Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFDNUPWP:MFDNUP

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page for you. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G7 for more information.

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

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:,^[a] 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

^ The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

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.
Duplications in draftspace?	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.
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 policy as {{historical}} 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 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 doesn't 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

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTOWP:MFDHOWTO

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
t
e
V	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	1	59	60
TfD	1	23	24
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	1	23	24
RfD	0	56	56
AfD	0	25	25

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 8, 2025

Dietary restrictions UBX

These are described as "Dietary restrictions and stuff that I just bloomin' hate" on indefinitely blocked and TPA blocked former editor's personal Userboxes page. These violate UBCR, as they target and attack users with these dietary restrictions in a vulgar, rude manner, as well as arguably promoting FRINGE views about those dietary restrictions. I would also like to note that seemingly no one is using these userboxen and so they're just lying around gathering dust on our servers. They are inflammatory and not very useful, and multiple other userboxen by this user seemingly were already deleted, with the exception of User:Shāntián Tàiláng/Userboxes/Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is getting some use, so I'm not nominating it. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Needlessly imflammatory/divisive. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not conducive to Wiki collaboration --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2025

Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

AI-generated hoohah. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this draft article is unsalvageable. I found some sources were valid. I think it would be worth keeping this draft in case other editors besides the page creator want to improve it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future months 2026 to 2036

All those future months have not begun yet, so there is no point in having those pages that say nothing besides what day of the week those months begin and end on and how many days they have. The "Events by month" template should then be removed from all year pages from 2026 to 2032 to avoid redlinks. GTrang (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but only from January 2027 and onward. 2026 is right around the corner so what's the point of the 2026 ones when it'll be recreated again in nearly the same format? 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The portal is being actively maintained and viewed. The pages appear to have been recently created by editors who are probably involved in maintenance of the portal. I see no argument for deletion of these pages as long as the portal exists, and I do not see an argument at this time to delete this extremely active portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2028 and later Mass creation of nonsense should be discouraged. It looks like most have been created recently by 5120North15thStreet (talk · contribs) (222 edits; account created on 27 September 2025). Have they been notified? See WP:CRYSTAL. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That editor looks like an enthusiastic newbie. We should carefully direct him to something more useful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GTrang, please post a notification at Portal talk:Current events. This is firstly a question for editors involved with the portal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason why current events pages need to be created over a decade in advance. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:B5DA:AC06:5749:A86A (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes no sense to create pages so many years in advance. Catfurball (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 6, 2025

October 5, 2025

October 4, 2025

Draft:Maybelle Peralta

per WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion/vanity article, similar to User:Mqperalta94/sandbox. 0x0a (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not so promotional as to be G11. Notability is not a reason to delete drafts. See Drafts are not deleted for notability. It is a reason to decline drafts, and this draft has been declined. This draft is inadequately sourced, but is new. Unsourced biographies of living persons are deleted, but an originator should have a reasonable amount of time to add sources. Leave this alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 2025

Draft:V. kuipers

Foreign-language draft that has the author's name but actually talks about the behaviors of baboons. Not written in an encyclopedic manner. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being in Dutch is not a reason to delete a draft but is a reason to decline a draft. Will expire in 6 months unless translated to English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: keep. Shouldn't have tried that. (non-admin closure) Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (6th nomination)

Another potential violation of WP:BLP. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can the nominator please explain what is thought to be a violation of BLP? Is the nominator proposing to delete the article, Ken Hoang, which has been kept after five real AFDs, or to delete the sixth AFD nomination, which was an April Fool? How is the existence of the AFD nomination an insult to the real person whose image appears in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only made this nomination as a result of the subject still being alive. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there's no controversial or potentially defamatory material that's unsourced or poorly sourced. As an April Fool's joke, I say leave it alone (keep). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this page is not a BLP violation, April Fools' BLP nominations have been discouraged for a few years. Xeroctic (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inadequate nomination rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the nomination in question is for deleting a harmless, non-biographical AfD. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion, it's a harmless April Fools prank. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 04:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete and I agree SmokeyJoe that the nominators reason for nominating is not adequate. GothicGolem29 00:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this seems to be fairly innocuous as far as April Fools AFDs involving living people go. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CA8:42D8:9718:AB3C (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

October 2, 2025

Draft:Burke Files

User has repeatedly resubmitted this draft despite being told many times that they have not shown the subject’s notability. Despite the draft being rejected, they figured out how to manually resubmit. And what did they change since last time? They added one source. Rejection hasn’t stopped the disruption, so let’s try this instead. Oh, and I still think it might be LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source they did add was another piece written by the subject so didn't even remotely help the case towards notability. This has now become disruptive. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib)
Delete Tendentious resubmission. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I disagree with the rejection. I will agree with the rejection if I see specific tells of generation by a large language model. Although I disagree with the rejection, resubmission after rejection is disruptive. Discussion would have been an appropriate response to rejection. Resubmission after rejection is never constructive. A partial block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon see more history at DRAFT:L. Burke Files McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mcmatter - I did see the history, and I don't see specific evidence of the use of an LLM, and I disagree with the rejection, but disagree more with the attempt to resubmit after the rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This deletion nomination is unfair, I have made significant improvements to the original draft and continued to add credible and relevant sources. Please do not conflate content issues with innocent conduct errors - my resubmission was based on the improvements I had made. If you believe the draft still does not meet the notability bar - which I would strongly argue it does given the voluminous sources relating to this active journalist - please remember WP:DRAFTSPACE exists precisely to allow for the gradual improvement of potential articles. The allegation that the content is LLM generated is untrue however I did use it to assist in formatting, as I have done with this edit! Please keep the draft. Pete Peterviddle (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterviddle This is not the case, the only improvement you have made to the article was to add more primary sources even after I informed you on your talk page what was required and provided feedback on the sources you thought were the best ones. I would be happy to revoke the rejection if actual effort to find some sources that met the criteria was attempted. So I will say it here again. The sources to prove notability need to be independent of the subject, this mean no interviews, not written by the subject in any way and not a press release. They need to be published in a reliable source known for editorial oversight and fact checking. The last thing required of the sources proving notability is significant coverage, meaning it needs to provide in depth coverage of the subject beyond the scope of "Joe is CEO of ABC Company and has this to say about the....". The reason for the rejection was your continued submittal without actually improving issues with the draft. If you find sources these criteria and base the draft off of them you will probably very quickly see this discussion change. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have citations from Burke Files in prominent news outlets:

Report: Russia Laundered Millions via Danske Bank Estonia | OCCRP

Recent coverage about his upcoming book:

Trump-Linked Political Fundraiser Writes Book on How to Launder Money

More details on six other books he has published and his career to date.

L. Burke Files DDP CACM | IFC Review

I understand the point about sources but it seems here the argument is that LBF does not meet notability requirements - this is clearly unfair, there are far more fringe published authors than LBF with Wikipedia pages at the moment Peterviddle (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterviddle, you're right there probably are, and if they don't demonstrate proper notability they should also be flagged and possibly removed. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each draft and article is always looked at on it's own we don't compare any other existing article or draft to any other when it comes to the inclusion criteria. Fair or not fair has no weight in almost any discussion here. Looking at your 3 sources here, the first is just a quote from him and offers no significant coverage of him, it confirms he exists and has some expertise, nothing else. The second only mentions him once as a co writer but spend more time discussing the other author making them almost more notable then Files, again no significant coverage on Files. The last is a profile page from a publisher, so not independent and potentially not reliable as it is most likely written by Files or his team. Don't take anything happening here as an insult to you, writing an article on Wikipedia can be one of the most difficult tasks to undertake, there are a lot of policies, guidelines and nuances that can be difficult to understand and get at first. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 30, 2025

September 29, 2025

September 28, 2025

September 27, 2025

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Virgin Evans

Redundant. Wrapper for an existing template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a coprolite in template space that is not being used. If this were in user space, it would be U5, left by a user who otherwise did not substantially edit Wikipedia. There isn't a speedy code for this, but we can Use Common Sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: no consensus. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Linguolabial ejective stop

Non-notable, probably will not be notable ever. Also, it appears to be abandoned by the owner. BodhiHarp 03:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, redirecting probably shouldn't be done either. BodhiHarp 03:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a draft, and drafts expire when ignored for six months. Leave Useless Drafts Alone. Drafts are not reviewed for notability. If we start reviewing drafts for notability or sanity, we will have multiple drafts to review daily for deletion, and will only accomplish what the calendar does by itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 26, 2025

September 25, 2025

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununennium

Improperly created AfD with only this page having been created. I've attempted to reach out to the user twice (arguably three times counting my comment) at User talk:Oh, It's Me! So Cool! § Recent AfD about this page with no response. Since I am not willing to formally complete the AfD nomination (as it has no valid deletion reason, nor does one exist) and because no CSD can really apply, I suppose the best place to put it is here. (Also yes I'm aware of the irony of nominating a deletion for deletion.) Perryprog (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I would have say procedurally close as nonsense AFD, but nominator appears to be WP:NOTHERE TruenoCity (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would've done that if it wasn't for the fact that... what is there to close? Moot point now though I suppose. Perryprog (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for cleanup. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology/to do

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relic without an associated Project page, not used by the inactive WikiProject (nor was ever used in any meaningful way), no incoming links. Delete as what should be an uncontroversial cleanup. TNstingray (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are a member of the WikiProject, and have noted on the WikiProject talk page that you are doing cleanup? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was once useful. The history is brief but I consider, say, this edit to be meaningful. Graham87 (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KylieTastic (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical as per Graham87 and KylieTastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 21, 2025

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: no consensus. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Who is Rock Lee's wife?

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Left guide (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is effectively an FAQ in draftspace, and has been declined as obviously unencyclopedic. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously unencyclopedic with zero chance of ever becoming useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a rejected draft. Leave Useless Drafts Alone and they will go away. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a draft. jp×g 🗯️ 03:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC) ended today on 8 October 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

September 23, 2025

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: redirect to Tyler James Robinson. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tyler Robinson (suspect)

Article exists in Tyler James Robinson. Absolutiva 08:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of TJR. Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 12:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Tyler James Robinson. If the article is deleted, the redirect from draft space will be G8, but it is more likely that the article will be kept, merged, or redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect This is a copy as so it is not needed and can be redirected to Tyler James Robinson. GothicGolem29 01:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 22, 2025

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

[1] The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

[a]