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	65	104	63	232
TfD	0	0	0	14	14
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	30	22	52
RfD	0	0	0	39	39
AfD	0	0	0	116	116

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 24, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MOS:Shark teeth with alphabets

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 per WP:G2. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC) MOS:Shark teeth with alphabets MOS:Shark teeth with alphabets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Not a page suitable for the MOS namespace, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Mathguy2718 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC) Seems to be a test page of some kind by a new user. CMD (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC) Delete as WP:G2. I have welcomed the newcomer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC) Ignore: This is probably G2, but also do note that WP:LUDA exist. Otherwise Delete or Sandboxify 🐴🌀[citation needed] 06:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC) Delete as a test page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC) This looks like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Gsthae with tempo!. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC) Speedy delete as a test page (G2) by either a new or long-term-abusive user. Martinp (talk) 10:44, 24 September 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.

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. 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 Delete. Disruptive re-creation by now blocked editor. Would be an A7 in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:55, 25 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: 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)

• 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)

September 21, 2026

User:Ria Jordan

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

WP:STALEDRAFT (19 years old) GoingBatty (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blank with {{userspace blanked}} if desired. Not of poor enough character or repugnant enough quality to warrant deletion here, and there is no time limit (contemplating whether a subject may or may not ever rise to mainspace standards is not a task this venue is fond of taking up). Blanking also remedies any potential fake article concerns (given that the username is similar to the topic at hand), a yet un-raised concern which I am sympathetic to. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• As per the page cited in the nomination: if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues) but not ready for mainspace, let it be. Agree with blanking given there are no citations, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Blank with userspace blanked, there is a case for a WP:FAKEARTICLE here but I don't think it's worth deleting. -Samoht27, forever with the workingfellow. (talk! and see!) ( 14:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Blank with userspace blank: This nominated page is a userspace, meaning no time limit is imposed, but at the same time, it has no citations and fails WP:FAKEARTICLE, so blanking it is honestly the best option. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete as fake information. There is no sitcom Shelby, and no such character. This is enough of a problem to justify deletion, although next time, just blank these things on discovery, without fanfare. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

September 19, 2026

Draft:BURGA

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

Straight advertising, and it probably meets G11, plus the user who created the page was blocked, and this draft is straight up unsuitable. Cosmic-840≈ ● ✒️ 14:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: sure seems a little bit like advertising.Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 17:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC) 17:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Falls under G11 and also I think nom’s comment and a !voter’s comment got combined.
  🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:48, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  yeah, sorry. I don't know how to type the

  Delete thing without copy pasting it

  Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It is quite simply bolded text (''' ''') with a bulletpoint (*). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. This is most certainly not G11, at least from the standards of the page I saw. Unless this draft was created in violation of the user's block (per G5), then there is absolutely no reason for deletion.
  A draft being "unsuitable" is not a reason it itself for deletion. Please also see WP:Leave useless drafts alone, and correct me if I'm wrong for any of this. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Ignore. It has been REJECTED, with no further edits. This is standard AfC processing. Don’t rob the author and spectators of being able to read the Reject notice. MfD is the next step after they keep working poorly with it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Ignore - There is no need to delete drafts that have already been rejected once, unless the draft is tendentiously resubmitted. Rejected drafts that are ignored for six months will go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Ignore, i.e. Keep, per WP:LUDA. If it doesn't actually qualify under G11 (and in my opinion it doesn't) or G5 (it doesn't, the creator was blocked after creating the page, and a different user(name) has been editing since and submitting at AfC), it's ok that it ages in draftspace. Whether it's suitable for inclusion is precisely what the AfC gate is designed to assess, and G13 will harmlessly take care of drafts the gate stops that do not improve. Drafts should come here for discussion only if they are more actively disruptive, and neither the AfC gate (+G13 as backstop) nor speedy deletion is adequate to take care of it. Here processes are working exactly as intended. Martinp (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per those above. If eligible for a csd, anyone may press the button (to submit for consideration or actually delete). Failing that, leave it be for the soul bag that is G13. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Nameclips/sandbox

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

Similar case to Draft:Republic Of Lyrasa and Draft:Microjapan in that it is perhaps not a blatant hoax but it is still a hoax or at least WP:MADEUP. The only coverage I can find in searches is this Teahouse archive, where another user says I recommend you tag for deletion your declined draft Draft:Nekesistema about an imaginary micronation. No hits for "Jewish Nekesistema" or "Federation of Nekesistema". A violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#GOALS #4. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly falls under G3.
  🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 09:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Extra comment: From what I have seen, sources don't even match the "country" the creator is claiming. And the "official Nekesistema website" was made from Canva. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 01:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• (Now Speedy_{see below}) Delete per nom, since we're here. With a bit of a sigh, since a sandbox with no incoming links, by a user who hasn't been seen for >2.5 years and never really edited anything else, isn't worth the effort to discuss if one stumbles across it, unless it is more actively disruptive. If one hesitates on WP:G3 (and it is good to be cautious on applying "blatant hoax" tags), then it would also be eligible under WP:U6 (and eventually bot-tagged as such, I think). Martinp (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Comment. Prompted by this and one other recent MfD nom, I've proposed a small change at Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#Proposed_small_change_to_G13,_U6,_U7 Martinp (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  The policy wording clarification is now uncontroversially implemented, and therefore this page is indeed eligible for a speedy delete per U6, without the need to discuss to what extent it's a G3 edge case, i.e. what level of made-up/hoax it is.Martinp (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for sorting that. I would definitely support a speedy deletion in this case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - See also Attempts to claim Bir Tawil as a sovereign state. It is unclaimed by both Egypt and Sudan because they recognize that it isn't worth the efforts of real nations claiming it, and they ignore inquiries about silly claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete How many more of these are there? This is probably a G3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenghtqru888 (talk • contribs)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates