Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

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

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

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: 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

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

• 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

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	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	30	0	30
TfD	0	0	13	0	13
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	33	0	33
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

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.

June 21, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Acharya Institutes

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: No consensus This closure does not bar someone from redirecting, which is an editorial action that does not require a deletion discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Draft:Acharya Institutes Draft:Acharya Institutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) Nthep, I think it's G5-able. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acharya7317. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Acharya Institute of Technology just underwent a massive rewrite by User:Nandalal_acharya -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) Keep: “Already exists” goes to WP:SRE, and a need to check the histories due to the ambiguity of “already” and the possibility that someone is trying to improperly hide an older draft for articlecountis reasons. The use of primary sources is never a reason to delete a draft. The author being blocked is not a reason to delete unless the request comes from a checkuser or an SPI clerk; MfD must not be used for shadow clerking of SPI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Speedy redirect as draft of already existing article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC) 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.

June 19, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions

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... 03:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ We now have a landing page that answers the FAQ pretty well. Interstellarity (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) Delete as redundant — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) I think that would work for all. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) Keep: Was used. Wikipedia history should not be deleted. Archive, redirect, update, but keep the history available in the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 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.

June 15, 2024

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) Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ 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) Keep: WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Keep, but the creator should consider and address the input provided above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 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) 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.

June 14, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Piccadilly

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: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Piccadilly Wikipedia:Piccadilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. WikiProjects are "advertised" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, and there's already places for discussing the topics listed, such as WP:TH, WP:HD, and WP:VP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Actually, WPPicadilly is NOT a help desk. As i stated, its a place to advertise pages and wikiprojects. and you said advertised in quotation, thus it is not really that elligble to be deleted. WPPicadilly is only in its early stages too. Snipertron12 Talk 11:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Why would advertising pages be needed? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Some pages dont get enough attention and sometimes are even overlooked by wikiprojects. Snipertron12 Talk 12:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) You know what. Im changing the premise of WPPicadilly. Snipertron12 Talk 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Isn't that what Wikipedia:Articles for improvement is for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) I will look at the article when im at home because im on a school computer that gets filtered alot. Snipertron12 Talk 12:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Alright. The diffrence from Articles for improvement and Picadilly is that AFI is focusing on ranked articles which are lengthy. Piccadilly aims on new pages/stubs/drafts. Snipertron12 Talk 16:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC) I added a notice to prevent confusion. Snipertron12 Talk 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) I think User:Snipertron12 is trying to make Wikipedia:Piccadilly a Wikiproject. Ned1a Wanna talk? 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Delete: There are many ways to bring attention to articles needing different kinds of improvement. This seems entirely redundant. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Delete. Serves no valid purpose. Maproom (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Currently, it serves no "valid purpose" as it was created JUST today. Snipertron12 Talk 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Delete. You know theres a Wikipedia:Articles for improvement right? Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Again, the diffrence from AFI is that it focuses on newer pages and not older ones. Snipertron12 Talk 16:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Delete Creating Piccadilly to bring attention to the only article you contributed to (Kasane Teto) is self-serving. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Im not aiming for self-serving, Im opening up other oppourtunities, however, i am yet to nominate them as there are no communnity members. Snipertron12 Talk 19:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) As i said multiple times, Piccadilly wasnt made to promote the Teto article, it was made as a faster way to bring attention to new stub articles. Snipertron12 Talk 19:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Snipertron12 Seriously? We have destubathons for a reason. This is clearly self serving, you literally write the word “I” in places like “I made this because I didn’t get the help I wanted” Like Just ask the associated wikiproject to destub it. xq 23:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Delete - underbaked project with no clear purpose as evidenced by the creator stating above You know what. Im changing the premise of WPPicadilly. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) I think this is the crux of it, if even the creator can't say what it's for - it's not for anything. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Delete , pointless project with vague justifications given for its existence. Ratnahastin (talk) Delete. Why does this exist? Idk. xq 23:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Delete Pointless - there are already so many places to ask for help like the Teahouse, WikiProjects, AFI, etc. This project has no clear purpose either, and is likely to either become inactive or another burdensome backlog to add to the already enormous backlog of NPP and AfC. Air on White (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Delete per above Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:SNOW. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:1D2B:6C3:28B8:894C (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Check Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Piccadilly#a;?) Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) x Please read Wikipedia:Piccadilly#EXPLANATION. - Snipertron12 Talk 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) So my understanding of WPPicadilly is that it's meant to bring attention to brand-new, especially small articles for the purpose of.... Jumpstarting their growth? My understanding of Wikipedia is that articles are not meant to grow progressively in perpetuity, but only until all the information about their topic has been covered. So articles where there isn't much to say about the topic are classified as "stubs" because that is the maximum amount of information that is available, verifiable, notable, etc. Also, if someone has taken it upon themselves to create an article (and "raise" it until it's a full article, so to speak), then why couldn't they just ask for advice on Teahouse or have it listed in other areas of Wikipedia for improvement? It seems like there's already systems in place for people to help jumpstart growth in their article. Teahouse gets plenty of exposure, so if people are generally unable or unwilling to help, it is likely due to a lack of knowledge or of interest, neither of which is solvable through the mechanisms of Wikipedia. The only real way to get around this is by reaching out to individuals you already know are interested, whether they're on wikipedia or not. If it's for general formatting, etc. then posing it as specific questions is more likely to get people interested in helping as opposed to asking for "general feedback/help". Specific questions generally win out over general questions in most situations. So while this could be useful for a very small number of people just getting started on articles about very in-depth topics with a lot of information to cover, but which not many people are interested in (which likely doesn't happen very often I believe), and I think it's commendable to try and help out people in any context, it seems that WPPicadilly is ultimately useless. WPPicadilly also seems like a user trying to take things into their own hands because they felt slighted. While an understandable feeling, actions taken for this reason are usually not productive. To be quite honest, this entire situation just reminds me of this meme. Iloveschiaparelli (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Lol this is like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Department_of_Fun but the opposite. Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) y i've litreally put the founding article back as it gained intrest by non-piccadillians. At this point too I'm slowly losing hope for this project. No one actually gave this project a shot and decided to clown on me just because i had to clean alot of things up. I dont mean any harm. im sorry. Snipertron12 Talk 05:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) a Wikipedia:Piccadilly has shut down. are you happy now? - Snipertron12 Talk 05:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Ping @User:CanonNi @User:Nedia020415 @User:DandelionAndBurdock @User:Maproom @User:David_notMD @User:48JCL @User:Whpq @User:Ratnahastin @User:Air on White — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snipertron12 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure why you pinged everyone, but could the page be tagged with {{g7}}, now that it's "shut down"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) An alternative is to move this to your userspace and then G7 the redirect left in wikispace. Air on White (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Im not gonna remove the page due to it now being a notice page. Snipertron12 Talk 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC) I’ll just tag it for g6 then. 48JCL 13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) I tagged it. Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Snow delete: Redundant article. This is not being kept. C F A 💬 13:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Tagged it for g6. Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Might as well delete that---> File:Wikipedia Piccadilly.png Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Established contributors are allowed to keep limited personal images without violating NOTWEBHOST. Air on White (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates