Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"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

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

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:, 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

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.
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

• 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	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	24	15	54	93
TfD	0	0	0	22	22
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	27	21	48
RfD	0	0	0	41	41
AfD	0	0	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.

September 29, 2026

Draft:Dead is not enoug.

Draft:Dead is not enoug. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOT - Uploader's personal screenplay. Will never make it out of draft space. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Drafts that will never make it out of draft space will never make it out of draft space. Nominating them for MFD uses more editor time to review them than is used in allowing them to be ignored and expire. Most of the criteria for What Wikipedia Is Not are reasons for declining or rejecting drafts rather than deleting them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep: To put it simply, per above. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 04:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• keep per WP:LUDA Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 18:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete: this is a textbook WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, and the content seems to be LLM-generated at least in part. I disagree with Robert on his second point: WP:DEL-REASON#14 mentions WP:NOT violations as being a reason for deletion, and I don't see any reason to allow obviously unsuitable content to remain live, even if outside of mainspace. That said, I don't have any strong feelings on the matter, since G13 would get rid of the draft in six months' time anyways; and if I were in the nom's place I would probably not take this draft to MfD. But since we are here now, I guess it is better to have this deleted. JavaHurricane 11:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

September 28, 2026

Talk:Monty Hall problem/RfC

Talk:Monty Hall problem/RfC (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Created 14 years ago while we were trying to decide how to word an RfC. I now know to do this sort of thing in my userspace. Alas, a now-blocked IP added a comment, so not eligible for a G7 speedy. Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Archive: Because we know how RFC’s can be worded, it is safe to archive. Don’t delete though, since this could be a bit beneficial to some. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Mark Historical, which is probably what the above editor means by Archive. There is no reason to delete this. (It doesn't free server space.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Lukemac914/sandbox

User:Lukemac914/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Completely hallucinated article about a non-existent project possibly made with AI use. While we are liberal with what users can do in their userspaces, I believe hosting something like this on Wikipedia can be misleading to any users that stumble upon it. Some of the image files used on it are also used in mainspace, so readers could arrive here through those. Also the reviews used in the "Critical reception" section attribute imaginary statements, that weren't made by them, to real publications, which seems problematic. NØ 02:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy if possible? I would disagree that this is harmful to readers especially, but agree on the LLM issue. I don't know specifically for G15 or LLM identification. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
  • It is harmful to readers in that they could reasonably believe that this was the third studio album by the recording artist. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's a user sandbox. I don't think typically readers find userpages. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for various reasons, in particular as a biographies of living persons violation and as a hoax. The biographies of living persons policy states that it applies in all namespaces, including user space, and a sandbox is in user space. The hoax policy does not state that it applies in all namespaces, but it does not state that it does not apply in user space, and common sense is that untrue material that could easily be believed as true should not be in any namespace. This is more believable than phony election pages that are routinely deleted. I don't know whether this is hallucinated because I don't know whether it was written by artificial intelligence or fabricated by a human, but that doesn't matter. It makes untrue statements about a living person that can be believed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• N Delete/*Speedy delete: For delete, see above. For speedy, G3 and/or G15. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 04:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD:U6. Since we're here, it qualifies as an abandoned user subpage of a non-contributor, and therefore we don't need to spend time deciding if it's a hoax. That said, I don't understand why nominate a user sandbox, untouched for 11 months, by a user who is no longer around and was never really a contributor, and is not linked to by anything. How does one stumble across it, and why does one feel the need to do something about it rather than wait for it to be garbage-collected in due time? Martinp (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: G3 and G15 at minimum, even if the creator's initial edits in mainspace make this page (and other similar userpages - example) not deletable under U6. I would urge the closing admin to consider mass deleting the other problematic userpages created by Lekmac under G3 and G15 since the issues seen in this page also appear there. JavaHurricane 12:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

September 27, 2026

Draft:Diploma in Building Surveying (Glasgow)

Draft:Diploma in Building Surveying (Glasgow) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Was deleted by G13 several times after being restored through RFU. Latest RFU was declined. This isn't going anywhere. SALT recommended. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as misuse of wikipedia as a webhost. This page has been deleted five times already, and I believe this is the RFU UtherSRG is talking about. We have been hosting this draft for six month intervals since 2021. Enough is enough. I'm hesitant to salt the page as that might encourage title gaming. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• N Delete: Per above. In solidarity, 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 04:16, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I was about to say Neutral, and that nothing is gained by deletion because the draft can be recreated. On second thought, deletion has two minor advantages. First, it will mark the title as deleted, so that a recreation from scratch can be tagged for G4. Second, a request to refund it will be denied at REFUND. We don't need to wait six months . Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice as a waste of time. Do not SALT per Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea, especially in draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

September 26, 2026

Draft:William J Kincaid, Retired USAF WSO

Draft:William J Kincaid, Retired USAF WSO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTFORUM International Fujita scale (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Same !vote as here. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - This was already declined and is not waiting for AFC review. Sending this to MFD creates busy work for the editors at MFD and does not relieve work for the AFC reviewers. The nominator is clearly acting in good faith, but is doing nothing but wasting community time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as drafts are sometimes useless and need not be checked for sanity. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:John Lynch

Draft:John Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTFORUM International Fujita scale (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: How does that apply to NOTFORUM? ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• N Speedy Delete/=Ignore: For speedy delete, seems to fall under G2. For the delete part, the page seems empty, but for the Ignore part, see WP:LUDA. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
  • I would disagree that it falls under G2 as a speedy deletion criteria. As a decline reason, yes, but not CSD. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral - We don't need useless drafts brought to MFD. Either tag them for speedy deletion or don't tag them for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and ignore per Robert McClenon. Rags need not be picked. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fundraising/issues

Wikipedia:Fundraising/issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

LLM-written. Signs: bolded text, numbered headings, and "code to copy" intended as a message to the LLM user. This is not worth keeping in Wikipedia namespace, is inappropriate as a subpage of Wikipedia:Fundraising, and as the product of an LLM and not a human is not worth keeping as even a user page.

Note that Sohom_Datta attempted to blank and redirect this article on July 5, 2026, to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer but this was reverted by the original author. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• * Speedy delete: This falls under G15, but this is subject to change in the future.

🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 05:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep Very serious project topic that outweighs the LLM allegation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete: G15. A non-LLM version can and absolutely does exist.

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 09:40, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete per above; G15 —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 20:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per G15, as much as I recognize that this is a topic that some folks would like to keep around, I don't see this LLM barf of mismatched arguments being useful to community. -- Sohom (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per all of the above. Also, looking at the what links here page and the implausibility of this as a search term, I oppose redirecting this to WP:CANCER. I have stashed away a copy and will eventually get around to searching it to see if there is a Shetland pony hiding under this pile of manure that I can use in my essay, but don't hold your breath. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.
I support more attention on the financial issues you’ve raise, and so balked at speedy deleting some in the space.
Delete per User:Guy Macon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Technically, this doesn’t fall under G15, as G15 is only reserved for where there are unmistakable clear‐cut signs of LLM usage, and there’s a weak argument to be made that “code to copy” is also intended for anyone wanting to know what to copy to show solidarity. Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 02:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:G15 is about obvious AI generation and we can come to a consensus about obvious AI generation even without the traditional AI signs. Sohom (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Just nuke it. Obvious AI is obvious. Obvious WP:LOUT is obvious. Obvious attempt to hide this page among the legit pages listed at is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

September 25, 2026

Wikipedia:The Greenfield rule

Wikipedia:The Greenfield rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Does not have content after 6 years despite author claiming content is comming soon ibicdlcod (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Abandoned with no content ever provided. This is sufficiently rare we don't have a CSD for this (A3 applies only in article space), so an MfD discussion is the appropriate mechanism for getting rid of it, but it's pretty noncontroversial I think. Martinp (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, why isn't there a G version of A3? 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably because this is rare in project space, can be ignored in user space, and will expire in draft space. So there are few enough cases where such a criterion would be useful that it isn't worth amending A3 into GN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete uncontroversial cleanup of a page with no content TruenoCity (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Userfy. Unworthy of projectspace, it should never have been put there. Stuff like this belongs in userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

N Delete: Basically a draft version of A3. It isn't A3 itself, due to it being a draft, but it is close to qualifying it for. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 00:13, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - No content. As Martinp says, would be A3 in article space. Would have expired in draft space. No purpose in any space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:How to download new versions of Minecraft

Draft:How to download new versions of Minecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 07:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• N Delete: Nominator has a point.

🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 07:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. WP:NOTHOWTO.

Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:03, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per NOTHOWTO. it’s not that this draft is offensive, but Wikipedia has a purpose, and this is outside of that purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Decline as per [[WP:NOTHOWTO|Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. Oh. Wait a minute. This is MFD, not AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as a useless draft. There is no harm done in keeping drafts that violate What Wikipedia Is Not unless they are actually harmful or disruptive (e.g., BLP violations, polemics, etc.). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral Leave useless drafts alone, this is a harmless useless draft that would be automatically deleted at some point. Not voting keep either as this doesn't really belong on Wikipedia though per WP:NOTHOWTO. TruenoCity (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

September 23, 2026

Draft:Radarkpop

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

This is a non-notable news website that has been rejected, then deleted by the creator, then recreated and rejected again, but the page creator (who eventually declared their COI after much pulling of teeth) is still wasting everyone's time by continuing to work on the draft (edit for clarification: and repeatedly asking editors to undo the rejection after being told to stop working on the draft, see User talk:Panecashio#September 2026, Draft talk:Radarkpop#COI Edit Request: Review New Sources to Overturn Rejection, User talk:Helpful Raccoon#Draft:Radarkpop), which in this case means adding obvious spam as references. They asked on my talk page to overturn the rejection , I said no and that they should stop working on the draft, then afterwards they added even more spammy sources. The most recent one was published hours before it was added to the draft , indicating the creator is specifically asking people to publish spam in an attempt to get the draft approved. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

= Ignore Let the creator work on his draft. The "spam" he might be adding could be placeholders to new sources. And please also see WP:LUDA. N Delete: Due to the tendentious history shown below, I have striken out my previous comment and had changed my !vote to Delete.

🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 22:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Very weak ignore (keep). This is borderline for the "tendentious resubmission" reason that blasts through WP:LUDA and provides a reason for deleting a draft. I can't compare the text that was deleted on Aug 29 (nor do I want to spend the time to do so...) so no opinion whether the most recent submission on Sept 10 was arguably disruptive already. However, you noncontroversially rejected it (again). The creator's continued editing of the draft since then, no matter how spammy, is pretty harmless in draftspace until and unless they'd make another poorly sourced AfC submission, and may harmlessly expire with a G13 in a few months time. So, narrowly, I end up on suggesting to let it be for now. Martinp (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The disruption comes from repeatedly asking people to undo the rejection (which I didn't make clear in my nomination), so WP:LUDA does not apply. Draft talk:Radarkpop#COI Edit Request: Review New Sources to Overturn Rejection and User talk:Helpful Raccoon#Draft:Radarkpop, as well as the long discussion at User talk:Panecashio#September 2026, all occurred after my rejection. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Panecashio also created and attempted to submit Draft:Radarkpop (website)Draft:Radarkpop (website) after my rejection. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The August 29 deletion was of a redirect-from-move to Draft:Radarkpop (K-Pop Radar). The G4 in that title's logs apparently refers to Radarkpop (Independent) (AfD discussion); the draft itself was only tagged G7. Those, the September 6 version deleted here, and the current version all have different text and references; all but the mainspace version were substantially shorter than the current, and of the refs I clicked on - one chosen arbitrarily from each version - only this from the other draft title so much as mentioned the subject.

The post-afd pattern here has clearly been to submit, then G7 and try again after each version has been declined or rejected a couple times. I count eight declines/rejections from eight different reviewers going back to August 2 on Draft:Radarpop (Independent) (sic); that's more than enough for me. —Cryptic 01:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realize the history was this long. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Striking my keep and !voting Delete per the longer tendentious history described above. Martinp (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete as tendentious, per nom, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radarkpop (Independent), and due to the current references being WP:Reference bombing. Advise the proponent to not try again with any more than the WP:THREE best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - It is not clear what the originator is trying to do, but they do not appear to be here to contribute. Why are they repeatedly tagging versions for G7 and then resuming creation? This appears to be a non-useful game. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  • It was pretty useful for getting extra de novo reviews, instead of just "nothing's changed since the last time you asked". If there's a non-abusive reason, I can't think of it. —Cryptic 21:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• IAR Speedy DeleteDelete. Disruptive re-creation by now blocked editor. Would be an A7 in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose IAR Speedy deletion. Tendentious resubmission after rejection is rare, and should get a week review at MfD. AFC declines and rejects are unilateral afc reviewer decisions, and resubmission is the natural knee jerk response by the unhappy proponent of the draft. It can, and therefore should, be read as a challenge to the Reject decision. This is why the standard AfC process includes referring these cases to mfd. The draft creator Panecashio (talk · contribs) is blocked for LLM overuse, ok, but still, standard process is to give the draft a week of review.
  We are deleting this draft by explicit consensus, with reasons. This is stronger and clearer than speedy deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Attempting to resubmit is one thing, requesting deletion so you have a clean slate to submit again is wholly another in my book @SmokeyJoe which was what was behind my opinion. If it was just the former I'd likely agree with you that it needed a week. There's no good faith situation here especially with the evasiveness around their COI, IMO. But we'll see where this lands. glad you edited your comment, I saw that but missed the reply in my watchlist. Apologies. Star Mississippi 23:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Better to have the MfD record of consensus deletion, speedy deletion makes for less of record.
  I support blocking for disruption. With this mfd, if they come back on a different account, it will be easier to detect and block again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Fair point SmokeyJoe, thank you. I don't think we've seen the last of this attempted creation. I've amended my delete !vote. Star Mississippi 03:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. There's been enough disruption over this, and there is no way there could be an article about it at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft:The best school

Draft:The best school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I was too vague with my previous CSD. In an effort to not look like a knucklehead, I'll just say what I meant; G11, only promotitive. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 12:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete, a “test”, and is not a draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:G2 applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Neutral This would probably not be WP:G11 either, as it is not very clear what this would have been promoting (maybe Monifieth High School?). This seems more like some test edit by an unlogged user and not any genuine attempt of a draft, but leave useless drafts alone. TruenoCity (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

yes, that what I meant it was promoting. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 16:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually Delete per WP:G2, and the spirit of WP:G13 if it goes undeleted by the time 7 days pass as mentioned in my other comment TruenoCity (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Question If the draft was left untouched, it would have been automatically deleted around September 28 as the last edit before was on April 1. If no one makes any edits by the time this MFD ends, should we delete per the spirit of G13? The only edits made since were a declined CSD nomination and this MFD nomination. TruenoCity (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I do think those count towards delaying G13 sadly | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 16:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that I've successfully modified the G13 criteria recently so that a MfD nomination does not itself reset the G13 clock. But a substantive CSD rejection does. Nevertheless, absent an unexpected argument, I'd be supportive of deleting this per the spirit of G13, as well as the other substantive arguments here, at the end of the discussion period (which will be after Sept 28). @OneReaction5890, welcome to deletion; it takes a while to learn some of the arcane stuff. I wouldn't be surprised that a clearly articulated G2 or a G11 speedy deletion nomination (rather than the nonspecific one you made) would have been successful. But if you nominate here, expect a discussion, and expect people to say their own stuff in their own words in a way that is a lot slower and more deliberative than a concise, criteria-specifying CSD nomination. For the record, I agree with a Delete. Martinp (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, this isn't my first rodeo- although I may need to take a few more rodeos so I have experience. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per G2. This page is clearly a test page.The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Move to sandbox(see below): Not G11, but probably G2. Sandboxifying the page would be the best decision when it come to the fate of this page. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 22:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

This draft was created and only edited by a temp account, so there is no user to sandboxify it to. TruenoCity (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for telling me that. I change my !vote to N Delete per below. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 00:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete should have been ignored and allowed to be deleted via G13, "biased" by itself is not enough to G11 a draft. Maybe could have fallen under G2. But also just ignore old harmless drafts with a single edit about to G13 eligible, as a general rule. Skynxnex (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as a test edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily or otherwise, as a test. Clearly this is not a draft of anything that could ever be an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

AELECT header subpages

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Header (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Header (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Header (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Header (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Header subpage. This means that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/March 2027/Header (for the March 2027 elections) would never need to be created. GTrang (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Question: If these are effectively duplicates that weren't used, any objection to speedying them as uncontroversial maintenance (CSD G6)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  No objections. And feel free to delete the latest one under G7 if desired. Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. Wikipedia:What G6 is not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete, per the rationale given in my original post at WT:AELECT. I also wouldn't object to expediting with G6 and G7 as suggested above. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge: If a new, more general header already exists, it's best to merge the rest of the headers simply for the fact that the headers listed here are technically subheaders.

🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Archive, do not delete. Archive, whether by blanking and tagging as an archive, or by converting to a redirect. They have non-trivial histories, so G6 should not be used. Deletion of once-functional project pages should be reserved for things that should never have been created. Administrator elections are a whole community matter, and so hiding some of the history from nonadmins is a bad thing to do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Deletion of once-functional project pages should be reserved for things that should never have been created. So you're ok with deleting the most recent one, then? It never had utility and was created in error (a perfectly reasonable mistake, of course); in fact the author indicated that she would be fine if it were G7ed. And it was the only one I initially suggested should be deleted before this discussion was formally opened.

Just seeking clarity on your stance :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The last one was not used, was made by mistake, and the author consents (its G7 eligible). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Josjh97/sandbox

User:Josjh97/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:UP#GOALS - only mainspace edit by editor was this vandal edit. Bungle491 (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The original version of the sandbox seems to potentially contain content covering a rugby competitor who is a minor, see Special:Diff/1370245007. The new content seems to be a weird template-esque outline of coverage regarding the court case (real or not) of an individual. Thus, quite a broad range of things occurring in this sandbox. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• = Ignore: Even though the user has made one vandal on a mainspace article, and the weird layout of the sandbox, try seeing WP:LUDA. I think this user might update the draft soon, but if anything else happens, please notify me.

🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 07:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Ignore, i.e. Keep. A newish user has made a single and ill-advised edit to mainspace. The proper response is not to nuke their harmless user sandbox, but to hope that their next mainspace edit is better. (BTW, I would not be surprised editing-under-the-influence is a factor here). If the user does not become a editor, U6 will eventually delete this sandbox anyway. Martinp (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - This appears to be an unsourced biography of a living person. We cannot be sure whether it is what it appears to be. If it isn't, then it is a useless sandbox page, but it is safer to treat it as a BLP and delete it. Unreferenced BLPs are deleted in any namespace. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: As an unsourced WP:BLP.
  It could be made up. It could be an attack page. In either case, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The page is not within reasonable leeway for a productive contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: This very much looks like either an unsourced BLP or a hoax, and both of those should be deleted no matter what namespace they are created in. Even if this will (might?) get deleted by U6 later, I consider this sandbox to be at least slightly harmful, and therefore worth the effort to delete via MFD. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: This is somewhere between LLM-generated slop (e.g. not much is publicly known about his early life and other tells), a BLP violation and a hoax. Any of the three alone is reason enough for deletion. JavaHurricane 12:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates