Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFDWP:MFD

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.
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 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	Jan	Feb	Total
CfD	59	130	189
TfD	2	39	41
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	30	26	56
RfD	0	90	90
AfD	0	4	4

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.

February 28, 2026

User talk:Easternsahara

A TA was reverting my speedy deletion tags, can this be deleted? Thanks Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 19:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment base user talk pages are explicitly not eligible for WP:U1, redirects left behind following page moves due to a user being renamed are explicitly not eligible for WP:U2, and User:EasternShah needs to read the WP:CSD before tagging any additional pages for deletion. WP:MFD is however the correct venue for deleting the now blanked page. Though why deletion is desired here is still unclear, so I take no formal position here on that question for now. ~2026-12223-02 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy Keep 1 - The effect of deleting a blanked user talk page is to hide the history from non-admins. That is undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you can check the history, it doesn't have any meaningful history Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 15:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 27, 2026

User:WaffleWizard21/sandbox

Fake alternate history election sandbox, which turns the 1956 United States House of Representatives elections into a parliamentary election won by "prime minister" Hubert Humphrey. (The dissolution of parliament was still granted by President Eisenhower according to the body text, so they haven't mucked with that bit of history, but this isn't how the US election process works.)
While this doesn't strictly violate BLP, since the people named here certainly aren't still alive, it still violates other Wikipedia policies to publish false and inaccurate information. (And yes, as usual, this was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption.) Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like other alternate history, this was made up, and presents fiction as fact, and is web hosting by a non-contributor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue with the categories isn't a reason to delete, but there are reasons to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per “fake alternate history”, which is offensive to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Littlebigred34/sandbox

Fake alternate history election sandbox, which copies 1993 Virginia gubernatorial election and reinfoboxes it for October 1995, which was (a) not a real Virginia gubernatorial election year, and (b) not the month in which a Virginia gubernatorial election would have been held even if 1995 were the right year. It features the real incumbent governor of the state (but running for an imaginary party) running against a person who has never been a gubernatorial candidate at all as far as his article says (also running for a different imaginary party).
As usual, since both of these people are still alive, it violates WP:BLP to publish false information about living people, even in userspace. And as usual, this was left in all of the real article's categories for public consumption. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like other alternate history, this was made up, and presents fiction as fact, and is web hosting by a non-contributor. Also, as noted, a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue with the categories isn't a reason to delete, but there are reasons to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per “fake alternate history”, which is offensive to Wikipedia. Also the BLP angle. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 26, 2026

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Article alerts

The page has not been receiving article alerts since 2010. This page is overall useless as it does not serve a purpose other than just to exist. Wikiman (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I put it up for speedy deletion it exists for something that no longer functions. Moxy🍁 00:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why this shouldn't work. If someone is interested in the updates, User:AAlertBot has instructions for setting them up. - Eureka Lott 00:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless, which is what the nominator said. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archive. Old things that were once used should be archived, not deleted, unless there is a reason to delete and not archive. MfD is not a forum for managing WikiProject minutiae. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:S.Kaviyapriyasiva/sandbox

Appears to be a documentation of some kind. Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator - Why are you reviewing a sandbox approximately 24 hours after it was created? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was flagged on a filter as Possible self promotion in userspace. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 18:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this time. It's a sandbox. We don't know at this time whether the originator is web hosting or simply experimenting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant (archived) thread on VPM; this is likely a school assignment. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@OutsideNormality: do you think it's then appropriate to then delete all of the relevant pages? Do you think a block would also get this "instructor"'s attention? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 01:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 24, 2026

Draft:Butta No Margarine

NN rapper. Article created by editor since indeffed for sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Ravenswing 06:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Whether the rapper is notable is of no concern. This is not a G5 because the sockpuppeteer was not blocked when this draft was created. Leave Useless Drafts Alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon. This is a draft, not an article, and drafts are not checked for notability. It is not overly promotional, and the timeline does not allow for a G5 speedy deletion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 16:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Containing this is what draftspace is for. Bringing it to MfD is a net negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 23, 2026

Draft:Gimkit guide

There is WP:SNOW chance of this actually being accepted, especially considering that Draft:Gimkit isn't a even article yet. Additionally, this fails the notability guideline and does not belong on Wikipedia. Speedrunz (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not yet an article, so, to my knowledge, notability does not matter yet. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NMFD, which says "Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft".

I do not believe that any of your other arguments constitute deletion and I do not believe this draft meets any of the deletion reasons in policy, either. I will vote keep. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This looks like a useless draft. See Leave Useless Drafts Alone, because sending them to MFD requires more volunteer time than letting them expire after six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Even though the topic is unlikely to pass notability guidelines, there's no urgent need to delete non-notable drafts as there is for non-notable articles, as long as the draft isn't harmful (which this isn't). Better to let it expire by G13 rather than nominate it for deletion. ApexParagon (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't that policy only for mainspace? Correct me if I'm wrong. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 05:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Comics & fancruft

This is written from the perspective of a single user's experience and I'm not seeing a meaningful difference between fancruft and fancruft specific to comics. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a valid reason. It would be helpful if instead of deleting it, maybe just improve it? Robloxguest3 (talk)

08:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as personal musings, which are harmless in userspace (Note the "I" phrasings), but this is not a Wikipedia essay and to the extent it is, it's duplicative of WP:Fancruft which is a much more serious essay on the topic. SnowFire (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it isn't a duplicate by the way Robloxguest3 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree because of how personal it is. The essay is too low-quality for a Wikipedia essay and doesn’t explain what fancruft is other than linking to WP:Fancruft in one section so it is much more suited to userspace. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 20:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - No reason given to delete, and considerable leeway is given for essays to be in Wikipedia space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, I'm not seeing how this provides any useful information. All it says is that fancruft can exist in articles about comics (in every single page I have seen) and that it should be removed. It doesn't even define what fancruft is. There's nothing discussed here that can't be found in WP:FANCRUFT, except for the fact that the latter essay doesn't specifically mention comics (a mention could easily be added, however). I don't see the value of splitting up one valuable and oft-cited essay into fragments which differ from it little (especially when the fragments are given as first-person narratives rather than general advice). I do agree that there's no harm in moving this to userspace. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per SnowFire. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: per SnowFire. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 16:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: seems to fail WP:REDUNDANTESSAY (overlap with WP:FANCRUFT); additionally, it appears to be a single opinion essay at this point, and thus better suited to userspace. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Redundantessay is not a policy. Just wanted to let you know. Robloxguest3 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 22, 2026

User:Cognsci/Necrophile

Possibly inflammatory. Kind of peculiar in the way that necrophilia is a disorder (often) but also refers to the sexual act.

I don't oppose disorder userboxes, but the category of this userbox and other general things imply more of a sexuality part.

Do we think keep, for whatever reason, delete, or just modify? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 18:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"necrophilia is a disorder", whilst paraphilias used to be classified as disorders within both the DSM and the ICD, in subsequent versions (see Paraphilic disorder#ICD-11 and Paraphilic disorder#DSM-5) they are not. Cognsci (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I may have misspoke, whoops. That's supposed to be what the "often" is for. I don't know the actual percentages. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for inflammatory, the Wikipedia page for Necrophilia isn't listed as a contentious topic so I find it unlikely that other wikipedians will agree with that sentiment. Cognsci (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a topic is listed as a contentious topic has more to do with prior disruption in the topic area than whether the topic is necessarily itself divisive. Pedophilia isn't listed as a CTOP, but it's certainly been divisive in the past; see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. ~2026-12505-11 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration request you linked seems more to do with user conduct (as arbitration requests typically are) than it does to do with the topic of pedophilia. Cognsci (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cognsci (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cognsci You don’t say why this Userbox should be keeping VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think userboxes about human sexuality help us to collaborate more effectively on articles, do you disagree? Cognsci (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kamilhussen24

Two previous speedy deletions have been declined already. This user page has been made more promotional since the previous speedy deletion attempts and the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE.

It should be deleted for being an unsourced BLP. If that's not enough, then please also consider that this user is using Wikipedia as a webhost. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whilst there is a non-promotional version of this user page in the history, the user has insisted, on two occasions here and here, to convert this into a vanity page. In my view, a better solution is just to delete the entire user page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced promotional biography of a living person and as web hosting by a non-contributor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MFD is a content forum. We do not decide whether an editor is not here constructively, but we do decide whether their user page is [[WP:NOTHERE|not here for the encyclopedia]. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Robert McClenon. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 16:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who declined the first speedy, I wouldn't have reverted if it had been tagged G11 again, and likely would have deleted and blocked. This user's exhausted their good faith assumption quota. —Cryptic 01:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think it's always good to give a newbie at least one chance to turn things around. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2026

Wikipedia:Reporting interaction ban violations

Article has not been edited in several years and contains very little information. Speedrunz (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Last resort: arbitration TruenoCity (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
strongest possible meh. I have no idea what was in my mind when i created it but it’s deliciously pointedly snarky. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spartaz: Per your contributions at the time, you created it shortly after this conversation (warning: long page!) at the talk page of @Ihardlythinkso:. Graham87 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you Graham. I was in fine form in that conversation wasn't I. I wonder how I got so grumpy and terse?! Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don’t see the point of this nom. It is a very short piece of good advice. I don’t see a reason to delete it, but since it has never been used it could be userfied. The redirect target seems like a bad idea; IBAN-ed users explicitly shouldn’t be in disputes. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anything but delete per above and also because its talk page has a brief but constructive discussion. Graham87 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is close to Speedy Keep 1 because there isn't really a deletion rationale. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, neither the essay being short or not being edited in several years is a valid rationale for deletion. No prejudice against userfying if the creator wants. ApexParagon (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the creator has already voted Meh Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 05:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either Redirect or Userfy would work. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stupid Articles

Denigrating the contributions of other editors isn't conducive to building an encyclopedia. - Eureka Lott 19:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

note: after removing anything that either doesn't exist or doesn't fit, it is now ONEOTHER. i would suggest a redirect to Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create, as stupid articles would serve much better as a redirect than a list. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 21:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create: since WP:STUPID already goes there. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move the redirect to WP:Stupid articles for capitalization. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 20:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 16:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC) ended today on 1 March 2026. 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.

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]