Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFDHOWTO)
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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.
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

How to list pages for deletion

edit
Shortcut

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 Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 1 47 48
TfD 0 0 0 19 19
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 4 11 15
RfD 0 0 1 30 31
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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.

October 22, 2025

edit

Draft:Carlton Little(C Mayja)

edit
Draft:Carlton Little(C Mayja) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Individual writing about themselves Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikisteveb4/sandbox

edit
User:Wikisteveb4/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Blatant WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 21, 2025

edit

Draft:Divergent series

edit
Draft:Divergent series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Procedural follow-up to WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14#Draft:Divergent Mathematics with no opinion on merit. Pinging all RfD participants @Paradoctor, Steel1943, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, and 204.111.137.106:. Left guide (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WPMATH. Left guide (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 20, 2025

edit

User:Ibn Tahere/Mizanur Rahman Azhari

edit
User:Ibn Tahere/Mizanur Rahman Azhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Article deleted countless times per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizanur Rahman Azhari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizanur Rahman Azhari (2nd nomination), also deleted at various other locations including Mizanur Rahman (preacher), Mizanur Rahman Azhari (Islamic scholar) and Mizanur Rahman Azhari (Preacher). Draft also deleted multiple times at Draft:Mizanur Rahman Azhari as recently at 10 October. FDW777 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. I think that some of the deletions from draft space were correct and some were incorrect. It isn't always necessary to delete rogue drafts from draft space or user space. Deleting this will only cause the spelling to be changed. Just keep it out of article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Western Regional Storage Trust

edit
Draft:Western Regional Storage Trust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Merge to California Digital Library. Independent notability is tenuous, a merged article would strengthen both topics. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this instead as a deletion discussion, with merger and redirection as one possible alternative. For one thing, it's unlikely that the talk: page of a yet-uncreated article would have any audience.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Big Ten Academic Alliance Print Program too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there evidence that this draft was generated by artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon, not sufficient for WP:G15. There is one reference that 404s:
    • "PAPR record example for WEST holdings". Center for Research Libraries. Retrieved 19 October 2025.
    (And obviously it is surprising that a URL that was allegedly accessed on 19 October does not exist on 21 October.)
    Additionally, there are two characteristics of the content that I have previously seen in other LLM generated articles:
    • Multiple references at the end of paragraphs, including the lead, few if any at the ends of sentences within paragraphs
    • References that are formatted as one field per line, rather than space delimited
    But that is circumstantial at best. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge carefully to California Digital Library. I agree with Andy Dingley that some of the content in this draft would bolster the existing article nicely. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Max Freedom Pollard

edit
Draft:Max Freedom Pollard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Notability. This is questionable, and there are several articles and sections hanging off this, such that sorting out Mr Freedom's notability first would simplify a lot of issues.

He's the author of two self-published books, which seem to have attracted no secondary interest. His press coverage is almost all about a bizarre armed siege. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft, article standards do not apply to drafts. Every draft falls short of Wikipedia's standards, that's why they are drafts. It would have to be up to standard if and when it is resubmitted only. PaulHSAndrews (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as drafts go, this one is better than most. It's just that - a draft - and according to Wikipedia standards, it is only after 6 months of abandonment that a draft can be deleted, excepting very special circumstances and multiple users agreeing to the deletion. This is a draft, not a published article.
Can you quote the part of the current draft which you believe requires non-standard, immediate deletion?
PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"article standards do not apply to drafts"
Please don't try and explain WP policy to us, that's likely to end badly. Both your understanding of policy and your judgement is seriously underdeveloped as yet, to the point where you're teetering on the edge of an indefinite CBAN (and worse than that, an infamous CBAN, the sort that becomes so memorable that there's no return from it). So humility, not hubris, would be advisable.
WP:BLPN applies to both articles and drafts. Enforcement might not be so stringent on drafts, but that's a subtle distinction. Certainly a draft would be excused failing to demonstrate notability. But if an article's topic is 'just not notable' and shows no sign that notability could ever be demonstrated for that subject (and specifically, the subject as they are today – who knows what they might do tomorrow) then be assured that a draft can be deleted for that, just as easily as an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't try to explain it, it's already explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft
“Community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeatedly posting the same thing, or large chunks of the article itself, whilst also missing the whole point being made, is not a convincing debating technique. Your ANI posts also fell into the 'wall of text' trap and that doesn't work well here on WP.
If you want to make a case for saving this article and coverage of Freedom Pollard, then do so by showing independent sources arguing to his notability as an author. Because nothing else is likely to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulHSAndrews: There's no need to clutter this discussion with a copy of the draft itself. That's what the links are for. It's alao quite unhelpful to remove the pointer to this discussion from the top of the draft. I will be restoring that now. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections
"Moving an article to draftspace, like any action, requires consensus. It may initially be carried out as a bold move if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so is uncontroversial. But if another editor—including the creator of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest—objects to the move (for example by moving the page back to mainspace), then it is not uncontroversial. In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time."
As I have contested the deletion, this draft is now controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADrafts
“Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft
In an RfC … community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable author, at best known for WP:BLP1E, that is, his arrest. Creating editor probably has some sort of COI with the subject (see [1]), as yet undisclosed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seven Hills library reference looks like it might have been user-generated content, to some degree. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject is clearly not notable, to the degree that there's no realistic chance this draft could become a viable article in the foreseeable future; and it's reasonably likely to cause him harm in the meantime. I've removed the copy that was pasted into the middle of this discussion. —Cryptic 17:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unhelpful to the project at this juncture. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability borderline at best: the strongest claim in my view is the lawsuit by his employer becoming part of case law, but I can't find any reports of that other than the case documentation. I can't find published reviews of either book, the library positions do not confer notability, and the arrest is a negative event with no long-lasting coverage. No biographical info apart from the unsourced birth year. Largely concur with Cryptic; rather than letting this languish as a borderline negative BLP of a non-notable person, better to delete the draft. Note to PaulHSAndrews: Deletion is not final. A new article can be created if Pollard achieves notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Seven Hills library is known to only one source, updated/created on the day that content was added to the article and possibly reliant solely on a user submission; the library is otherwise unknown to search engines. The cited source does not say he serves on the University of Adelaide Library committee, only the far less significant Friends of the University of Adelaide Library committee. The books are self-published and no significant reviews are offered. The text in "2024 Sydney police operation" seems to breach WP:SYNTH as sources do not generally name the subject, and no coverage of any trial is offered. Only primary sources for "Supreme Court litigation" are provided; it seems to have gone unreported. Notability, however much the subject may desire it, is not established. NebY (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just doesn't pass the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironically, despite the COI concern, parts of this come close to an attack page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's one reason why I don't think there is any COI here. An odd fixation on the subject, maybe. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no COI, why would the subject link this page in the literal back cover of their book? Surely he desires this info being there for some reason. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but this edit on the same day as the creation of the source does make me suspect communication from subject to editor, and both that and this inflation of the subject's importance make me suspect editing in the subject's interest. NebY (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Yesterday I was inclined to say that the draft, like its subject, seemed merely eccentric and mostly harmless. Following the direction that the related ANI thread has taken, I'm now open to the possibility that Pollard and/or PaulHSAndrews are attention-seekers who are pranking or trolling us. (I don’t know how else to characterise the behaviour documented in the draft's sole reliable news source.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ClaudineChionh, that article is behind a paywall. Can you give a brief indication of the relevant points in it? JBW (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I sometimes forget what might be inaccessible to others.
"Bizarre videos emerge from inside 10-hour eastern suburbs siege" (23 October 2024)
Tactical police were sent to Pollard's apartment building following his refusal to leave after being evicted. Pollard filmed the ten-hour incident and posted some of this to Instagram. He was finally arrested and unauthorised firearms were found in his home.
The article says about his background:
  • Pollard claims on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for Harvard University in the US, as a staff member for the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission (ACIC), and as a “security equipment specialist”. He also wrote his own translation of the New Testament which “restores original meaning” to the text.
  • A spokesperson for the ACIC said Pollard “is not and never has been an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission staff member.”
ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this would last five minutes in article space? (where it was, just a couple of days ago) 'Rules don't apply to drafts' is a very weak argument. When it inevitably went to AfD, would the outcome be to draftify it, or simply to delete it as unfixable non-notable BLP?
The point here isn't that the draft doesn't demonstrate notability, it's that the subject is not notable as either an author, a defendant, or as an armed besiegee and (crucially) there is no conceivable situation where we might change that viewpoint. We've done as much investigation of the subject as is practical for an AfD, and it's just not convincing that this non-notability opinion might change. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts do not need to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Big Ten Academic Alliance Print Program

edit
Draft:Big Ten Academic Alliance Print Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Redirect and merge to a new section within Big Ten Academic Alliance.

That article is small enough at present that this new section could easily be added. The new part is aready questioned (AfC rejection) for being independently notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 19, 2025

edit

Draft:Imprinting (ethology)

edit
Draft:Imprinting (ethology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Duplicates Imprinting (psychology) Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 18, 2025

edit

User:Soaper1234/Characters of Waterloo Road

edit
User:Soaper1234/Characters of Waterloo Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:RFORK of List of Waterloo Road characters. Paradoctor (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep – This is not an article, this is a Userpage that Soaper1234 is (presumably) using to test edits to expand things before moving them to the page. Users are allowed to have drafts of articles or just test things in their sandboxes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is within my user space and therefore, not an article in mainspace. It is a page I am (slowly) building up over time, just like many other users do. Soaper1234 - talk 17:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a Speedy Keep. When Speedy Keep is written without specifying a Speedy Keep number, it usually means "I don'tlike this XFD". This is not SK1 or Sk3. Speedy Keep is at least as often misstated as stated properly. I haven't finished reviewing this nomination, but the two above votes should be treated as ordinary Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this is a sandbox being used to improve the existing article. I see from the history that they managed to spin off a separate article from this while working on it. I get that it hasn't been edited in a few years, but User:Soaper1234 is an active editor and I don't think it's completely stale. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:CarterJSoule4

edit
User:CarterJSoule4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=&rev1=1061256570&page2=&rev2=1061255395. Or is it a megalame hoax? Paradoctor (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sourav bepari/sandbox

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

Unsourced BLP. Paradoctor (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. I can find sources, Facebook and Instagram, but these are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, and WP:BLPPROF requires the page to have been completely unsourced when called out, and then a reliable source must be added within 7 days. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sourpink/CR (record producer)

edit
User:Sourpink/CR (record producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unsourced BLP. Paradoctor (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 17, 2025

edit

User:Somatochlora/symphyotrichumlist

edit
User:Somatochlora/symphyotrichumlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:COPIES and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=&rev1=991761679&page2=&rev2=991941334 Paradoctor (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 15, 2025

edit

Draft:List of lists of lists of lists

edit
Draft:List of lists of lists of lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a topic that clearly will never make it into mainspace - there is pretty much no reason why a list with only one item will exist. It is also evident that it was created as a joke without intentions of ever getting it to mainspace - the original author hasn't made a single edit besides the actual creation, and all the other edits have just been declined speedy deletion nominations as well as an AfC nomination by a random IP that was declined for obvious reasons. I and everyone else here appreciate jokes but there's a place for that and draft space is not it. interstatefive  23:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:242D:93FF:FE0B:97A9 (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:NDRAFT. It surely won't pass AfC, but there's no immediate action needed. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 14, 2025

edit

Template:User Mixed race

edit
Template:User Mixed race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Salvio giuliano 06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can be from another country ethnically and still not be mixed race - for example, your parents could be Irish, but you're brought up in Norway. Still white nonetheless. Second, it's of very niche use - there's a fixed German/Spanish flag. I feel like this template is kind of useless. jolielover♥talk 05:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the user and help them introduce themself better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jolie, if you really want ask the maker of the template and ask if you can change the image, and the image is also depicting mixed race. But for me, I oppose. And even with your first explanation, they don't really even have to put the template. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk me 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, the different flags were to represent different places. Also, you can make different types of this template linked as a see also link. Furthermore, this would be my situation, making me mixed race and others with similar ways like this. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

edit


October 12, 2025

edit

User:Rocketball gopalakrishnan

edit
User:Rocketball gopalakrishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:FAKEARTICLE created by a user who has also created a draft on this same topic that got G11'd. Either self-promotion or some other undisclosed COI. Probably AI-generated as well. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother,
I created this page with the intention of providing accurate information about the sport “Rocket Ball” on Wikipedia.
It was not created for any promotional purpose.
This sport was invented in Tamil Nadu, India, in 2003.
As the founder of this game, I shared information about it, but I fully respect Wikipedia’s guidelines and am willing to make any necessary changes to ensure the page complies with Wikipedia’s policies.
The page was not AI-generated; it is entirely written by me.
I am eager to continue contributing in accordance with Wikipedia’s principles and community standards. Rocketball gopalakrishnan (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello brother,
I created this page with the intention of providing accurate information about the sport “Rocket Ball” on Wikipedia.
It was not created for any promotional purpose.
This sport was invented in Tamil Nadu, India, in 2003.
For the past 100 years, no new sport has been introduced from Tamil Nadu.
Rocket Ball is a completely new creation, and I want to document its full history and rules properly here.
I am updating the rules step by step, and I will also add proper references and proof links in the reference section to support the content.
As the founder of this sport, I shared information sincerely, but I fully respect Wikipedia’s policies and am ready to make any changes needed to ensure the page follows Wikipedia’s guidelines.
This page was not AI-generated; it is entirely written by me.
I wish to continue contributing positively in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards and community principles. Please verify and give me the opportunity. Rocketball gopalakrishnan (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as duplicate of Draft:Rocketball (sport): I'm not sure if this is the same material that was G11'd, but it looks like the draft has been recreated regardless, and has the exact same article structure as the userpage. The draft is the newer version of these pages and the content is almost exactly the same, just with a few minor number changes. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

edit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1318128466#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion"