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

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: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
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

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

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

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

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	41	40	81
TfD	1	7	8
MfD	1	1	2
FfD	7	7	14
RfD	28	42	70
AfD	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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.

March 15, 2025

User:Popsracer/sandbox

22-year-old sandbox for an editor not seen in 20 years, containing only the word, "empty". BD2412 T 01:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as a coprolite. But is the nominator ragpicking, or is there a reason for their finding these things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: I reject the notion inherent in your essay that ancient untouched user spaces subpages by long absent users impose no structural cost on the encyclopedia. As it happens, I do an insane number of very small routine maintenance tasks. I might wake up one morning and decide to find all the instances of a period-space followed by a comma, which is usually grammatically incorrect, and fix all the ones that are in fact errors. However, since I use the AWB internal search mechanism, this turns up all of the errors in user pages along with those in main space pages. In short, long-abandoned user subpages crowd my list, and this annoys me. Now, I will grant that the page that I have nominated here does not pose such a problem, but it remains useless to any search that might conceivably turn it up, other than my own search specifically for long-untouched userspace subpages by long gone users. Their existence does not serve the reader. Wikipedia is not a permanent host for single words floating in userspace. BD2412 T 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this needs deleting unless there's anything bad in the history. SK2242 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason why this would need to be deleted. 88.97.197.61 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sue Michael Canuck/ban

This 22 year old user subpage is of no possible use to the project at this point. There has been no sign of the sock puppet master in decades, and no reason to expect that this account will have any activity ever again. BD2412 T 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a vestige of an earlier and less organized system of dealing with sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 14, 2025

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kharavela Deva

Abandoned RfA with no realistic chance of revival; see previous rationale established at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/veek2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Админ.МК. it's lio! | talk | work 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 13, 2025

User:Jdvillalobos/beautifulwomen

I do not think I am a prude, but if I had a poster with this image and caption on my wall at my workplace I would receive censure on the grounds that at least a few colleagues would find that a hostile workplace. The same standard ought to apply on Wikipedia. If this person wants to display this image in a private space I'd have no issues with it, but a Wikipedia userpage isn't really a private space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposal, like proposals to set limits on political advocacy, should be put to an RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a policy provision that is more often misinterpreted than interpreted correctly, but it is applicable in this case, and that is Wikipedia is not censored. It is true that this image does not have encyclopedic value, but a lot of userboxes do not have encyclopedic value. An RFC, as mentioned by SmokeyJoe, would be not only to create a new guideline but to amend a long-standing policy. It is a policy that may need rehashing, because it is often misinterpreted, but it is a policy provision. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, with due respect, that's a dreadful misapplication of policy. NOTCENSORED articulates the longstanding principle that we do not subordinate encyclopedic content to the desire of some readers not to see some types of content. This is a userbox, in userspace. It is subject to all our guidelines for interactions between editors, which are considerably more stringent. If NOTCENSORED applied to editor-facing content, our civility policy could not exist.
While we're on the subject, I also strongly disagree with SmokeyJoe's notion that an RfC is necessary. We have applicably policy and practice on how editors are expected to treat each other. We don't need to set a precise demarcation of what appropriate userbox content is to know that this userbox is inappropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vanamonde93, I didn’t say necessary.

I’m for consistency, and I have seen arguments go both ways on things like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think everyone (including the nom) has been fairly eloquent and in general I agree with them all, for various reasons. However, I do think this specific case can be addressed in this venue. On one hand, I think userboxes can be useful to help indicate things about an editor. However, I seem to recall that we've seen people try to put nudity on subpages before, and usually gets removed due to Wikipedia:NOTAGALLERY. I think this is just more of that, but trying to disguise itself as a WP:USERBOX. As that guideline states: "If content is not appropriate on other parts of a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.". I think this is an uncontroversial Delete. - jc37 17:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 12, 2025

User:TSJSwimmer/sandbox

Abandoned draft that was copy-pasted to AfC and G13ed in 2014. Paradoctor (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is now an article, All Sides (LMNT album), which is being updated by normal editing. So this is now an old copy of a mainspace article that does not reflect normal editing and is a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cahpcc/sandbox2

Violation of WP:COPIES from FM transmitter (personal device). Srf123 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This content fork does not reflect updates made to FM transmitter (personal device) since 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cahpcc/sandbox3

Violation of WP:COPIES from Idli. Srf123 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a content fork that does not reflect updates made to Idli since 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 11, 2025

User:Meco/Ascensionism

I was going to G13 this page but then swiftly realized that there was history from 2006 so I decided to go through MfD just in case there's any attribution concerns. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason for deletion offered. It is not G13 eligible because it is not an AfC Userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. And because people policing others userspace and then bringing bad things to a high profile forum is quite a negative. If you think it is worthless or less, blank it, and be more free to do it for 12 year blocked accounts. Use {{Userpage blanked}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per SmokeyJoe. SK2242 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not technically G5 but is close enough. User:Meco is a globally banned user. The history of this page shows that it was created and edited primarily by throw-away accounts that quack and swim and fly like Meco sockpuppets, that have not been reported to SPI because they have been hibernating. Delete as work of banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. Catfurball (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 10, 2025

Draft:Ian Woodside (composer)

Advertorialized draft about a musician with no obvious claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was first created in a user sandbox, before being moved into articlespace by a different username than the creator -- but it was then draftified by a more established user on the grounds that it's referenced entirely to footnotes of the "music metaverifying its own presence on YouTube" variety rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-building coverage in reliable sources. Then the page mover copy-pasted the content into a different new page in their sandbox, and then immediately moved that duplicate copy into articlespace at the variant title Ian Woodside (musician) instead of composer, without making any effort to improve the sourcing at all.
And for added bonus, the usernames involved here were "frandustin" and "dustinentertainment", which obviously triggered the need for a WP:SPI check that's already blocked the Dustins for sockpuppetry. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As promotion, zero acceptable sources for building content, and WP:YAMB. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't exactly a speedy delete for sockpuppetry because the two accounts were not blocked at the time of creation or of move back to article space, but it is close enough that we at MFD should delete it. Also as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2025

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheere

@Fram: raised the outing concerns both at this AfD and at the related Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#Incorrect_draftifications_by_User:NenChemist. There was no point in prolonging the AfD when no one was arguing for deletion, but I'm not sure whether the Outing concerns are sufficient to delete it even IAR, so bringing here for discussion. I'll also notify Liz on her Talk. Star Mississippi 14:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought outing (claiming editor X is real life person Y, without disclosure by X and irrespective of whether it is correct or not) was a bright line policy, requiring blocking and oversight or suppression. At least, that's what is done when "outing" even the most obvious case is done on e.g. ANI. But perhaps this only applies when someone with enough wikifriends is being outed? Anyway, that's a general ramble, thanks for starting the MfD, I just don't understand why it takes so much effort in this case. Fram (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Irrespective of whether or not the initiator of the AfD should be blocked or not (at the very least, even if OUTING doesn't apply - and it likely does here - WP:ASPERSIONS does), the AfD probably shouldn't stick around regardless of the accuracy of NenChemist's accusations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If NenChemist returns and follows a similar pattern, whether inappropriate drafts or UPE accusations, I will not hesitate to reblock Star Mississippi 01:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP:OUTING concern is justified we shouldn't be having this MfD. Oversight the original AfD and this MfD nomination because neither one should exist. Discussion should occur among oversighters. If the AfD isn't outing anyone, there isn't a point to deleting it in my view. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the (supposedly) outed editor is concerned, WP:Courtesy blank the AfD. I don’t see this as being required, but defer to the editor.

In the very unlikely case that blanking is not good enough, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously, the MfD tag also appeared in the AFD log page. I've fixed it by using {{subst:mfd-inline}}. Nickps (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC) ended today on 15 March 2025. 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.

March 2, 2025

Historic places drafts

There are several large lists of drafts on the following subpages:

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Connecticut/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Schenectady County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts

These are all 14 years old, and mostly contain entries that have already been created, although some are redirects. The drafts that don't already exist as articles have little content, most of it automatically gathered as far as I can tell. These lists were created by a now-deceased editor and have not been maintained in many years. Wizmut (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion doesn't save hard drive space. I don't see what is gained by deletion. I don't perceive a meaningful attribution hazard coming from this content, or any other problem.—Alalch E. 13:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might be offtopic but I'm curious if it should be treated as something to be maintained, or simply as archival content. Wizmut (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not as something to be maintained. Maybe as archival content. Most likely it should be treated as nothing. We don't need to delete it to be able not to treat it as anything, we can just ignore it. —Alalch E. 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to permit another examination of these pages. It appears on first examination that these are draft versions of articles that are now in article space. If that is correct, they should probably be deleted as copies of mainspace articles. It is not something to be maintained. It probably has no archival value, but another slightly more detailed, but not exhaustive, review, would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These stubs were generated in a semi-automated process by extracting information from public-domain official sources, and bear no significant human authorship. These pages if copied from, and no one is ever going to do that, would create a copy of something so generic, that attribution isn't really a topic. —Alalch E. 17:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 18, 2025

MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new formatting of the user rights log entries is better than the old formatting. So, this page should be deleted so that the log entries automatically adding "extended confirmed" rights follow the new formatting instead of the old one. GTrang (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this could likely have been better handled with an edit request. See the new text here. I prefer defaults, the original override was in response to feedback that EC grants shouldn't have been viewed as a "promotion". Both the mass change, and the nature of extended confirmed has changed over time. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"DartsWeatherRoyaltyFan automatically changed their group membership: got extended confirmed user"—is that what it's going to be like?—Alalch E. 14:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it will look like this when defaulted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, that does seem a little better. Delete. —Alalch E. 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the passive voice ("was automatically updated") better reflects how EC works than the active voice ("user automatically changed their group membership"). No objections to wordsmithing the text, but I do prefer something other than the default. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, you should probably request that it be changed on Phabricator, since there's no reason for enwiki specifically to be different. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"changing" can simply entail keeping MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote and replacing the current content with new content that is more similar to the default message. —Alalch E. 17:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with Extraordinary Writ here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates