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	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	114	11	125
TfD	0	1	0	7	8
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	5	9	3	0	17
RfD	0	0	100	22	122
AfD	0	0	0	2	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.

August 11, 2026

User:Sugar Bear/Userboxes/User varied sex

User:Sugar Bear/Userboxes/User varied sex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:HOST (the third point about dating services specifically), expressing oneself's sexuality expresses that you may be interested in LGBTQ+ subjects. What subject does this express interest in? I would say that even if it was to express interest in a subject, it can be done less indecently. Note that WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to article contents HerrHeulsuse (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Firstly, I don't think WP:NOTDATING is relevant. The userbox isn't expressing any sexuality, it's making a joke. The joke is about a sexual subject, but it doesn't go into too much detail, in my opinion. It's true that WP:NOTCENSORED focuses on articles, but that doesn't mean we should censor user space stuff without a good reason.
  It's probably worth mentioning that the creator has been blocked for a long time, but other editors have this on their userpage, at least one of which is still active. Ultimately, I think this is an un-divisive userbox that isn't doing any harm, and I don't want to be the fun police. Chess enjoyer (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I have vandalized from like 15 us states and 3 countries

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: speedy delete. Already deleted. CMD (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Wikipedia:I have vandalized from like 15 us states and 3 countries Wikipedia:I have vandalized from like 15 us states and 3 countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Introduction of page only used for vandalism. Slackintosh (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Speedy delete per CSD G3 and G5. --In solidarity, Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 01:04, 11 August 2026 (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.

August 10, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Arthur: The Movie (Pixar film)

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: speedy delete as a talk page with no article, and a hoax as well. Whpq (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Talk:Arthur: The Movie (Pixar film) Talk:Arthur: The Movie (Pixar film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ No notable sources. This is a talk page, not an article. Slackintosh (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Delete - Note also this edit which I've reverted. G3 probably the better choice here as it's looking like a hoax. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Speedy delete as a talk page with no subject page. If this page had any promise I would be arguing to move it to draftspace, but since it could be a hoax let's just go with G8. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2026 (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.

Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison

Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

There is now an actual WP-article, Stephen Harrison (author), so this page seems unnecessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to the article – that's what redirects are for. Graham87 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This was intended as a special ProjectSpace page tracking the works of a prominant jurnalist in covering Wikipedia. It is for Project purposes, and this is valid, whether these purposes are many or few. I suggest Rename to Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison's coverage of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia community. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I started this and two other pages for Category:Wikipedia beat reporters

The major issue here is that the Wikipedia: space has no stand-alone options for creating bibliographies, and also bibliographies are not permitted on biographical Wikipedia articles. The taboo which I transgressed here is publishing a bibliography in Wikipedia space.

Here is the set

• • Wikipedia:Noam Cohen
  • Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison
  • User:Bluerasberry/Omer Benjakob

For Omer I just wanted the bibliography but then someone complained saying that it should be a Wikipedia article, then it got draftified.

I could move these to be subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia if that seems like a better fit. Wikipedia does not get a lot of regular journalism but for the few beat reporters we have, it is helpful to Wikipedians to have the list of publications. Keeping the "Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison" link active even as a redirect is helpful, although if it is to exist at all, then why not just keep it as the landing page for the content? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For a bit of intellectual diversity, you could make pages for beat reporters Aaron Bandler and Ashley Rindsberg as well, they've both written several pieces about WP (personally I generally enjoy their writing less than the 3 above). Benjakob has an article on he-WP, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The taboo breach was a good thing.

Moving these things to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia might be a very good idea, organised, less likely to be perceived as random. I joined the WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Bluerasberry. We shouldn't make him jump through hoops just to maintain a list of media a la The Signpost's In the media reports. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, all this material can be discussed in the article. You can make the same argument about Cohen as well. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Rough Crossing (TV series)

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Rough Crossing (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This hoax didn't begin on Wikipedia. It existed on IMDB by 2003 (compare the apparently fabricated reviews at ) before being taken here in 2007, possibly in good faith. The deleting admin speculated that the Wikipedia article was created by the same person as the hoax, but I see no evidence for that, given the gap of at least 4 years between the two. There was no deletion discussion.

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia is for hoaxes that were created on Wikipedia, not an indiscriminate list of hoaxes, and not for good faith creations. This illustrates why IMDB isn't a reliable source (WP:IMDB), but that's not reason enough for us to list it here. Renerpho (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Compare the speedy deletion nomination by User:TenPoundHammer (here), and the related discussion with them about a similar case at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Edith's Shopping Bag. They're topic banned from deletion discussions, but I invite them to continue commenting there. Renerpho (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I am not convinced that this hoax started on IMDB. Apparently, there was an entry for it on TVTome that was more elaborate than the IMDB page. It was known as a fake by 2004. Renerpho (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Tanapat2534

User:Tanapat2534 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Userpage was being used for some kind of article draft when the user was indeffed by checkuser. It could be construed as violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE, so clean-up by deletion is probably a good option. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

August 9, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Jump Kick performed by Tiger Nasim Khan.jpg

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: speedy delete WP:F2 Whpq (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC) File:Jump Kick performed by Tiger Nasim Khan.jpg File:Jump Kick performed by Tiger Nasim Khan.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This is a page in the File: namespace, but no file exists since the file this page was based on was deleted at Wikimedia Commons. While this page appears blank, in the page history, there is what looks like an attempt to create an article for some reason. Not sure what to do here, but nominating at MfD since this isn't an actual file that would fit under FfD, but just a page in the file namespace. Mathguy2718 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC) This type of page is speedily deletable as WP:CSD#F2 ("Corrupt, missing, or empty file"). Use {{db-imagepage}} to tag it. Omphalographer (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Delete or Speedy Delete as F2. It doesn't really matter whether this should be at FFD or MFD since a criterion for speedy deletion applies. It appears that Twinkle can also be used to tag it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2026 (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.

User:LuthraRahul

User:LuthraRahul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unsourced autobiography. Paradoctor (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as an unreferenced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – only one edit from the user, and from 2+ years ago. In such context basically appears as self-promotion – Aza24 (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

August 8, 2026

Wikipedia:Always use source mode

Wikipedia:Always use source mode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This isn't even an opinion - literally nothing about this essay is true. You can copy+paste and edit infoboxes with the visual editor, and it's not "a much more complex and complicated way of editing Wikipedia". It's spreading blatant misinformation, and should be deleted as WP:NOTHERE. I've been using visual editor for many years, and, while it does have failings, you can do 95% of stuff with it that you can with the source editor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This reads very harsh. I presume that this is a nomination to Userfy? As a user essay, it is very easy to defend. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Support userification, as a disputed single-author essay.

If one or a few agree to sign on to the essay to make it a minority opinion, tell them that they can do it in userspace, but if they insist on keeping it in ProjectSpace, it needs improvement, due to concerns of bad advice being given in the Voice of Wikipedia.

Oppose deletion, as it is a user opinion on the project. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

At the least I can support userfying and adding the humor tag if the page is to be retained. I can't say I agree with the statement that since it has 10 pageviews a month, it is harmless. If a few of those 10 people take it seriously, it's a net negative, with no obvious upside. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep Golly. Where do I begin? Probably with the fact that this essay was always meant to be read tongue in cheek as opposed to anything serious. In the past month, the page has had 10, yes, 10 pageviews. That is every pageview for 3 days, so this essay certainly isn't swaying public opinion by that much. Part of the reason I made it was because I thought the hyperlink WP:AUSM was pretty cool. We could also add in the fact that, well, if you feel strongly about this topic, you can always make a counterpart to this. Perhaps WP:Always use visual mode, or even WP:Never use source mode? Whatever the case, this surely seems to be an overreaction to such a minor page on the project. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Fakescientist8000 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

In response to the statement that it was "tongue in cheek", I checked to see if it was marked as humor, but it wasn't. Even if it was, it would very easily be confused as actual advice by new users. While clearly outlandish for experienced editors, that isn't obvious if you never used Visual Editor much. There is no real reason to have a "humor" article espousing people to ignore aspects of Wikipedia, and I wouldn't want to make an "always use visual mode" article for the same reason. Assuming it doesn't get deleted, it should definitely be userfied. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose we can also delete WP:please bite the newbies and WP:assume bad faith as well, since humor articles espousing people to ignore aspects of Wikipedia shouldn't be on the project at once. Except, no, in fact, we shouldn't, because they highlight various policies of the project whilst doing so in the same tongue in cheek manner. This project isn't a dictatorship, my friend. You have a multitude of options when editing articles, and whether or not to do so in visual or source mode is one of them. This whole nomination admittedly reads like a bad faith nom in response to an article assumed to have been made in bad faith as well, though I hope this nom wasn't made in BF, as my article was not in the first place. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This is well in-bounds for an essay. BusterD (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see how? WP:ESSAY says "The purpose of an essay is to aid [...] the encyclopedia". No part of it is doing so or giving salient advice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Userfy per above. Opinions are fine in the wiki. And the nom and at least one of the editors here are fine with that too. I'm also wary that the creator insists on keeping their piece on wiki-space even suggesting deletion of WP:please bite the newbies and WP:assume bad faith rather than being collaborative. Why prefer to delete unrelated things just to keep your essay on wiki-space when it within user-space solves the same issue? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Jim Nola MC

Draft:Jim Nola MC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Subject fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. MichealKal (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per current rationale. Drafts do not need to follow notability guidelines (see WP:NDRAFT). Unless another argument for deletion is provided, this is a keep for me. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: If the nominator had waited five days (until 13:25, August 13), the draft would have been bot tagged for G13 and deleted by a passing uninvolved admin with no discussion. User:MichealKal's nomination reset that clock. It's usually best to leave stale drafts alone. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @BusterD, I'm from Uganda, and before I made the nomination, I conducted a thorough search on the topic but it's okay then we can wait! MichealKal (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Nominator appears to be mistaken in good faith about drafts. Drafts are not deleted for notability. Drafts are declined when they are submitted for review if they do not establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:KreekCraft

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

Following on from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July 29#KreekCraft (YouTuber) where we explicitly declined to draftify the most recent mainspace version (and that, in turn, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft (YouTuber), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft). While we normally don't delete drafts on the basis of notability, this youtuber is unlikely ever to merit an encyclopedia article, and it's not appropriate to keep drafts about a person throughout their entire career on the speculative hope that better sources might someday be created - we've been hosting versions of this page since at least 26 August 2016, close to ten years now. Also created at a moderately impressive number of other titles. —Cryptic 18:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:AKON, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, although not for notability reasons as such. One of the reasons for deletion of drafts is tendentious resubmission to AFC. The existence of this draft is inherently tendentious because of the tendentious re-creation of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete and WP:SALT. It is clear that Kreek will not be notable on Wikipedia. Unless he does something crazy to get on the news (which I highly doubt), then there is no sources related to him by any news articles. Wikiman (Talk) 22:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Samshawk33

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: speedy delete WP:G15 Whpq (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC) User:Samshawk33 User:Samshawk33 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Unsourced biography. Paradoctor (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Delete, speedy if possible? Also looks LLM-generated (directly includes communication intended for the user: "It looks like you’re sharing background text and probably want it cleaned up or rewritten. Here’s a polished, professional biography that keeps all the facts but reads smoothly and clearly. I’ve gone for a museum/catalog–quality tone."). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Speedy delete WP:G15 (there's remnants of communication intended for the user) and maybe WP:G11 TruenoCity (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Delete or Speedy Delete as G15, contains communication by the chatbot to the user. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC) delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Delete or speedy delete per G15 and WP:FAKEARTICLE. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 20:20, 10 August 2026 (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.

August 7, 2026

Draft:Therapy at the Club

Draft:Therapy at the Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I am proposing "merge" because the article is already available in a mainspace. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean redirect? I don't believe we do merges like that. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If there were information in the draft which were not present in the mainspace article, we could certainly merge that. In this case, however, the mainspace article already seems to cover everything that's in the draft, and contains newer information which wasn't available when the draft was written - so there's nothing to merge. Omphalographer (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect to Therapy at the Club. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

August 6, 2026

Draft:NEWS FOR EYEKONS (katseye fans)

Draft:NEWS FOR EYEKONS (katseye fans) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTWEBHOST splains (💬/📝) 08:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete as not an article or an attempt at one, but leave useless drafts alone, it would have been automatically deleted in 7 weeks if it had been left untouched. TruenoCity (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral WP:LUDA but this will help my library status so it's not a total waste of time here Abeg92contribs 03:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  That argument goes against WP:LUDA itself. See Wikipedia:Leave useless drafts alone#When to send a draft to MfD, which says: "Another situation justifying a deletion discussion is a draft which appears actively disruptive, but not so uncontroversially that G-series CSD criteria apply. [...] There are situations of suspected but less clear disruption, for instance [...] abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, where a discussion is warranted." 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - It is not entirely clear what this coprolite is, but it is not a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

August 5, 2026

Draft:Mobile Suit Gundam RG XARX-ZERO

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

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 20:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

• Comment you can just request deletion via CSD or by blanking the page since you created the draft. That being said the page that is now in mainspace likely needs to be moved to drafts as this is a clear cut case of WP:TOOSOON all sourcing is just regurgitation of announcements the company has made about it and there is no reliable secondary source showing production has begun. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Would have been eligible for speedy redirection, but is not now due to the initiation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Suit Gundam RG: XARX-ZERO. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep at this point because the article is not ready for article space, and can be deleted so that this draft can be left as is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 20:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - There is an AFD in progress. Is there a way to make this MFD dependent on the result of the AFD? If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft should be kept. If the article is draftified, then it will collide with this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  If I recall correctly you can just do a conditional !vote depending on how the AFD goes, which you effectively just !voted for. (No opinion.) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete as requested by the sole substantive author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

August 4, 2026

Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Interstate 195 (Florida)

Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Interstate 195 (Florida) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused as Interstate 195 (Florida) was redirected. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom – no space at all in the Florida State Road 112 article for it to be re-added. Also a quite short interstate, so map perhaps uncalled for. – Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Javed

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

This article was created when a temporary account vandalized a redirect. User:Dan arndt moved it to AfC. It should be deleted, and the draft should be hist-merged with the page which I recreated, Javed. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Having a good look at the draft, it appears to be a mashup of various different individuals, some of whom are notable with existing articles. As it currently stands I support its deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The text of this draft appears to be some sort of bizarre self-promotion; compare the description of this YouTube video. The older history of the redirect doesn't need to be preserved. Omphalographer (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - As it is, this is an unreferenced biography of a living person, and has other disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:List of Specialized Subjects for Senior High School in the Philippines

Draft:List of Specialized Subjects for Senior High School in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Non-encyclopedic curriculum outline; résumé-like per WP:NOTCV / WP:NOTCATALOG. AriuCH (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete, the type of stuff you'd find on a government website, not an encyclopedia. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Please moved the article and continue starting August 28, now DepEd SHS Curriculum ~2026-43247-66 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete per WP:NOTCATALOG TruenoCity (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not Delete, making the return of the article beginning August 28 and will continue to ediitng ~2026-43488-48 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

August 3, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for creation

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. Whpq (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for creation Wikipedia:Miscellany for creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Not an actual "place to create pages in any namespace" as it claims. I also don't think a separate venue is needed for this sort of thing, since an unregistered user can easily make a page starting with "Draft:Wikipedia:", "Draft:Help:", etc. and have it moved to the correct namespace using AfC. Note: An unregistered user put an {{mfd}} template on the page, but they never actually nominated it for deletion, so I'm nominating it now. ApexParagon (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Also worth noting, the creator of that page's only other contribution to Wikipedia was making a frivolous MfD, asking for Wikipedia's "notability" guideline to be deleted: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Notability_(3rd_nomination) ApexParagon (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Weak delete(?) I can't exactly find a reason for deletion here, but this is a pretty useless page. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Keep, this user could be a sockpuppet, and deleting this prevents sockpuppet detection HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Delete - This may be misleading to new users, who may think that putting a title here is a request for creation of whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC) Delete this is not an official or real process, and as Robert McClenon mentioned, it may be misleading to new users. TruenoCity (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Delete per nom. ~ "Wiki"useriguess 16:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC) Delete as potentially misleading for newcomers. I think I'd have been pretty confused by this if I had seen it when I was a newbie here. That being said, there are several places here such as Wikipedia:Requested articles (which I believe should be more active, but that's beside the point) which are intended for people to discuss the creation (or translation, for that matter) of articles; as an ATD, I would suggest redirecting to one of those pages. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 20:28, 10 August 2026 (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.

Old business

August 2, 2026

User:Swedishlgbt/Nestorians

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

Bringing this draft to MfD for reasons of anti-Assyrian sentiment, which require some explaining. On the surface, this just appears to be some blocked user’s subpage where they were working on the draft. But when understanding the content of the draft, this is definitely not the case.

The draft attempts to describe a group of people known as “Nestorians”, describing how they switched to Assyrian identity for “political reasons”. The association of Assyrians with the term “Nestorian” is considered incredibly offensive on both a religious and an ethnic level. On a religious level, the term is inaccurate to describe the Christology of the Church of the East and its successors of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East. But that is mentioned in the draft; the real problem is where it is used on the ethnic level. The use of “Nestorian” is considered greatly offensive to Assyrians in general, as it is used to promote denial of Assyrian continuity and deny the existence of Assyrians as a people. This has been greatly criticized by Assyrian studies academics in recent years, particularly Donabed and Bet-Shlimon , since the assumption of Assyrians being just “Nestorians” relies on an outdated theory of race origin. This draft builds on this theory to make its argument.

On top of what I just described, the draft was made by a serial sockpuppeteer who was active in WP:GS/ACAS with a swarm of other label changes, repeating the very same narrative . Considering the above reasons I originally blanked the page , but now it’s clear that blanking simply isn’t enough. The fact that it exists at all is of concern to me, and the racism it promotes has no place here on Wikipedia. I considered MfD to be the appropriate alternative route here; this page can and should be deleted. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I don't understand what the issue is about the term 'Nestorian' or about the controversy over divisions of Syriac Christianity, but I know that it has divided the English Wikipedia. I am not sure whether the nominator is actually trying to resolve division or worsening division, and am not sure whether the nominator should be blocked. However, I do know what sockpuppetry is. This is not G5 because it was created by the puppeteer before they were blocked, but it is similar enough to G5 for us to delete after discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I am normally averse to deleting userspace due to alleged mainspace content related POV, but, on this occasion, with all three of the following applying: (1) this is almost the only work of a sockpuppet; (2) it presents although no unreasonably looking, a superficial coverage of a topic already well covered in mainspace, ie it is redundant; and (3), the nominator seems to thoroughly know, with a matching history of interest, what they are talking about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I didn’t notice that the page was blanked nearly a full year ago. This sort of thing is busywork and PresentlySuraye3 (talk · contribs) should be discouraged from making a habit of doing this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the blanking last September solved whatever problems existed with this draft. Forgotten userspace pages are almost never worth the effort of a week-long MfD, and hiding them from non-admins (which is all deletion does) can actually make it harder to detect sockpuppetry in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per EW, can be harmful to preventing sockpuppetry (new thing I learned) in the future. Right now, near no one is coming across this page. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Question. @PresentlySuraye3, you write now it’s clear that blanking simply isn’t enough. Can you elaborate why that is the case? It can often be enough in the case of disruptive, even offensive, userspace content. I'm not prejudging here, but you'll find people commenting at MfD are not experts in the area (I certainly am not). I'm not opposed to deleting something blatantly, universally offensive, if it is clear that letting it stand, even buried in history, is disruptive . But if the greatly criticized by Assyrian studies academics is only recent (you point to articles from 2022 and 2026), I'm more hesitant to invoke the nuclear option (when blanking is an option) if this is just normal terminological evolution and sensitivity, in a politically and culturally fraught area. Martinp (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Martinp, I hope to answer your question to the best of my ability. Pardon my long explanation, as I want to give as many details as possible to make the context easily understandable.

As I mentioned above, the term "Nestorian" does have a theological sensitivity: Donabed writes that it is a pejorative given to members of the Assyrian Church of the East, who do not accept the label (pg. 551). But I highlighted that the main issue was that it was being used in the ethnic context. When it is used in this context, it is typically done with the intention of creating a narrow representation of who the Assyrians are, asserting that only members of the ACOE or Ancient Church of the East are Assyrians, while denying their continuity with ancient Assyria or their existence as a people altogether. Donabed also highlights this problem as being routine in academia (pg. 550-551), but Bet-Shlimon expands on this, as in her article, she discusses years worth of offensive content about Assyrians and how they have been routinely demeaned in academic settings. She writes:

• Preeminent works of Iraqi history routinely open any discussion of Assyrians by noting that they are “Nestorians” who “claim descent from the ancient Assyrians.” Nestorianism is a theological position; not all Nestorians are Assyrians, and not all Assyrians are Nestorians. (pg. 16)
• In 1841, American physician Asahel Grant used the race science he had learned in his medical training to hypothesize that the Assyrians he was proselytizing to in Urmia were descended from the “Lost Tribes of Israel” because “the physiognomy of the Nestorian Christians bears a close resemblance to that of the Jews of the country in which they dwell." ...Works like Grant’s and Fletcher’s have now spawned two centuries’ worth of racist speculation about Assyrians at a frequency that is not found in recent work on dominant ethnic and national groups in modern Middle East studies, where such arguments, although once common, have largely been discredited. (pg. 17)
• But today, rather than trying to prove that Assyrians have an unchanged ancient “physiognomy,” racist scholars usually argue the opposite: that a group of people who speak and express a distinct indigenous language and culture are wrong to claim that distinction, and should be limited to describing themselves with terms like Nestorian that refer to only some of their ancestors’ theological positions, because any ancient bloodlines they might be descended from are too diluted to permit them to have any other kind of communal identity. (Ibid)

Furthermore, the term, in certain instances, is used deliberately as an ethnic slur with hateful connotations. For instance, the Kurdish Neo-Nazi group Hawpa exchanged messages in a Telegram group-chat that called for the destruction of Assyrian-built churches in the Kurdistan Region, saying that they are ...the meeting places of the Nestorians, who preach against the Kurds! . So while the criticism may have only been more public recently, the term has always been used in an offensive, anti-Assyrian manner, and is highlighted even more so in recent years as there has been visible pushback against its use. The draft brought to MfD was made by a sockpuppeteer who repeated the same narratives of continuity denial and clearly endorsed the use of the term in this context, which is why I brought it to MfD, as it is clear its continued existence is insensitive to the community it claims to speak for.

Courtesy pings to @SmokeyJoe and @Extraordinary Writ; the above explanation details more about why deletion is the preferred alternative to keeping the page up. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional detail, which adds helpful context. Where I am still stuck is why this particular draft needs deletion, rather than editorial action, like the blanking you have already done. We engage with this topic at Nestorianism#Church_of_the_East and Nestorian_(disambiguation). Do you feel that treatment is reasonable, or also offensive? Given that material in mainspace, the draft you have blanked was at best duplicative, and in apparently a fraught area, so given the draft's genesis, blanking it is a conservative editorial action seems reasonable. The draft does mention, front and centre, "modern criticism" of the label; it does not a first glance read like advocacy.

Deleting it as "offensive" is an act of censorship.Censorship isn't always bad; in particular censoring blatantly offensive or disruptive content is a Good Thing. But if this is something we engage with not dissimilarly on-wiki already, and this is a live-ish controversy in academia (as recent articles feeling the need to indicate it was a "routine problem" would imply), then the bar is pretty high for saying "this must not be retained even in history".Bottom line: I may be missing coded signals, but to me it reads as not particularly helpful restatement of material already in mainspace, i.e. unremarkable, with the disruptive elements being the behaviour of the creator rather than the contents themselves. Martinp (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Martinp, the treatment of the topic is reasonable at Nestorianism#Church_of_the_East and Nestorian (disambiguation) because they view the subject from the religious context. That in itself is not where the offensiveness of the material comes in. It is where it is used in the ethnic context that the draft's existence takes on a different meaning, as is shown in the sections "Use by Western Missionaries" and "Shift to "Assyrian" Identity". This insinuates a repeat of the same narratives criticized above, which are considered racist and offensive to many Assyrians today. Given the previous actions of the draft's creator, including cross-Wiki, it's evident to those active in the topic area such as myself that there were more nefarious intentions intended with this draft rather than to create a neutral article, never mind it being redundant. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued dialogue on this. I understand your concern, but I am afraid my positioning is hardening to a keep, given the blanking you have already chosen to do. We seem to have a draft article on concept X, where X is not inherently offensive in its own right (and is discussed in existing mainstream articles), but according to some (including some recent academic writers) becomes offensive when applied in a specific context, namely "ethnic". The draft discusses the concept as a whole, including 2 brief sections which mention that specific context, immediately followed by a 3rd section which mentions the controversy. That seems like a textbook case for a) ignoring it, as de minimis in user space, or b) editorial action, to remove what may be unhelpfully disruptive; not c) deletion to remove from history. You have already done b). There are also behavioural issues (sockpuppetry), but those have also already been taken care of.

I'm left feeling you strongly disapprove of an opinion about this topic, arguing that it is a school of thought which is offensive (indeed, you point to others who find it offensive as well, so I'm not claiming you're in a fringe position). I'll grant there may have been a campaign, including behavioural issues, to inappropriately emphasize this school of thought in wikipedia; one which seems to have been stopped. In that context I understand you may find it galling that related flotsam and jetsam remains in history in userspace associated with people active in that stopped campaign. But we need to look at that flotsam and jetsam itself to argue for history deletion (i.e. going beyond the blanking that has already been done some time ago). If that flotsam is unremarkable (just perhaps incomplete and referencing a dubious source -- something not atypical in userspace drafts) absent also considering imputed motivations of its creator, I don't think it meets the bar for deletion. I could still be swayed the other way by a clearer statement of what has changed to make it disruptive to have this buried in userspace history going forward. Martinp (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

August 1, 2026

Draft:Hurricane Kiyapo (2026)

Draft:Hurricane Kiyapo (2026) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Reason: The article already exists in the main namespace; therefore, this draft is redundant and should be deleted to clean up the incubator space. TornadoElliott (Yelp for help?) 14:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to the mainspace article Typhoon Noul (2026) TruenoCity (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Speedy redirect, WP:SRE. Deletions to clean up the incubator are misguided. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete Only tropical cyclones in eastern Pacific called hurricane, cyclones in western pacific are called typhoon. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Not true. In Hong Kong, historically, the words typhoon and hurricane have been used interchangeably. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But nowadays people in Hong Kong mainly called it typhoon, hurricane is referring to Beaufort scale #12 (called hurricane-force winds in the US)--A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too.

Hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, there’s plenty of scope for mixup. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tornado Elliott for similar cases in the future it's best to WP:LUDA. msk 14:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a widespread misconception that when a draft is promoted into main article space, it should be deleted from draft space. That misconception is sufficiently common that we apparently need to explain over and over again that draft space contains redirects to article space. Stop bringing these dead horses to MFD for us to beat, bury, or feed to wolves. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - The naming of tropical storms in the eastern Pacific is further complicated because they have both Philippine names and international names. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to whatever is the article name for this tropical storm. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

July 29, 2026

Draft:Alfred Jowers

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

A lot of content seemingly from a LLM which is against Wikipedia policies! MichealKal (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment You might want to layout the indicators of LLM usage. Also, why couldn't this just been handled via the normal AfC process or G15 if it's that egregious? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral, lean keep I don't see any obvious indication that this is LLM generated. Drafts are not checked for notability of sanity. TruenoCity (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The creator also created a mainspace copy at Alfred Jowers, bypassing the AFC process. I have not checked whether or not the sources are valid as they are all historical print sources, but that is outside the scope of MFD. TruenoCity (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

History merge the draft, except the last revision, to Alfred Jowers to fix the copy-paste, and it correct the attribution of two editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect or Speedy Redirect to Alfred Jowers. I have not reviewed whether a history merge is needed. If there is AI slop, it is now a problem in article space. When there is a draft and an article, the draft should be redirected to the article, unless there is content in the draft that should be added to the article by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I've listed the mainspace article in AFD. This isn't a WP:DRAFTIFY situation due to there being a copy in both spaces, but my stance is to delete the mainspace article but keep the draft. TruenoCity (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect Mainly to keep discussion focused on what has indeed turned out to be questionable sourcing in the AfD discussion. Nathannah • 📮 21:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Redirecting and history merging is no longer possible, as the article has been deleted. What now, @SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, and Nathannah? Chess enjoyer (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates