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	Jun	Total
CfD	30	30
TfD	10	10
MfD	1	1
FfD	1	1
RfD	42	42
AfD	5	5

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 5, 2024[edit]

User:MANJESH MANN[edit]

A stupid copy of Denim, mixed with some additional text that given the broken formatting was almost certainly copied from somewhere else on the internet. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walwal20/RfC Hartley Jackson[edit]

This nomination is for IP user 101.186.135.169, who stated "Abandoned RfC draft - user hasn't edited in over three years" in a PROD. PROD can only be used for actual articles and IPs can't start deletion discussions, so I'm posting it for them. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 4, 2024[edit]

Draft:Chioma Avril Rowland[edit]

A non-notable figure recently appeared in the news due to being engaged to a notable singer, thus WP:INHERITED. It's unreasonable to maintain the draft, which has already been deleted through previous discussions as well as here. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but since it seems difficult to process, I am bringing it here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarkarshubham[edit]

Copy of an old version of Jalebi. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the appearance of the copy isn't stupid, the act of making the unnecessary copy is itself stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but perhaps we shouldn't get into the habit of using the word "stupid." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mutopai west papua[edit]

Stupid copy of an old version of Free Papua Movement. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like all stupid copies, it is also a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 3, 2024[edit]

Draft:FUN 2 RHYME[edit]

This article about a "meme song" has no references or citations and appears like the song is not eligible nor popular enough as a meme or trend to be recognized by the Wikipedia community. Meltdown reverter (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a draft, and should be declined or rejected. Drafts do not need to be nominated for deletion from the New Page queue for notability or sanity reasons, as explained in this essay. Is the nominator a new New Page Patrol reviewer who thought that drafts should be reviewed for sanity? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ayesha Erotica[edit]

Proposing redirect to Ayesha Erotica. This draft cites no reliable sources and is loaded with original research and unverified information; every reliable source is covered in the mainspace article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Completely agreed, A draft with no reliable sources shouldn't be accepted to Wikipedia, according to the policies. The draft might be a copy with terrible sourcing. Meltdown reverter (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The draft predates the article by around 8 months and has a substantial number of edits again predating the article. Is a WP:HISTMERGE in order? Curbon7 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we merge? It has no sources, and its authorship has no overlap. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ayesha Erotica. I made a mistake in reviewing this draft, because I didn't check whether the references were any good. It appears that none of them are any good, and I should have included that as a reason to decline, and probably should not have tagged the draft and the article to be merged. There is no need for a history merge, because it appears that the article was created bona fide and is not borrowing from the draft. The draft should just be blanked and redirected to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2, 2024[edit]

Template:User Generation Alpha[edit]

Our article defines the oldest members of Gen Alpha as having been born in 2010 (or arguably later). Given our Oversight policy against such age disclosures, this userbox should not exist as it just invites people to disclose information about themselves they shouldn't. When the older range of gen Alpha matures into being of an age where self disclosure is not seen as so harmful this teimplate could obviously be re-created. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I made the article a few years, I never considered this, a huge oversight on my part. I guess I was eager to contribute something to this site, however short-sighted I was. I suppose it is too early for the infobox to exist. I am ok with whatever outcome comes of this discussion. -Shift674-🌀^contribs 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barkeep misrepresents policy. There is nothing wrong with minors disclosing that they are minors. The fact of being a minor is not identifying information. The suppression of clear identification of being a minor is a net negative, because it prevents most people from noticing that minors are minors, allowing predators of minors, who tune into more subtle cues, to act with reduced visibility. Children are safest open to widespread public view. Children are not safest when hidden away. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is established practice for the Oversight team to suppress disclosures of personal information and to suppress disclosures of age by minors. It is a reason in the drop-down menu and of the last 1,000 suppression entries, age-related suppressions take up around 19%. That practice started before my tenure on the Oversight team and will probably continue after my departure. Given the risks faced by minors on the internet and current Oversight team practice, I do not see how it would be responsible to let more people notice that someone is a minor and do not see how retention of this template would work. (Note that this issue came to my attention in my capacity as an Oversighter). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the children? Erring on the side of overnighting minors’ ill-considered releases of personal data makes sense. Forbidding minors from self identifying as minors does not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all minors are forbidden from self-disclosure or put another way not all self-disclousres from under 18s are oversighted. The exceptions that are made are far more common the closer you get to 18. The oldest a self identified Gen Alpha is going to be at this point is 14 an age for which onwiki self-disclosures are nearly always going to be OS'ed. In fact I am aware of more 14 year-old editors who have been OS'ed blocked in the last year than 14 year-old editors whose self-disclosures were ultimately allowed to stand (the latter category being 1). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the oversighters have been making this stuff, pseudopolicy, up for years, without reference either to community discussion or child safety evidence. Did oversighters ever have a proper discussion, or did the practice just evolve into existence?

For better child safety, children benefit from looking like children due to bystander security. Grooming doesn’t happen in view of other adults.

I guess there is probably WMF assumed responsibility to protect children from revealing self-identifying information, which is probably only very good, but extrapolating this to mere identification as a minor, otherwise anonymous, goes beyond the optimum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure about Joe's idea that this userbox is a child safety tool in the face of predators who can notice children expertly, but it doesn't apparently violate any policy, and anyone is allowed to disclose their age on Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asking the children to "hide away". In fact I want them to edit and do so without issue and having your user page oversighted and having to receive a "don't do that" from an oversighter sure seems like a disinecentive to a child editing. No one needs to know anyone's age on wikipedia to be an editor - there are maybe 5 editors who knows how old I am (though many more could guess my general age). So yes let's have children editors and yes let's protect children editors from choices that they don't have all the information to make and yes let's not create a honeypot for child predators. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have said, it is long-established that we suppress personal details (that's what this is, it's personal information about the age of a user) where users may not realise that such information is public or don't fully understand the potential consequences of making such a disclosure (for example, minors). This is done in policy under OSPOL#1. A template like this which (currently) can only serve to identify individuals as minors should be deleted since it misleads minors (and clearly others too) into thinking that disclosure of personal information like this is acceptable, and is useless anyway since every single transclusion of this template will be suppressed by the Oversight team when we become aware of it. Keeping it around is at best making more work for others, and at worst exposing personal details potentially forever opening them up to identity theft, stalking, harassment, etc in later life. stwalkerster (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that what you write is reasonable, the answer is to privately give advice to the minor, to possibly request verification of receipt of advice to parents from their guardian. To simply delete the template seems more to satisfy a wish to be able deny responsibility of protection of children. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said this to anyone on wiki before: fuck you for saying that I am trying to deny responsibility for protecting children. Above you suggest that children benefit from looking like children in the presence of adults. This presumes that the grooming is going to happen onwiki which is, in my experience, a faulty assumption. More likely the Wikipedia groomer is going to find their target onwiki and then do the actual work offwiki (such as via email or Discord). This template would make identifying such potential targets easier which is why I am seeking its deletion. I 100% believe you have good intentions and child safety on your mind and fuck you for not believing the same about me. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User access level changes[edit]

Single-page content with no template parameters. Copy into that page for ease of maintenance, then delete this template. [Note: It looks like this was put in MFD by Twinkle automatically instead of TFD. It's fine to discuss it here, since it's really page content for the Wikipedia space, not a real template.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep pending an explanation that I understand of why it should be deleted. If the issue is that it has no template parameters and is not used as a template, why not Move it to Wikipedia space, which will preserve history? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:User access levels/User access level changes and let it be transcluded on the primary page. This could just as easily have been a talk page discussion or even a unilateral move, and no one would have cared. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samrajaugustin[edit]

Copy of WP:PAGEHIST. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a stupid copy with all of the formatting, which is less stupid than the usual stupid copy, but still stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't that just make it a copy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if the appearance of the copy isn't stupid, the existence of the copy is stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have written an essay, WP:Stupid copies, because these keep being found and nominated for deletion. Other editors are welcome to cite the essay, which summarizes the policy reasons why the stupid copies are stupid, and to expand the essay if that is thought appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork.

User:Kassandra Fernandez[edit]

Copy of an old version of Glaiza de Castro. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a stupid copy that is an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 1, 2024[edit]

Draft:Dzelo[edit]

Clearly not of encyclopedic value. Article for Cyrillic letter dzelo already exists, draft filled with gibberish and random references. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This draft would have been deleted via WP:G13 in 2 weeks had you not nominated it. Curbon7 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 30, 2024[edit]

Draft:Sols rng[edit]

Attempted creation of a Roblox Wikipedia/game guide within actual Wikipedia. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not of help to building an encyclopedia. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a ROBLOX player myself, I have high suspicion that this game will never, ever, become notable by Wikipedia's standards, which applies to nearly every roblox game out there. This is just a copy of fandom's Sol's RNG wiki home page. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 29, 2024[edit]

Draft:Love Mocktail 2 (2024)[edit]

This draft is a modified copy of Love Mocktail 2 except it is for the Telugu language release of the film. I've repaired the attribution but there is no need for a separate article on a different language release. Normally, I would redirect the draft to to the main space article but feel that the disambiguated title is actively misleading as this is a film that was released originally in 2022. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love Mocktail 2. The incorrect date in the title in a draft is not worth worrying about. If someone wants to change it, RFD is thataway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 02:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 5 July 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.

June 26, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Neklyudov, Sergei Yuryevich

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: redirect * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Neklyudov, Sergei Yuryevich[edit]

Abandoned draft of a banned user - Altenmann >talk 09:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at this time, pending an explanation from a bona fide editor of either the harm done by it or the value of it - This page only exists because of users diddling with it, rather than allowing it to be abandoned as a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is "diddling" with it since November 7, 2023‎, i.e., it is abandoned. The user simply copied the text from Lower mythology, i.e., there is nothing of he bio. And in fact I wrote up a valid article Sergey Neklyudov - Altenmann >talk 16:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Sergey Neklyudov per WP:SRE. Since the draft was not created in violation of the block (tangent: user is not banned) WP:BANREVERT does not apply. Nickps (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about confusion: I was confused with terminology "indef block" vs "ban" - Altenmann >talk 17:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sergey Neklyudov - Drafts are not deleted because of the existence of an article, but are redirected to the article. The blanking of the page and the incorrect nomination for speedy deletion on 31 December were diddling. If the draft had been left alone, it would have gone away in May. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before redirecting, please add any relevant text from the draft to the target article or some other appropriate article. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content was in Lower mythology before nom removed it. Assuming their edit summary is correct, and I have no reason to do otherwise, there's no appropriate article for this text to be added to. Nickps (talk) 12:28, 3 July 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.

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates