Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

This talk page should be delete because it makes no sense 87.236.161.254 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please create this nomination page with the following deletion rationale:

Nonsense page, would qualify for WP:G1 if it wasn’t in user space. Seemingly created in response to Draft:How many natural recources are there in Jordan?, which itself was deleted per G1. Creator has a history of creating questionable pages such as this one. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:D8AD:87E3:79E0:78E0 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:PfD has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § Wikipedia:PfD until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please create this nomination page with the following deletion rationale: This draft have not edited for five months after WP:REFUND. ~2025-32253-13 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no need to waste time on an MfD for that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Jéské Couriano. ~2025-32253-13 (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please create this nomination page with the following deletion rationale: Unattributed WP:COPIES of Gerald Anderson with BLP problem, which is a redundant fork. ~2025-32253-13 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the large volume of MFD nominations of Drafts, by well-intentioned nominators unaware that we don’t delete drafts solely for notability not demonstrated, I’ve just made some WP:BOLD additions to the “Before nominating a page for deletion” preamble of the MFD page. Like all bold actions, discussion or even reverting if deemed inappropriate is welcome. But let’s try to provide better guidance somehow to stop the flow of unnecessary MFD draftspace nominations. My edit does not in any way change policy, it merely summarizes and points to it.

One could explicitly call out that MFD nomination of a draft is appropriate when the draft has been tendentiously/repeatedly resubmitted at AfD. This is covered at WP:NMFD that I linked to, however, so I personally felt it unnecessary. to repeat it. Martinp (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Wikipedia:Today’s featured article/January 1, 2026. Could an admin action this quite quickly please: I need to start scheduling the TFAs for the month. Many thanks if this can be fast-tracked. – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The process will time out by 11:11am UTC Dec 2. I’ll check it when I do my speedies in the morning. I’m sure it’s annoying but (other than your concern that 29 full days may be inadequate) I can’t see any obvious reason to early close this process. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (It’s not a question “that 29 full days may be inadequate”, it’s that the scheduling needs to be done in order or the bot doesn’t work, so I can’t do anything until this is cleared). No problems waiting until a little later today though and thinks for picking it up. – SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page with no redirect to User:CHICKENNUGGETSBOMBARD/TfA Nine Elms as its creation was clearly a misunderstanding. It would be good if someone pointed the user to info on how to make a TfA nomination. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]