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	117	0	117
TfD	0	1	0	0	1
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	6	10	10	0	26
RfD	0	0	116	0	116
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

August 8, 2026

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

Old business

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)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates