Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

edit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS:,[a] Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XFD venue.

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

Notes

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

edit

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 deletion G13 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. See WP:SRE.
  • For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP: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}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider moving it into the historical archive, or userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that does not require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

edit

How to list pages for deletion

edit

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

Administrator instructions

edit
XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 21 82 103
TfD 1 0 3 42 46
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 22 29 7 58
RfD 0 0 0 36 36
AfD 0 0 0 41 41

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

edit

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

edit
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.

July 21, 2026

edit

Wikipedia:Stern warning about promotion

edit
Wikipedia:Stern warning about promotion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a copy of a rude response to a COI editor at the Teahouse. It's not an essay that anyone can edit, because if you change anything, you're changing it to a misquotation. I thought about userifying it, but the page was created by someone other than the author, and the original is in the Teahouse archives anyway, so there's no need for a second copy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Jéské Couriano should probably know about this, since he's the original author of the text (but isn't the page creator). I also left an mfd notice on the creator's talk page. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought it was useful to have this particular response with the other essays. I get that where I have done this, being able to edit changes the original message. But if people don't want it in the essays, then I guess it should go. Is there any place where notable Teahouse responses should go where they can't be edited, or a way to link to the Teahouse archives from where we link to essays?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only linked on two pages (an AFD comment and on a User_talk: page), and the average page views are about once every two or three days, so I doubt there will be much interest in having links spread around. Anyone who really wants to link it in a comment can link to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1160#c-Jéské Couriano-20220809232200-Bikashdaga09-20220808062200.
    However, I question whether it would be good judgment to link to it. The situation at hand was a newcomer who had tried to add three (3) sentences to Wikipedia about their ed tech website. The edit got reverted less than 30 seconds later, and the newcomer promptly asked for advice at the Teahouse, where they openly disclosed their COI. Note that they did not revert anyone or say a single unpleasant word.
    The response, however, pretty much violates all of the Teahouse host expectations (which were research-based, BTW):
    • Welcome everyone? No, that says that newcomers who disclose a COI are "barely tolerated". It then goes on to threaten a newcomer that a block for Wikipedia:No legal threats (a total overreaction). This is not welcoming behavior.
    • Be polite and patient? No, it opens by speaking derogatorily about people's religion ("We're not interested at all in anything...your holy men have to say" – how is that relevant?) and ends with an assertion that the community will cause the newcomer "suffering".
    • Keep it simple? No, it's more than 350 words long (roughly six times as long as either of the prior respondents), wanders off into the weeds about irrelevant subjects.
    • Avoid over-linking? No, he put 16 links in that comment (IMO only two of them were relevant, and they'd both already been provided by @Cullen328).
    In short, I think this is just an unfortunate outburst, and the sensible, community-oriented thing to do is to remind ourselves that everyone has the occasional bad day, and although it didn't get reverted at the time, we can do our part by never mention its existence again. And possibly by collecting the Teahouse regulars and inquiring whether they need help with enforcing their expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insert preface information - This quote which is labeled as an essay is not really an essay and doesn't provide content. It should be preceded by a brief statement about what was asked at the Teahouse to which this was an answer. As an answer to a question, it reflects an attitude toward COI editors that is within the Overton window of attitudes of experienced editors toward COI editing. It is true that many experienced editors barely tolerate COI editors. Sometimes COI editors need to learn sooner rather than later that many experienced editors barely tolerate COI editors. On the one hand, it is true that User:Jéské Couriano broke the etiquette standards of the the Teahouse, but he spoke the truth that would have been welcomed in some other Wikipedia forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with all arguments from WhatamIdoing. This article does nothing to make Wikipedia a better place. Lova Falk (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Advice for paid editors

edit
Wikipedia:Advice for paid editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Claims that any paid editing is a violation of WP:NOPROMO and is trying to do something which is explicitly forbidden. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely baffled by the premise of this MfD. You're welcome to believe my opinion on paid editing is wrong, but it is clearly labelled as precisely that; an essay which is the opinion of one or more editors. What is the actual grounds for deletion here? WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a deletion reason. Athanelar (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Essays ... that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace. Consensus is that paid editing is allowed, not forbidden. Jerod Lycett (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you are selectively quoting in the nomination starts with If you are here to promote a company or individual [...]. This essays is about expressing an opinion about paid editing and all the wrong reasons to do it that is far from a fringe position among the community. What this essay does not do, is plainly state that "paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia"; this would be overtly contradict[ing] consensus. Since it is an essay, it does not have to explain what kind of paid editing is okay or not. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but I seriously urge you to reconsider, because what you are doing in practice is attempting to get rid of a page you disagree with while it contains nothing egregious. If you are seeking userfication, please adjust your nomination to reflect this. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It goes on to state (and, if they are paying you to write an article about them, or otherwise asking you to do so as part of your capacity as their employee, then you definitely are) which is stating that all paid editing is promotion, which is against consensus and is assuming bad faith on the part of any and all paid editors. I think that this essay, should it ever be sent to any user again, whether it's in user space or not, would be harmful. It has already once proven harmful. It needs removed to prevent future harm. It would require an entire rewrite with the removal of the core concept (that paid editing is promotion and is thus explicitly forbidden) to not be harmful. So given that I don't want it ever being presented again in order to prevent harm how would userfication meet that goal? I don't think it could, and thus deletion. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett It has already once proven harmful How so? Athanelar (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an essay. I notice that you did not try to open a discussion on its talk page, or discussed your concerns with the creator of the essay, and instead immediately nominated it for deletion. If at least you had indicated in the nomination that you were seeking userfication, that could still have been fine by me; but since you did not, I think this is a pretty unfriendly way to go. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the nominator has made clear that zie is looking for deletion and not userfication. Were future consensus to bend towards userfication I would not be opposed to it; but deletion is a step too far and I am thoroughly unconvinced by the rationale presented above. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ARABIC

edit
Wikipedia:ARABIC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

A large part of this page is in Arabic language and therefore is not accessible for English Wikipedia users who don't know Arabic. Lova Falk (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for User:Salshater. It appears to be a draft.
Delete (in userspace, it is ok to REFUND there) on the basis of:
Delete – I am the author. This is an old page I no longer need; I have no objection to deletion. Thank you for flagging it. Salshater (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per page's creator. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 20, 2026

edit

User:Muza Entertainment/sandbox

edit
User:Muza Entertainment/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Promotional Sandbox, g11 declined. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 12:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced WP:BLP. WP:BLP applies to all namespaces. Analogous to WP:BLPPROD, delete after seven days unless a reliable source is added. It is promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smokey's rationale. The level of "promotionality" does not bother me for a user sandbox draft, however, so in particular no issues with a refund if user comes back with a credible commitment to add sourcing. Of course, the draft may struggle to meet the notability bar for mainspace. I anticipate a refund situation is more likely than sourcing added during this discussion period, since user is new to wikipedia, seem not to fully understand what we're about, and in particular have also ended up username softblocked. Martinp (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 19, 2026

edit

Draft:Akbar Amirzadeh Irani

edit
Draft:Akbar Amirzadeh Irani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Shkuru Afshar (talk · contribs) sent this draft to AfD with the rationale Notability issue. The same article that is created on Persian Wikipedia is nominated for deletion as well. That would not be completely unwarranted if this were an article, but it is a draft and has (in this iteration) never been an article (there was an A7 deletion at Akbar Amirzadeh Irani all the way back in 2007 that may or may not have anything to do with this current subject). Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, as Spiderone (talk · contribs) pointed out (in addition to noting the wrong process), so this purely procedural nomination would admittedly be on the road to failure from the get-go on the surface. However, as Geschichte (talk · contribs) pointed out, AFD is not for drafts, but might the article be LLM-generated? That won't necessarily lead to deletion either if not insurmountable or irreparable enough (G15 does apply to drafts should it come to that), but it is probably more relevant to MfD than notability is. I have no opinion on any of this in any event; again, this is procedural only. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in draftspace. The original AfD nomination was based on notability, which is not an appropriate reason to delete a draft. I am the creator of this draft and will manually review and rewrite any passages that may appear machine-generated, remove unsupported or promotional claims, verify each factual statement against its cited source, and reduce reliance on primary sources. The draft is capable of improvement through the Articles for Creation process and is not irreparable. HRW4IRAN (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in draftspace, where notability is not a deletion criterion. As to was LLM used, if so it is not sufficiently glaring to speedy because of it, and in the spirit of WP:LUDA I don't think it's worthwhile to spend community time probing whether an incomplete draft might or might not have had some LLM use. Martinp (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 16, 2026

edit

Draft:Scott Woodward (marketer)

edit
Draft:Scott Woodward (marketer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I'm posting this on behalf of a client (paid-editing disclosure on my user page). The subject, Scott Woodward, has asked that this draft be taken down. An article about this same person, Scott Woodward (marketing executive), was already discussed and deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Woodward (marketing executive)). This draft covers the same individual and doesn't appear to bring anything new in terms of sourcing still mostly built on his own website, press materials, and passing mentions rather than the kind of independent, in-depth coverage notability guidelines require. Given the earlier outcome and the subject's own request, it seems reasonable to close this out rather than leave it in draft space to be resubmitted later. TomReding212 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given how long and determinedly Mr Woodward has been trying to get himself into Wikipedia, under different titles and involving paid editors (some now blocked) and at least two accounts both claiming to be Woodward, I'm a bit skeptical about this recent U-turn. The community has collectively expended a lot of energy and bandwidth on this subject. Could we have some assurance that if the draft is deleted, that's the end of this, or will a new version be appearing in a few months' time under this or a different title? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question given the history. I can't promise what other accounts might do in the future. I don't control that. What I can say: I'm here under my own disclosed account, and this deletion is what my client is actually asking for. If it's deleted, I have no further mandate to pursue this article in any form. Repeated undisclosed attempts clearly haven't worked out for the subject, and I'd expect the same result if that happened again. TomReding212 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Woodward (marketing executive), and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE. As to possibility of false-flag, given the outcome of the article AFD, the damage of a false-flag deletion is low and reversible. And if article attempts/drafts resurface disruptively, that can be dealt with at that time irrespective of what we do here now. Martinp (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Crazy Rich Asians (TV series)

edit
Draft:Crazy Rich Asians (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I recently put a CSD tag on this draft for the following reason, which is also my rationale for this MfD:

A more bare-bones version of the significantly more expansive Draft:Crazy RIch Asians (TV series). That draft should be moved to this title, without the capital I, once this draft is deleted.

That tag was subsequently removed by Liz, saying I can't make up a reason for a CSD deletion. She recommended I take it here, so take it here I'm doing. JHD0919 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. User:Crafterstar's older version is the better version, made with a typo capital I, and both pages have been deleted and refunded.
Delete Draft:Crazy_Rich_Asians_(TV_series) (but first move it to Draft:Crazy_Rich_Asians_(TV_series) (version Mjks28) or similar, to keep different histories separate.
Move Draft:Crazy RIch Asians (TV series) to the now vacated title Draft:Crazy_Rich_Asians_(TV_series).
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I didn't know of the existence of the version with a capital "I" when I created my draft, and since that page clearly has more information, it should be the main one.—Mjks28 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in to note that I support SmokeyJoe's Godsy's proposal. JHD0919 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and complete the move as per Godsy, a good, more canonical refinement of Smokey's suggestion. Then interested parties can merge if and as appropriate. Martinp (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 14, 2026

edit

Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy

edit
Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Delete: Most of the content of this page would better be placed in Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon, if the topic is notable enough for having a page in the main space (I am not sure of that). Despite the note at the top, the remaining of the page may be (and has been) viewed a an incitation for disruptive edits of Wikipedia. The note at the top could be moved to WP:NOTHERE. D.Lazard (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Renerpho (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC) -- Compare here for a recent example of the "has been viewed a an incitation for disruptive edits" part. Renerpho (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Turning Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy into a redirect to Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon would be okay. Just make sure that what's left meets the standards we apply to any article (in particular, the need for independent reliable sources). Renerpho (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to merge the page with Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon. Now we have two pages addressing the same thing. It is also a possibility to merge the page in main space to this page in the Wikipedia space. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, one of the pages could be a redirect to the other one. Perquirius (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep separate from the mainspace article Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon. Do not merge. Although the current projectspace page has some style of an article, it need not, it can and should host introspection, and technical aspects, and a different selection sources, most especially Wikipedia sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my delete vote above: I am not suggesting to move material into article space that is not properly cited. The aspects of WP:GTP that don't meet the standards we apply to any main space article need to be left out. Renerpho (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This page has a massive history. 1,175 versions. 608 editors. 18 years old. Definitely, keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Problematic edits can be dealt with through our usual processes; we shouldn't give disruptive editors a heckler's veto of a longstanding and otherwise unobjectionable page. I don't support a merge because it would require getting rid of material that's appropriate for projectspace but inappropriate for mainspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The wave of disruptive edits probably came from that one YouTube video (why did they make it anyway?) and will pass, even if the disruptive user ends up being a LTA. As for the mainspace page, its notability was established in a discussion last year, and new sources have been published since. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping both pages would be problematic due to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The better course of action would be to merge the two pages into one. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REDUNDANTFORK states (emphasis mine): It becomes a problem when there are two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other, Here we're dealing with a mainspace page (a serious article on the topic) and a WP-space collection of unsourced claims about the topic, and, for a long part of its history, a collection of unsourced paths to philosophy and other loops. This clearly isn't a WP:REDUNDANTFORK case. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 07:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because, again, project-space is not concerned with pesky things like verifiability, notability, NPOV, and summary-style. And so, we we should not force project-space to constrain to those things. It's already bad enough that we leave definitions of some words or phrases used in project-space in mainspace articles where those considerations apply. I think a section of WP:NOTHERE going "To make articles on Wikipedia link to the article philosophy" would be guidance almost never seen by people who could be dissuaded by it, and hilariously out of place. I find the concerns about encouraging vandalism unconvincing. 1brianm7 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the history section shows that this topic is indeed notable, contrary to the deletion nomination. As I wrote here, I believe that the mainspace page should be merged into this WP space page, which should then be moved into the mainspace. This page has a longer history than the corresponding mainspace page (which was only created in 2025), so this is the better of the two pages to Keep. Motvating disruptive behavior has never been a valid rationale for deleting a notable topic. Disruptive editors can and should be handled by the standard processes, as usual. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both pages – Per above, mainspace and projectspace have very different standards. FaviFake (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It makes sense that we would cover this from both an encyclopedic point of view and from an editorial point of view. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the two pages serve different purposes. Three minutes before starting this XfD, the main-space page was copypasted moved to the project-space page in Diff/1364930500 and this should be reverted. The project-space page is mostly read by editors and people who are involved in the community to some degree, and so it is written from that perspective. The main-space page is an encyclopaedic entry about a subject that has received SIGCOV, and is meant for readers looking for general information about this phenomenon. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 13, 2026

edit

User:Rakesh maini1

edit
User:Rakesh maini1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Originally created as a webhost in 2015, now blanked, but as there are no contributions by this user in the mainspace, I propose its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there are no contributions by this user in the mainspace is technically not true. They have 11 edits, but only 3 are visible to non-administrators, which indicates that they made edits to a deleted page. I'm pretty sure that page is Rakesh maini. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
busywork.
User:Jan.Kamenicek is incorrect, it was not NOTWEBHOST but was originally created as a new article. It was tagged for G11 and A7, a stretch and incorrect. User:Deb userififed, and it was the same day blanked by the author and not touched again, for 12 years. A quick google search tells me the subject is not Wikipedia-notable. I encourage interested people to add content to the IMDB page at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4043663/. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely it is busywork to find already blanked userpages and revive them at MfD. Busywork is a negative contribution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blank with canonical template added, argument as per Godsy. I'm not sure exactly what happened here a decade ago, but fail to see need for a sledgehammer when a little tap solved the problem long ago, and a 2nd little tap will bring it up to modern convention. Martinp (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rakesh Jaligam

edit
User:Rakesh Jaligam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Use of Wikipedia as a webhost. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A CV, a NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

edit

July 14, 2026

edit

Template:User Wikipedia/AdministratorOdia

edit
Template:User Wikipedia/AdministratorSanskrit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused template which can be completely replaced with {{User Wikipedia/Administrator}}. There is no need for admin templates for different projects. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my same !vote at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User Wikipedia/AdministratorSanskrit. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Wikipedia/AdministratorSanskrit

edit
Template:User Wikipedia/AdministratorSanskrit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused template which can be completely replaced with {{User Wikipedia/Administrator}}. There is no need for admin templates for different projects. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless another argument is presented. For userboxes, redundancy doesn't exactly matter, and I don't see anything in WP:UBCR that applies. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:DEL10 not apply here? Axolitl (talk | contribs) 04:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, not strongly. Don’t confuse Userboxes with templates. Userboxes are technically usually templates, but they are treated like userpages, not templates. TfD is much more deletionist than MfD.
Keep, redirect if the nom is correct with “completely replaced” and userbox template many parameters are not a problem.
Also, distinguish between “unused” and “never used”. If ever used, it is good to keep so that past versions of userpages aren’t broken. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the single period which is in a different (and IMO a less logical) place, and the verify button not having a language code, the template can be completely recreated with {{User Wikipedia/Administrator|Sanskrit Wikipedia|lang_code=sa}}.


{{User Wikipedia/AdministratorSanskrit}} →
This user is an administrator on the Sanskrit Wikipedia (verify).
{{User Wikipedia/Administrator|Sanskrit Wikipedia|lang_code=sa}} →
This user is an administrator on the Sanskrit Wikipedia. (verify sa)
Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I didn't know we had a Sanskrit encyclopedia, but if an editor wants to use this box to display that they are an administrator of an encyclopedia in an ancient language, there is no reason to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1365398849"