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.
Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion, 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 you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~ to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process:(replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)
Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
I.
Edit PageName:
Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:
{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}
or
{{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.
The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"
Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.
Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:
{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.
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.
Project was created in 2015 and has 1 member (the creator) and zero non-automated talk page discussions. This never was a project. A single singer or band don't need a stand-alone project and usually not even a task force as the amount of articles isn't that big. Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The originator was indeffed for not contributing to the encyclopedia, but mostly just doing useless stuff with useless user pages, and this is one of them. If we don't know what this is for, it almost certainly has no use that has anything to do with maintaining or building an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Project about a singer with 1 member and 1 talk page discussion about how this project shouldn't have been created and the creator agreeing. The 9 articles (according to the project) it has are not even worthy of a task force. Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The project page had 29 pageviews in the year 2023. (That means that on 336 days, no one looked at it.) The project talk page, where the work of the project should be done, had 5 pageviews in the year 2023. They were sitting there and doing nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joseph and also, accept that I made a mistake as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Wikiproject WPL notice. I have been thinking about this for a while and was actually going to make a proposal this weekend, which would've been for these WikiProjects to be superseded by respective taskforces of WP:CRIC. Current WikiProjects can be renamed and reworked into new taskforces as shown below.
CommentJoseph2302 just summed up what's wrong with Wikipedia as a whole with the statement because it is a tournament that runs for less than 1 month a year (and so WikiProject will be dormant for most of the rest of the year). There's a shit-ton more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than merely regurgitating yesterday's headlines and trending topics. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like it could've been useful but the one member and creator has not edited since 2013. No attempt to revive over the past decade. CFA💬17:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The project page had 15 pageviews in 2023. That is total pageviews in the year, not an average. The work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page, but the project talk page had 1 pageview in the year 2023. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this as a violation of NOTWEBHOST; Explicit declined this, saying it wasn't a clear violation--but this user has 5 (five) main space edits. Something similar applies to other sandboxes, which the user blanked as soon as I tagged them, and U5 was declined there too.
Delete all. If this user had any sort of editing history I'd urge good faith courtesy blanking as an AtD. In these cases, it's unclear what purpose these sandboxes serve to Wikipedia even if they serve some unknown purpose to a barely here account. BusterD (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: the user is an apparent non-contributor with 5 edits outside userspace, so this would've been textbook U5 if they weren't blanked to avoid deletion. CFA💬01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per everyone above, clear U5 violation, appreciate the good faith by the declining admin but you don't need 5 sandboxes for little and random things. –Davey2010Talk17:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: It was just created yesterday. They may well have been working on it until the deletion notice popped up. I agree, I can't find any sources that would establish notability, but deleting it seems excessively harsh. CFA💬02:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Move to draft and let the creator continue expanding it, if they don't it can then be deleted after x amount of months. No valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010Talk17:14, 13 August 2024 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Project created in 2015 and has ever had only 2 members interested in it. The banner itself has only 19 transclusions. This is extremely low even for a task force. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The activity of a WikiProject takes places mostly on its talk page. The talk page had zero posts in 2024, and 5 pageviews in the year 2024. That is 1 pageview every 44 days. The project page had 28 pageviews in 2024. I haven't looked at activity in previous years, but I don't think that is necessary to show that this WikiProject either has died or was stillborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the year 2023, there were 2 pageviews of the project talk page in the year. 1 of them was the one post to the talk page, and was about quality assessments, and so appears to have been a message to all WikiProjects. Other than that, there was 1 other view of the project talk page in the year. Nobody is paying any attention to the project talk page, which means that nobody is taking part in the project. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This userbox was created by a user in a userspace that wasn't theirs. Also, IP addresses are not typically supposed to have pages in their userspace. The edits creating this userbox were the only edits ever made by its creator. It does not seem to be in use on any page at the moment, and it is not linked to. There is no reason we should keep this. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked for a guideline stating that user pages should normally not be edited by other users, or that editing another user's user space is improper. I didn't find such a guideline. Maybe I overlooked it. If so, will someone please point it out to me? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That needs strengthening. It says In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. That is mealy. Maybe there needs to be a specific statement that creating subpages of another user's user or user talk page is disruptive. But thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the absence of a guideline, the rule to Use Common Sense applies, and using the user space of another user, or of an IP address, seems just wrong, as is the existence of a user space for an IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No transclusions and creating this userbox was the creator's only edits before going inactive. If they were ever active or there were transclusions I'd just move it into their userspace. CFA💬01:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: per CFA. I assume this user accidentally created this as a subpage of their IP, and I'd say move it to their userspace, but this is their only edits and it has no transclusions. Queen of Hearts(talk)19:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC) ended today on 17 August 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.
Each of these has either been languishing since before 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g🗯️06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG:historical pages are meant to serve as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of the history of the project governance? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)
LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.
Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.
If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g🗯️08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?
LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.
Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe's idea to userfy them seems pretty smart, so I would be fine with keeping the ones that are significant-in-some-vague-sense, and then userfying the ones that would otherwise be deleted. jp×g🗯️22:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19. I responded to the 'Requests for adminship are now being considered' type notice the only way I knew how. Was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 the wrong way to apply? I received no response, positive or negative. I sometimes struggle with editing but seek to improve. Though I still aspire to be an admin I realise that I may not yet be as technically able or have enough dedicated time as the role demands. The intention of my request for adminship was genuine even if the method of my application was incorrect, therefore Keep. AndrewSE19 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep at current titles, but do not delete. The option was presented above to "userfy", so that may be an option. Either way, these RFAs never went live, so keeping them at their current titles is misleading since the structures of these titles assume they are the 1st time these editors were subject to a live RFA, which never happened. Maybe the creation of a page such as Wikipedia:Requests or adminship (drafts) may need to be created to allow these never-live RFA pages to become subpages of it, in addition to potentially being a landing page for potential RFA candidates to post their draft RFA statements prior to moving them as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship when they go live. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except AndrewSE19 as obsolete useless cruft. If a specific user wants a specific request userfied, I have no objection, otherwise these pages' existence is pointless. * Pppery *it has begun...04:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]