventually making edits in article space”. And I’m disinclined to second guess that, absent actual disruption. There’s enough preamble on the subject age that it can’t be mistaken for an actual article.
As to factual accuracy, meh. If a sandbox claims the world population of kangaroos is 5 billion, I may have grave doubts about it, but I won’t advocate deleting the sandbox as a result (I’d ask for a source if put in article space though). I realize this is an oversimplification given the contentious area here but I think we just don’t need to police user sandboxes like this absent a real problem.Martinp (talk)16:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this user page while briefly checking the creating user's contributions (their latest edit was to the nominated page at the time) and the combination of the unusual word usage, the odd-seeming slant/scope, and the controversial topic area prompted me to bring this user page here. Perhaps talking to the user about it (or consulting privately about what to do, as I was thinking of doing) might have been a better idea. I didn't think this was relevant enough to mention in the nomination statement but I havequite a fraught history with the user who created the page, which also led me to wonder whether views of it from other people besides me would be helpful. I don't usually patrol user pages and have no intentions of doing so in the future, either for this user or in general.Graham87 (talk)09:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blunt comment: Either your concern with this page is somehow related to your recent involvement with the arbitration motion related to this user (that you have now linked to above). In that case, that is a germane part of the discussion and it is impossible to evaluate whether intervention is needed without more context.
Or it is not related. In that case, I would strongly suggest you avoid this type of investigation of users' edits and their own userspaces in particular, and especially of users with whom you already "have a fraught history". While ostensibly yourfailed re-RFA (I'm hoping you don't mind me linking to it here, given your own link under "fraught history" above leads to it) was about overzealous blocks, the underlying issue was a pattern where based on a minor issue, you made exaggeratedly negative interpretations of a user's editing pattern and intentions, and rushed into action on that basis. That pattern seems to have been repeated here, where for some reason something about this user's actions attracted your attention, and you've jumped to the most negative possible interpretation of their other edits.
Reading between the lines in the discussion here, you're getting lukewarm agreement from all 3 uninvolved editors that we don't really see what usefulness this page brings. But that's not a standard we generally apply to deleting userspace sandboxes; it's whether the creator finds them useful that matters, absent some other major problem. You're getting pushback from me on why you find this page offensive (frankly, it seems to me a pretty strong failure of AGF to take a few typos and interpret them as a "highly offensive word substitution", absent some other evidence) and from Robert why you're poking around and making judgments about user sandboxes in the first place. And you're getting loud silence from others, who probably (I may be wrong) find your nomination unusual but scroll on, figuring there must be something they don't know about the situation.
En.wp is a big community. If something feels questionable about a situation, one where you think your judgmentmight be off, it's a good idea to get a second opinion. Or if marginal, just let it be, since if it is a real problem, someone else will deal with it eventually. Nominating a page in someone's userspace for deletion is an aggressive act, less severe but similar to blocking them. Don't do it where in situations where you have a history with someone that might be impairing your judgment.Martinp (talk)15:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Points well-taken; I don't mind the link at all ... it's part of Wikipedia's history. In this case, I just wanted to see what Rager7 was up to; my concern was not related to the arbitration motion. As for my comments about not patrolling userspace, just so they're not taken out of context, I think it's worth noting that I've since started doing so toprevent pages from being deleted due to bot-tagging, but that will almost certainly never bother MFD.Graham87 (talk)05:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you're not convinced by the keep arguments, but "irrelevant noise" isn't exactly a policy compliant reason to delete a userspace sandbox. Not that I have any particular right to quiz you (more than anyone else has), but what harm is it causing?Martinp (talk)22:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Irrelevant noise" is a good description for the reasonCSD U6 has been implemented with itsassociated bot, which tags hundreds of such pages for deletion aday (mostly accurately). That criterion doesn't apply to this particular case at all because the page is new and its creator has made edits outside of their userspace, but regardless, it's still a policy statement thatWikipedia is not a free web host so we indeed don't want irrelevant noise anywhere on the site.Graham87 (talk)03:31, 13 December 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.
