Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21ebcffae592877

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:MFD (disambiguation).


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.
Deletions in draftspace
  • Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context.
  • Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here.
  • 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.
  • For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
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 page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, 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 moving it into the historical archive, or 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 does not 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 Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 0 122 122
TfD 1 0 2 3 6
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 22 28 9 59
RfD 0 0 0 35 35
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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 27, 2026

[edit]

User:ErrorUserNotFound404/archive

[edit]
User:ErrorUserNotFound404/archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

ErrorUserNotFound404 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Cowboy Xbox

[edit]
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Cowboy Xbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Article about a made-up character that's been placed under a Wikipedia project page. WP:A11 if it weren't in the project namespace. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Astropulse/sandbox
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: seek speedy deletion. @Astropulse: There is no need to nominate one's own sandbox (or, generally, other personal subpages) here. Also, in the future, please tag pages nominated at this venue with the appropriate deletion template (i.e. {{mfd}}; you seem to have reverted the notice for some reason) and provide (at least) a basic deletion rationale. That aside, I took the liberty of applying the appropriate criteria for speedy deletion template to the page on your behalf (the page is clearly eligible; however—on the extremely off-chance it is it is declined, I will reopen this discussion). (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astropulse/sandbox

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

Astropulse (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2026 (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.

Draft:Mobile Suit Gundam RG XARX-ZERO

[edit]
Draft:Mobile Suit Gundam RG XARX-ZERO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

page now actually exists... SBF2004 (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2026

[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject heritage traffic and looting

[edit]
Wikipedia:Wikiproject heritage traffic and looting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This would be the root page of an ostensible "Wikiproject heritage traffic and looting", but since a WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia by focusing on a specific topic area and is not a page, and because there is no such group in reality, this is a fake WikiProject page, i.e., a page representing a non-existent WikiProject in its title. However, regarding its content, it is yet something else: the projectspace analogue of a WP:FAKEARTICLE on the topic of "illegal trafficking of cultural heritage". The content is unsourced, and the page should not be turned into an article. —Alalch E. 12:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 24, 2026

[edit]

Draft:Simamkele Damesi

[edit]
Draft:Simamkele Damesi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unsourced BLP draft. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 10:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reliable source, [1]. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, this draft was only created today and only contains one sentence. The creator has been blocked for username policy violation, but they could come back with a more appropriate username. TruenoCity (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reason for deletion having been obviated. As a (sourced though incomplete) draft, it is unremarkable. Martinp (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2026

[edit]

User:Wiscipidier/sandbox

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

Sandbox copy-paste of Olivia Rodrigo, undergoing an apparent rewrite to change her name to "Livvy Girl" without adding any reliable sources to support that she uses that name at all (and Google offers up no other verification of any kind either.) It violates WP:BLP to falsely claim that she's known by a name that she isn't known by, and this violates rules about when it is or isn't appropriate to WP:COPYWITHIN as well. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 21, 2026

[edit]

Wikipedia:Stern warning about promotion

[edit]
Wikipedia:Stern warning about promotion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a copy of a rude response to a COI editor at the Teahouse. It's not an essay that anyone can edit, because if you change anything, you're changing it to a misquotation. I thought about userifying it, but the page was created by someone other than the author, and the original is in the Teahouse archives anyway, so there's no need for a second copy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Jéské Couriano should probably know about this, since he's the original author of the text (but isn't the page creator). I also left an mfd notice on the creator's talk page. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought it was useful to have this particular response with the other essays. I get that where I have done this, being able to edit changes the original message. But if people don't want it in the essays, then I guess it should go. Is there any place where notable Teahouse responses should go where they can't be edited, or a way to link to the Teahouse archives from where we link to essays?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only linked on two pages (an AFD comment and on a User_talk: page), and the average page views are about once every two or three days, so I doubt there will be much interest in having links spread around. Anyone who really wants to link it in a comment can link to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1160#c-Jéské Couriano-20220809232200-Bikashdaga09-20220808062200.
    However, I question whether it would be good judgment to link to it. The situation at hand was a newcomer who had tried to add three (3) sentences to Wikipedia about their ed tech website. The edit got reverted less than 30 seconds later, and the newcomer promptly asked for advice at the Teahouse, where they openly disclosed their COI. Note that they did not revert anyone or say a single unpleasant word.
    The response, however, pretty much violates all of the Teahouse host expectations (which were research-based, BTW):
    • Welcome everyone? No, that says that newcomers who disclose a COI are "barely tolerated". It then goes on to threaten a newcomer that a block for Wikipedia:No legal threats (a total overreaction). This is not welcoming behavior.
    • Be polite and patient? No, it opens by speaking derogatorily about people's religion ("We're not interested at all in anything...your holy men have to say" – how is that relevant?) and ends with an assertion that the community will cause the newcomer "suffering".
    • Keep it simple? No, it's more than 350 words long (roughly six times as long as either of the prior respondents), wanders off into the weeds about irrelevant subjects.
    • Avoid over-linking? No, he put 16 links in that comment (IMO only two of them were relevant, and they'd both already been provided by @Cullen328).
    In short, I think this is just an unfortunate outburst, and the sensible, community-oriented thing to do is to remind ourselves that everyone has the occasional bad day, and although it didn't get reverted at the time, we can do our part by never mention its existence again. And possibly by collecting the Teahouse regulars and inquiring whether they need help with enforcing their expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insert preface information - This quote which is labeled as an essay is not really an essay and doesn't provide content. It should be preceded by a brief statement about what was asked at the Teahouse to which this was an answer. As an answer to a question, it reflects an attitude toward COI editors that is within the Overton window of attitudes of experienced editors toward COI editing. It is true that many experienced editors barely tolerate COI editors. Sometimes COI editors need to learn sooner rather than later that many experienced editors barely tolerate COI editors. On the one hand, it is true that User:Jéské Couriano broke the etiquette standards of the the Teahouse, but he spoke the truth that would have been welcomed in some other Wikipedia forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with all arguments from WhatamIdoing. This article does nothing to make Wikipedia a better place. Lova Falk (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We have quite a bit of leeway about user essays and redirects. The tone of this response is only slightly more harsh than the much-lauded WP:GOODBIAS. wound theology◈ 11:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wound theology, unlike WP:GOODBIAS, this is neither a WP:USERESSAY nor a WP:REDIRECT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is at least nominally a user essay and I did not claim it was a redirect. But it there is little difference between a userspace essay with a Wikipedia namespace redirect and an essay just in the Wikipedia namespace. wound theology◈ 00:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get this is not a good example of proper Teahouse behavior. It IS, however, a good example of someone getting fed up with promotional editing and I thought it was something some people ought to read. For some people who write promotional articles, it might be the message they need to see. How this would be accomplished, I'm not sure.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You created this page two and a half years ago. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Stern warning about promotion doesn't show any evidence that you have ever linked to it in any discussion with any individual (whether they write promotional articles or otherwise). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not out of line for an essay, and while the (current) words are of one editor (interestingly not the one who memorialized them as an essay), it is a not unreasonable opinion shared by many. Personally, I think this is too harsh, and (admittedly at the risk of creating work for reviewers) it's only right to point COI editors at draftspace as one option. But that's my opinion, and others have different ones, and that's OK. We are struggling what to do with paid and other promotion and it is perfectly reasonable we have a range of opinions and wordings people want to use (e.g. the next one in the MFD queue). I do think either a preface (as @Robert McClenon mentions) or collaborative editing of the text would be helpful, as a good alternative to deletion. The latter, by the way, should of course preserve attribution of the original to Jeske, and not claim to be a quote if the wording is changed; that would the nominator's misquote concern editorially. Martinp (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. Do not delete because it is a project related essay, and the possible perception of censorship of disliked project opinions is a bigger negative than a long term editor wanting to amplify a rude post by another. “No need” is a very weak argument for deletion. In userspace, it no longer implies the Voice of Wikipedia. Is it too rude? I think it is no more rude than WP:ENC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in project space noting it has User:Pppery‘s support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Martinp and I don't see the problem with having an essay that takes the kid gloves off; while that phraseology may have been inappropriate in the context of the Teahouse that doesn't mean it's appropriate in other places that might link to it. * Pppery * in solidarity 00:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I Oppose userfication * Pppery * in solidarity 04:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pppery, why don’t to do a dummy edit and note support? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to allow the page author a reasonable way to refer to the past post of another in a convenient manner as they would seemingly like. This preservation is being used to apparently champion agreement (not ostensibly in a defamatory fashion), leading to few overarching qualms about the situation on my end. There is enough support for it above that I cannot say that the opinion is so poor that it need not be reinvoked. If it gains more traction, then it may be considered for return to the projectspace in the future. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support userfy per nominator and above. I would agree that this doesn't really belong in projectspace as this is not a user essay, and is a poor example of a teahouse response to someone looking to promote on Wikipedia. TruenoCity (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 03:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uneditable essay. It is uneditable in a way which circumvents the principle that Wikipedia shall maintain the character of a wiki and therefore does not permit ownership of content (WP:OWN): "All Wikipedia pages … are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it)." The design of the page inherently means that the creator is the owner because he created the essay as solely consisting of a quote of a comment, and any edit to the comment would be misquoting the original author, which would be inappropriate. For a page that clearly expresses a viewpoint, and is indeed intended to be read and circulated as an essay, this is not acceptable; essays can represent minority viewpoints, but even as such they still must remain editable and cannot have an owner. As a result of the way this essay has been conceived, it is a page that would have to be editable and is not, and since this is irreconcilable with policy, it should be deleted. As an alternative, I am fine with userfication, but then the essay tag should be removed; instead, the page would be an archive of a single comment.—Alalch E. 13:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a similar page in my userspace (User:Alalch E./Everything on the Main Page is featured), which is a copy of a long comment I made, with some formatting added (so that it wouldn't be the wall of text that it originally was) created only so that I could link easier to that comment if needed (and to make it more readable … someone had complained). However, I would welcome edits to this page, and because of OWN, I would never define that content as a quote/archive but as a copy, which then may be further edited by anyone. Essayified comments need to be treated as editable copies of the original talk content, not as special archive pages. —Alalch E. 13:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just demonstrated that it is editable. Quotations are often preceded by a preamble. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Advice for paid editors

[edit]
Wikipedia:Advice for paid editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Claims that any paid editing is a violation of WP:NOPROMO and is trying to do something which is explicitly forbidden. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely baffled by the premise of this MfD. You're welcome to believe my opinion on paid editing is wrong, but it is clearly labelled as precisely that; an essay which is the opinion of one or more editors. What is the actual grounds for deletion here? WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a deletion reason. Athanelar (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Essays ... that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace. Consensus is that paid editing is allowed, not forbidden. Jerod Lycett (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you are selectively quoting in the nomination starts with If you are here to promote a company or individual [...]. This essays is about expressing an opinion about paid editing and all the wrong reasons to do it that is far from a fringe position among the community. What this essay does not do, is plainly state that "paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia"; this would be overtly contradict[ing] consensus. Since it is an essay, it does not have to explain what kind of paid editing is okay or not. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but I seriously urge you to reconsider, because what you are doing in practice is attempting to get rid of a page you disagree with while it contains nothing egregious. If you are seeking userfication, please adjust your nomination to reflect this. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It goes on to state (and, if they are paying you to write an article about them, or otherwise asking you to do so as part of your capacity as their employee, then you definitely are) which is stating that all paid editing is promotion, which is against consensus and is assuming bad faith on the part of any and all paid editors. I think that this essay, should it ever be sent to any user again, whether it's in user space or not, would be harmful. It has already once proven harmful. It needs removed to prevent future harm. It would require an entire rewrite with the removal of the core concept (that paid editing is promotion and is thus explicitly forbidden) to not be harmful. So given that I don't want it ever being presented again in order to prevent harm how would userfication meet that goal? I don't think it could, and thus deletion. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett It has already once proven harmful How so? Athanelar (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an essay. I notice that you did not try to open a discussion on its talk page, or discussed your concerns with the creator of the essay, and instead immediately nominated it for deletion. If at least you had indicated in the nomination that you were seeking userfication, that could still have been fine by me; but since you did not, I think this is a pretty unfriendly way to go. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 13:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the nominator has made clear that zie is looking for deletion and not userfication. Were future consensus to bend towards userfication I would not be opposed to it; but deletion is a step too far and I am thoroughly unconvinced by the rationale presented above. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 20, 2026

[edit]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muza Entertainment/sandbox
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. RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muza Entertainment/sandbox

[edit]
User:Muza Entertainment/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Promotional Sandbox, g11 declined. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 12:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced WP:BLP. WP:BLP applies to all namespaces. Analogous to WP:BLPPROD, delete after seven days unless a reliable source is added. It is promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smokey's rationale. The level of "promotionality" does not bother me for a user sandbox draft, however, so in particular no issues with a refund if user comes back with a credible commitment to add sourcing. Of course, the draft may struggle to meet the notability bar for mainspace. I anticipate a refund situation is more likely than sourcing added during this discussion period, since user is new to wikipedia, seem not to fully understand what we're about, and in particular have also ended up username softblocked. Martinp (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2026 (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.

July 19, 2026

[edit]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Akbar Amirzadeh Irani
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. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Akbar Amirzadeh Irani

[edit]
Draft:Akbar Amirzadeh Irani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Shkuru Afshar (talk · contribs) sent this draft to AfD with the rationale Notability issue. The same article that is created on Persian Wikipedia is nominated for deletion as well. That would not be completely unwarranted if this were an article, but it is a draft and has (in this iteration) never been an article (there was an A7 deletion at Akbar Amirzadeh Irani all the way back in 2007 that may or may not have anything to do with this current subject). Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, as Spiderone (talk · contribs) pointed out (in addition to noting the wrong process), so this purely procedural nomination would admittedly be on the road to failure from the get-go on the surface. However, as Geschichte (talk · contribs) pointed out, AFD is not for drafts, but might the article be LLM-generated? That won't necessarily lead to deletion either if not insurmountable or irreparable enough (G15 does apply to drafts should it come to that), but it is probably more relevant to MfD than notability is. I have no opinion on any of this in any event; again, this is procedural only. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in draftspace. The original AfD nomination was based on notability, which is not an appropriate reason to delete a draft. I am the creator of this draft and will manually review and rewrite any passages that may appear machine-generated, remove unsupported or promotional claims, verify each factual statement against its cited source, and reduce reliance on primary sources. The draft is capable of improvement through the Articles for Creation process and is not irreparable. HRW4IRAN (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in draftspace, where notability is not a deletion criterion. As to was LLM used, if so it is not sufficiently glaring to speedy because of it, and in the spirit of WP:LUDA I don't think it's worthwhile to spend community time probing whether an incomplete draft might or might not have had some LLM use. Martinp (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

[edit]

Closed discussions

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1366405890"