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	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	24	15	104	0	143
TfD	0	0	15	0	15
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	27	24	0	51
RfD	0	0	61	0	61
AfD	0	0	34	0	34

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.

October 5, 2026

Draft:People Chaser Derecho

Draft:People Chaser Derecho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Creator of draft requested deletion WXchaser (^{Say what?}) 16:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete as per WP:G7. Eoline 16:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete WP:G7. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Scutum Group

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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Draft:Scutum Group Draft:Scutum Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Self-retract. Seems to be an obvious case of COI editing about a company that's at most notable in French media. Fails WP:NCORP otherwise. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 14:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Keep. Leave useless drafts alone. If you believe it fails NCORP, it'll get rejected sooner or later anyway. This nom is just a waste of volunteer time in the long run. mwwv converse∫edits 15:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC) No comment on anything else, but at most notable in French media is most decidedly not a reason for deletion. Sources in non-English language media are completely fine for verifiability (See WP:NOENG) and notability (see Sources do not have to be available online or written in English at the WP:GNG); @IrisChronomia, I think you may want to reacquaint yourself with basic PAGS like WP:V and WP:N. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 15:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC) I know; I routed myself to be overly suspicious partially because of my experience with some UPEs. Me trout. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 19:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Speedy Keep per WP:SK3. Not trying to call out the nom, who doubtless is in good faith trying to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. However, I'm putting this as a test case whether there's appetite to speedily close MfD nominations like this, that come from a fundamental misunderstanding of deletion policy in the relevant namespace. WP:SK3 allows speedy closure of noms where The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate rationale has been provided. In this instance, the nom refers to COI editing and WP:NCORP, both of which are not valid rationale for deletion in Draftspace. (It also implies sources in non-English media are somehow less relevant for notability, but that's a separate matter). Therefore no accurate (in the context of Draftspace) rationale for deletion has been provided. If we truly believe in the spirit of WP:LUDA, i.e. that the goal is to minimize collective time spent on discussion that cannot go anywhere, we should be willing to just speedily close noms like this here, given they arise from a misunderstanding. But I also accept there is a counterargument to let such noms mature, that extra eyes may find other more valid reasons for deletion. Or that completely erroneous should be reserved for more blatant wrong arguments than ones which are valid in another namespace.Martinp (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Self retracted and agree with speedy keep. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 19:57, 5 October 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:Shundreka Kajuana Fuller

User:Shundreka Kajuana Fuller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTWEBHOSTING by a noncontributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very least Ignore as a inoffensive brief three-sentence summary that you work in field X and a simple link to your personal home page that the community allows under WP:UPYES; deeming this person a noncontributor on the basis of their first(!) edit made over 12 years as opposed to actually talking to them is textbook WP:BITE. (Slightly entertainingly, the nominator has only made one more mainspace edit them them in the past 30 days). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 15:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ignore as inoffensive. The brief narrative description is well within what we tolerate. As far as the links, WP:UPYES says, you are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion. To me this indicates there is some leeway, but also some legitimate concern where it is suspected promotional linking is the primary goal, especially of someone otherwise not a contributor. On balance, deleting the whole page seems an overreaction versus AGF. I would personally just move on, but if someone finds the links objectionable, I'd see nothing wrong with editing out the links and leaving an explanatory note on the user's talk page about the promotion concern. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User:APP676767767

User:APP676767767 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Don't think this fits under speedy delete. Verbatim copy of Tim Cook, and is hence a WP:FAKEARTICLE. This user also engaged in persistent (edited) vandalism of Apple related topics. 16dvnk (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

“Persistent”? They did five edits over 38 minutes. No deleted edits. User:Izno, you indef blocked with summary “(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia)”
What am I not seeing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If you don't think this user is blockable with the data you can see, I don't know what to tell you. The edits, the edit summaries, and the name (six-seven) are all clearly "this is a vandal and it will not get better".

Vandals get blocked. They were blocked 8 minutes after their last edit, and with the spread in their contributions I had what I think was the reasonable assumption they would make another edit 8 minutes later.

I am of the belief that indef is generally preferable to time-based blocks for such individuals. I am also of the general belief that indef is not infinite.

If you have further questions about the block, you may use my talk page or a community forum meant for it. MFD is not one of those places. Izno (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the inappropriate user page needed to be deleted, and not any follow up of the block. 16dvnk (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC) P.S. I was responding to SmokeyJoe (not pinging). 16dvnk (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to User:APP676767767/sandbox as a low-effort alternative to deletion. If user persuades someone they are editing in good faith and gets unblocked, they can experiment with this short article excerpt in their sandbox, which is where such exploration should be done. If they don't, it will harmlessly get deleted in 6 months per WP:U6. It is not suitable standalone content for a top-level userpage, not long enough an excerpt for WP:FAKEARTICLE to apply, and it is not worth our while here to try to determine if this is a confused new user or a vandal for lolz. Letting it sit as a userspace subpage (sandbox) makes secondguessing intent unnecessary.. Martinp (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe moving is better. 16dvnk (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

October 4, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)/deletion sorting

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)/deletion sorting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is the creation of a blocked user in violation of their block. I would have tagged for speedy deletion, but a nomination was declined back in 2017 due to transclusion concerns. I don't think those concerns are still relevant (only one pages transcludes this one according to WhatLinksHere), but I'm bringing it here just to be safe. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC) (Struck at 04:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC))

Actually, the master was only blocked 2 days after this page was created, so I don't think this is a G5. I still think this should be deleted, though. I don't see the point of this, and the fact that this is a subpage of an MFD is really odd. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as long as we are here, and this never had any real use and does not need marking historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/deletion sorting search hits. Do not leave it where it is. I don’t see why it needs deletion versus living under WP:ARS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone at the ARS actually want this thing in their projectspace? Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Me. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Moving is fine by me, but I left a notice at WT:ARS to see what other members think. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

October 3, 2026

User:Nullpeak

User:Nullpeak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Wikipedia is not a web host for original research. Note this is a bundled nomination for the user page and the user sandbox. Whpq (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: This page is an edited copy of a paper that was uploaded elsewhere. The first sentences in the first numbered section of the uploaded copy and the second numbered section of the user page copy are identical, aside form the addition of a single word. Other portions of it are somewhat differently worded, but otherwise identical. If the user is indeed the author, this user page is in violation of our policies regarding hosting things. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NOTWEBHOSTing by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete All - As the nominator says, this is web hosting. I am not sure whether to call it original research so much as original assembly of words into what appears to be some sort of pseudoscientific abstract philosophy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: as a presumed copyright violation, and if not that then as a WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT violation. JavaHurricane 17:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

October 2, 2026

User:Cartoon News

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

Contains SVGs of various copyrighted logos of TV shows, films, studios, etc. I am aware the user is already blocked, but this is a separate issue unrelated to the edit war for which they were blocked. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Not all of these are copyrighted, some are {{PD-textlogo}}, {{PD-shape}} or similar. Just remove any that are incompatible with the NFCC. Report if they're restored improperly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Speedy: Could probably be G12 to some images, but it can be delete if otherwise. Guythatlikeshorses2^talk 23:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy what (keep/redirect/delete)? If speedy delete, what criterion? And this discussion is for the userpage, not for the files. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

    There are a few images on there that I, in my understanding of US copyright law several hours ago, believed to be copyvios, but upon further review now I am not so sure. Regardless I would not be opposed to it if someone started FFDs on some of those files, but given the sheer number of them that would need to be checked, I'm not sure who would be up to the task... In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 00:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

    I mentioned the criteria it fell into. And speedy with nothing after it usually means speedy delete. Guythatlikeshorses2^talk 06:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

    That is really unclear to me. And again– this is the discussion on the userpage, not files. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as the least complicated way to be sure that there are no copyvios. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Remove the section that contains all of the images, which easily remedies the issue raised about the page. No need for action here beyond that at this time. No opposition to blanking the entire page with {{userspace blanked}}, either. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - the page itself is not a copyright violation, nor are any of the logos at a glance. These all appear to be Commons hosted logos which do not meet the threshold of originality for copyright or are no longer under copyright. If there are any specific logos that you feel are copyright violations, you can nominate them for deletion at Commons and when they are deleted there, then they disappear from this page. There is no need to delete this page, nor delete the section with the logos. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Whpq. If there are any copyvios here, deleting the page or removing the section won't solve the larger issue because they'll still be on Commons. If any images on Commons need deleting, that won't require us to edit the page because a bot will handle that for us. If the images are okay to host on Commons, then there is nothing wrong with having them on a userpage. The aforementioned block is irrelevant and has already expired, so let's just leave this person's userpage alone. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Wrong forum. Copyright concerns of images should be addressed at WP:FfD or at commons. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep as I don't see a legitimate rationale for deletion. As for copyright issues, most of the logos are in public domain in the US as they are below the threshold of originality, and those may be copyright violates are a Commons content issue and outside the scope of Wikipedia. TruenoCity (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per the keeps above. No reason to delete the user page unless the user abusively reädds images hosted on enwiki that are fair use for particular pages. If anyone thinks any particular images violate copyright, take it up for the file on enwiki or commons as the case may be. Having user pages listing a large number of images or similar of interest to the editor is quite common. Skynxnex (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-52904-68/sandbox

User:~2026-52904-68/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Personal essay, not permitted per WP:NOTESSAY Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete as copyright infringement (G12), since the first line is a copyright notice. It is possible but unprovable that the creator is the author, but prudence requires us to a) take the copyright notice at face value, b) remove the content. Martinp (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as per Martinp. If the temporary account really is Richard P. Muise, then the copyright notice may conflict with our copyleft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Basically per Martinp.

Guythatlikeshorses2^talk 23:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Unrelated to Wikipedia. And even if sort of related, userspace leeway is for contributors who are WP:Registered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment See also contribs of User:The Greed Files, this TA is likely related. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Temporary accounts are not supposed to have userpages, although the temporary account is likely related to User:The Greed Files. This violates WP:NOTWEBHOST by being unrelated to the purpose of Wikipedia, and as other commentors mentioned, possible copyvio or incompatibility with CC-BY-SA 4.0. TruenoCity (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Apsarastotle/sandbox

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

U7 declined, AI-generated essay. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete/Speedy redirect to Khmer Empire: For speedy delete, G15. For speedy redirect, it is an essay about the Khmer Empire, and we have article about that, so it's best to redirect it there. Guythatlikeshorses2^talk 10:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify for G15. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh. Guythatlikeshorses2^talk 23:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. A user sandbox, which can plausibly be notes for their encyclopedic editing. No disruption asserted in the deletion nomination, so no reason to delete. Creator has made encyclopedic edits, which is why U7 got declined. Not unambiguous enough as LLM use for a G15. If creator goes inactive, U6 will take care of it in due course, in the meanwhile it is harmless. (General comment: LLM use is harmful when it gets into Main or Wikipedia space, or if it is used in inter-user communications. It is not worth seeking out in user sandboxes, which are a form of jot notes. If a user chooses to use an LLM in their preparatory notes, and then checks the results and rewrites it in their encyclopedic editing, nothing bad has happened.) Martinp (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - No reason to delete from user space or draft space. It is not obvious whether this was written by artificial intelligence, so we should assume good faith and assume human origin. There should be a certain degree of acceptance of user sandboxen. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:NOTWEBHOSTing violation by a non contributor. Block Apsarastotle (talk · contribs). On examining their edit history, they are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, and a nuisance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

October 1, 2026

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.) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

(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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

September 29, 2026

Draft:Dead is not enoug.

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

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

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

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

  I find drafts and sandboxes like this via Commons, because they contained files nominated for deletion as out of scope or copyright violations. Usually the draft or sandbox is a clear G11 or U6, but this one seemed borderline, so I kicked it to MFD instead. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

September 28, 2026

Talk:Monty Hall problem/RfC

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

Created 15 years ago while we were trying to decide how to word an RfC. I now know to do this sort of thing in my userspace. Alas, a now-blocked IP added a comment, so not eligible for a G7 speedy. Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Archive: Because we know how RFC’s can be worded, it is safe to archive. Don’t delete though, since this could be a bit beneficial to some. 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 21:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Mark Historical, which is probably what the above editor means by Archive. There is no reason to delete this. (It doesn't free server space.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Mark Historical. Per Robert McClenon. Aphroditelita🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• That's just wrong. Marking as historical is fine with me, but not with a title that implies that there was an RfC that affects or affected the Monty Hall problem page back in 2011. That's just wrong. It shows up in some search results (including the popular "search all") with zero indication in the search results that it is a 15-year-old abandoned draft and not an actual RfC.

I do find it to be odd that if I had known enough in 2011 to put this in my userspace I could just delete it, and that if that IP hadn't posted a comment I could have requested G7 speedy deletion. But here we are.

How about changing "RfC" to "Proposed RfC", inserting it into Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 27 where is would be genuinely useful for anyone crawling through the history of the talk page, and making this page a redirect to that entry in the archives? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Userfying to allow db-u1? That might be considered disingenuous. There’d be an issue with moving from the talk namespaces, u1 applies to user but not user_talk. Creating a usersubpage, to delete u1, to delete the usertalk u8, that I’d call something. Rick Block (talk · contribs) edited in 2011, preventing db-g7.

The important question is, was this page used. I read the archives, and I don’t see it being used. If used, it should be kept.

In any case, I support tagging as an archive, or renaming the page as an archive.
I wonder whether the IP’s post should be moved to the current talk page. It’s a worthy article talk page post. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. It would never have occurred to me to move something to user space in order to do something that I couldn't do in mainspace. That is so obviously wrong that it never crossed my mind. What I was saying is that if I knew in 2011 what I know now I would have posted the draft in my userspace.

I have copied the IP's comment over per your suggestion. see Talk:Monty Hall problem#Misplaced post from 2011.

This page was never used for anything. It was just a draft of some half-baked ideas I has for a possible RfC. Nothing links to it, nobody has quoted it or referenced it in any way, and it had no page views other that the usual pattern of occasional mystery views from stealth crawlers that most pages see before I noticed it and listed it for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That was nice of you to move the old post, thank you.
Never used for anything? Ok.
Multiple things could be done. Choosing one, I suggest

redirect to Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 27. It’s the only place where the RFC subpage was mentioned. Keep the history available for wikiarcheologists, but as a redirect, no one should wander in again and post as if it is a place to talk.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates