Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Total
CfD	14	75	89
TfD	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	9	17	26
AfD	0	4	4

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.

June 23, 2024[edit]

Draft:SurrealDB[edit]

Promotional article edited primarily by an account which has just been indeffed for writing promotional articles and tendentious editing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional and despite the flurry of sources, few of them are reliable, and even fewer demonstrate anything beyond the fact that the software exists. The article itself doesn't even know if it's trying to source the notability of the company or its software.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A thorough AfD found this was not notable for the article and despite the creator of the article rewriting the source analysis in his favour on the talk page, it remains the case that no sources have been presented that support notability. This, aside from all the other good reasons that this is not suitable for article space, is grounds for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. The attempted restoration of promotional content under "please stop vandalising" or other such similar statements means they just want to promote the software without actually writing it properly. Procyon117 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2024[edit]

Draft:Jack Paul TV Plus[edit]

Speedy delete: It's a fake Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 21, 2024[edit]

Draft:Acharya Institutes[edit]

Acharya Institute of Technology already exists. This draft was written by an editor now blocked for UPE and relies entirely on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, I think it's G5-able. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acharya7317. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The block for the originator does not say that it is a sock block, but that it is a UPE block, which would mean that the block was after the page was created. If the originator and the blocked account are not tied together, then the page can be kept, and allowed to die after six months. But a CheckUser says that is is probably G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, no CU tools were used. Please do not assume that everything a checkuser does involves use of the tools or is done in the user's capacity as a checkuser. All the evidence is laid out at the SPI case. Cabayi (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions[edit]

We now have a landing page that answers the FAQ pretty well. Interstellarity (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I have moved the useful 'Crewbot part' of this page to the new landing page in the maintenance section, so there is little else needed. I think better to rationalize these redundant pages on this project to avoid editors landing on wrong/dead pages. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and blank per Graham87 below. That will solve the problem and avoid any confusion that it is now a redundant page. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the value of article history, particularly as it relates to the landing page and the rest of the Vital Articles project. Air on White (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles: since text has been moved, the history needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Graham87 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work for all. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect per Graham87. Don't see any reason to delete it and preserving the history and attribution has some obvious advantages. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, 79 pages link to this. That's too much to just delete. Air on White (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The page still has a few dozen links to it, and marking it as historical should get across that the information is outdated. Your local Sink Cat 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles: Per above: page history should be kept and link count is too high to delete anyways. I don't see any disadvantages to redirecting. C F A 💬 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 15, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant[edit]

Subject is already covered under Peter and Rosemary Grant. As they worked together, it seems unlikely that there would be much to add to a separate article that couldn't be added to their joint article. Snowman304|talk 18:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter and Rosemary Grant or Merge into Peter and Rosemary Grant. After two cursory reviews, it is not obvious to me whether the draft contains any information that is not in the existing article. If it does, that information should be merged into the article, and then the draft title should be redirected to the article. If there is no new information in this draft, the draft should be redirected to the article. Drafts are not deleted because an article exists. Nominating a draft for deletion because an article exists is a common good-faith error, so Speedy Redirection has been established to deal with these situations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this one is not so obvious an accidental content fork. Refer to Talk:Peter and Rosemary Grant as that’s the appropriate place to decide. Do not mandate a redirect from MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless drafts suffer from severe issues like hoaxes, copyvios, vandalism or promotion (in which case they would have probably been speedied anyway), nominating them for deletion is a waste of time. Just wait 6 months until they get automatically deleted. Air on White (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the creator should consider and address the input provided above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I don't see a reason for a separate article for Rosemary, but that's outside the scope of MfD. Queen of Hearts ^talk 06:46, 20 June 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.

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 June 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.

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates