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:Speedy deletion § U1 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:, 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 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

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	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	10	11	33	47	101
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	15	16	10	41
RfD	0	0	0	55	55
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.

October 23, 2026

Draft:The Nightly Manor

A non-notable web series made purely for fun. Only source is a passing mention of the show itself. Wikiman (Talk) 22:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep - This is a draft. Drafts that do not pass notability are declined, but are not deleted, because draft space is where they can be kept for possible improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah alrighty. Apologies for the mistake Wikiman (Talk) 23:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you wish to withdraw this? ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Manchestek/sandbox

Absolutely massive page being used as web hosting. User was blocked on eo.wikipedia.org due to similar activity, but moved it to here after the block. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete - I am not entirely sure what this is. It may be a list of association football national team standings. It does not appear to be encyclopedic, and the author does not appear to be contributing to the encyclopedia.
- Sometimes we see pages that seem to be tests or experiments with the display capabilities of Wikipedia that are unrelated to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia. This appears to be such a page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOSTING by a non contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I have cleared this user's sandbox. If they need the contents for reasons related to Wikipedia, they can always find it in the page history. This should resolve the issue. Maayaaaaa (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

User:CentennialElections

Wikipedia is not a web host and not for alternatoive history. A mass-MFD nomination seems like the best way to let this user know that such pages are not wanted here, rather than relying on subjective interpretations of the hoax speedy deletion criterion. Graham87 (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm also nominating the following 27 pages. Hopefully I've formatted the list OK; if not, feel free to tweak my formatting. User:CentennialElections/sandbox/The 2024 Indiana Gubernatorial Election, but Jennifer McCormick somehow wins is in yesterday's bot-tagged U6 candidates in review category, so it is not included here: Graham87 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

list of pages

Delete All - These are using Wikipedia as a web host, and are not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I do not think there is any question that these sandboxes are appropriate, but that is not what I find most concerning here. @Graham87, as far as I can see the talk page of this user was created when you notified them of this mass deletion nomination. That means it is likely that no one ever told them about WP:NOTWEBHOST. How can this be the best way to let this user know that such pages are not wanted here? I am somewhat bewildered that the only other alternative you saw to a mass MfD nom would have been a mass speedy nom, instead of starting with a simple talk page message. You are even nominating their actual userpage for deletion, which has virtually nothing on it. I can't help but feel that we are fully in WP:BITE territory here. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Pages that violate WP:NOT get deleted. Blatant hoax content is speedy deletable regardless of intent. Even if we warned the user, the outcome is that they will either abandon the pages or knowingly continue. Don't bite the newcomers is proper etiquette; however, looking at the creator's contributions, it seems that alternate history userpages are their exclusive editing interest, so it appears the user is WP:NOTHERE (although this is outside the scope of MFD). TruenoCity (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict ... yes, I was editing that slowly): indeed re above. @Choucas: I just got this notification (they're placement is a bit odd using a screen reader and I need to check on them manually). Thanks for your message on the user's talk page. I wasn't sure how effective such a message would be, given the extreme nature of the situation; they've had the account for over a year, have never made an edit outside their userspace , and are very nearly extended-confirmed, Before the user page criteria for speedy deletion were changed a year ago, speedy deletion would have absolutely been an option in this case. I was basing my nomination on this discussion I started on the speedy deletion talk page about a fairly similar but less extreme case. As for the main user page, it's an embryonic scratchpad for a list of alternative history pages, which we really don't want, hence my inclusion of it in this nomination; by the time they'd created it, they'd already made 54 edits. I thought that it'd be more effective if they were told by several people (not just me) that what they're doing is not the best here, which is why I started this nomination. Edited to add: the only desirable outcome from warning them first is that they request all the pages be deleted on their own accord, which isn't very common in my experience. Graham87 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as offensive to Wikipedia, and WP:NOTWEBHOSTING by a non contributor. WP:BITE does not apply because the user is not a genuine Wikipedia newcomer. Alternative histories are fake information and incompatible to the purposes of Wikipedia, tolerance of their existence anywhere on Wikipedia risks perception that Wikipedia tolerates fake information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

October 22, 2026

Draft:ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis

Not notable at all, doesn't fit under speedy or proposed deletion criteria, but also cannot be reviewed by the AFC helper script Robloxguest3 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I've declined it for now - even with new tools, it's still worth knowing how to use the templates. BlueStaticHorse (talk🌸) 19:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Non Notability is not a reason for deleting a draft, but for putting it in draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - The place that is the subject may be notable if significant coverage can be found in reliable sources. But:
- Why can it not be reviewed by the AFC helper script? Does the script choke on the weird characters in the name? If so, two things should be done. First, ask the script maintainers to ruggedize the script to handle the Unicode blocks that the title uses. Second, enter a {{correct title}} hatnote, and rename it as Laxwadis and review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep no valid deletion rationale for a draft, as pointed above. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

October 17, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/list

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. ✗plicit 11:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/list

Unused for 15 years. No pageviews other than mine. No objections at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/list

If this is deleted, the redirect at Wikipedia:Abandoned Drafts/list should be deleted along with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete: as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete all - Pages that are no longer useful should be marked historical, but pages that were never useful or were stillborn may be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Mark historical If it's unused, I believe it should be historical, not deleted.Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This was never meaningfully in use - only one abandoned draft was ever listed here, and it was deleted in 2017 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:RealTimeRace). Omphalographer (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

No objections if there are no objections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Robert McClenon, my thinking here is the same. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 17:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC) ended today on 24 October 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.

October 15, 2026

Template:User interest Hockey

Unused userbox. Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I don't believe being unused is a reason to delete userboxes. They're not the same as templates. I will change my !vote if other information is presented for deletion, though. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Organhaver. This is not TFD, so being unused is not a reason to delete a userbox. I can't actually see it for some reason, but that's a problem that can be fixed by editing. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The userbox was put in includeonly tags, "which marks content that is not rendered unless it is transcluded". ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - For what it is worth, the code is junk. For example, the size is not standard. Thus, unlikely to get any use without a significant rewrite. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep the template was broken, but Godsy fixed it. Being unused by itself isn't a reason to delete userboxes. TruenoCity (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I cleaned it up somewhat, true. However, I did not fix it. My above comment still stands that this is functionally unusable (by anyone who values aesthetics) in conjunction with other userboxes in its current state. I could standardize and fix it, but will not devote the time or effort to an unused userbox created in February of this year by a user with 9 edits. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Þou know people may use þis in þe future, ænd þæt just because something is not used one day, doesn’t mean other people won’t ever use it, right? Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 19:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Arenghtqru888: For those who don’t speak, that, they said:

‘Thou know people may use this in the future, and that just because something is not used one day, doesn’t mean other people won’t ever use it, right?

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 01:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, þæt is correct! Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy to User:UBX, and organise it there. If redundant, redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Userbox migration, which was modelled on the practice of the German Wikipedia, was a huge success here 20 years ago, and mostly was completed. There’s just a few strays and new Userboxes left undone. Every potentially useful general user userbox should be located in subpages of User:UBX. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose userification through userbox migration to a subpage of User:UBX, but no opposition to userification elsewhere or redirecting it somewhere if appropriate. Userbox migration is a historical scheme best left to the German Wikipedia. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Userfy this is not a valid deletion rationale for a userbox; even at TfD, we only delete things that are unused and have no reasonable chance of being used, which clearly is not the case for a generic userbox. It needs to be moved to userspace, not deleted. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

October 10, 2026

User:Chem507f10grp2

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Robloxguest3 (talk)

14:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be a rejected draft of a rewrite of Oxidative addition. No substantial non-bot edits since 2010. Apocheir (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Blank as userpage of a long-inactive non-contributor TruenoCity (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - This would be U6 if it were a user subpage rather than a main user page, but there is no special reason to keep it, so treat this as equivalent to a U6. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Blank or redirect to Oxidative addition or anything but delete, they presumably used the user page to rewrite the oxidative addition article. which had a bit of to and fro in the edit history at the time. Per their talk page, they went on to edit as @Tycarter:. I've encountered several similar subpages while monitoring the bot-tagged U6 candidates in review, but I don't think it'd be wise to delete the history of this one. Graham87 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon ~2026-56170-49 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Move to User:Chem507f10grp2/Oxidative addition, leaving behind a soft redirect at User:Chem507f10grp2; this is the best way to retain the history (for reasons of attribution, historicity, etc.) per the request of Graham87; said request should be honored because the page is harmless. If someone comes along and applies {{userspace blanked}} editorially at some point in the future, so be it. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see a point in moving to keep a page that appears to be an attempt at a rewrite of an existing article that likely will never be used, especially since no substantial edits have been made for 16 years. However, no reason to delete either, as it is a non-problematic mostly dormant page, so my stance is to blank it. However, I don't quite understand the argument against deleting the history either. TruenoCity (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@TruenoCity: See WP:USERPAGEDRAFT. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:USERPAGEDRAFT is for Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future. It has been dormant for almost 16 years now, so it is unlikely to be useful for anyone at this point. So my stance is to blank it rather than moving to sandbox. TruenoCity (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Let us not take that out of context: Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include ... [w]ork in progress or material that you may come back to in future (on subpages) (emphasis added). This should have been placed on a subpage 16 years ago (in theory, if such guidance existed at the time). Now then, on to the modifying bullet: Drafting on a top-level userpage is confusing. Any editor may move a draft away from a top-level userpage, either to a subpage or to the draft namespace, replacing it with {{draftified userpage}}. ... . That means that anytime in the past 16 years (since creation) up to now (or whenever this guidance was written), it would have been and still is appropriate to correct the placement of the content in question. Thus, the section heading you are referring to is not a time condition placed upon the lower bullets, but rather a general categorization of acceptability. Might as well file it away in the proper place, since we are here. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, the page was used to rewrite the article; see my !vote above. Which is why I think it's worth keeping its history. Graham87 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Move to subpage, optionally blank if someone wants, per Godsy. Martinp (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Per Godsy, Move to User:Chem507f10grp2/Oxidative addition, leaving behind a soft redirect at User:Chem507f10grp2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a little more input!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Robloxguest3 (talk)

14:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Move and soft redirect per Godsy, whose suggestion makes most sense to me as well. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

September 28, 2026

Talk:Monty Hall problem/RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 27. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Rename to Draft RFC or some similar title, when marking historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Rename and mark historical, any of "Proposed RfC", "Draft RfC", or other sensible option is fine. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

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.