Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Discussed deletion[change | change source]

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}} to the top of the page.
  2. Please use a change summary such as "nominated for deletion".
  3. Save the page.
  4. You can also check the "Watch this page" box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you to know if the RfD tag is removed.
Create a discussion page.
  1. On the box that has appeared at the top of the article, click the link to create a discussion page.
  2. Type the page name and the reason you are requesting deletion in the right places.


List it here
  1. Look at the discussion page you have just made, and follow the instructions in the red box.
  2. Once you have done that, you may wish to remove that tag.

Quick deletion[change | change source]

See also: Category:Deletion requests

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the user[change | change source]

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|<page to be deleted>}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

Discussions[change | change source]

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) and IP addresses will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete Quick keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussions[change | change source]

The Rolling Stones's 26th studio album[change | change source]

The Rolling Stones's 26th studio album (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Upcoming album that apparently doesn't even have a title yet. There's certainly nothing here to show notability beyond the mere fact that it's from the Rolling Stones. Auntof6 (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change | change source]

This request is due to close on 02:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Down Among the Big Boys[change | change source]

Down Among the Big Boys (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability; it's an episode from a TV series for which we don't even have an article Rus793 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change | change source]

  • Neutral - Really on the edge about this one, considering the new additions, I am now unsure of my decision. I'll keep as neutral until it's a definate delete or a definate keep. George Edward CTalkContributions 19:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • keep even though its an episode within a series, it is a truly a notable separate long film for itself with really well known actors, which received mainly positive reviews. and the fact that the we don't have (yet) an article on that series, is not even an argument for dummies.
on a side note: I don't get why people are so eager to nominate pages for deletion - (and sometimes before even making the minimal research). do you seriously hate knowledge? נייגעריגער (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We certainly don't hate knowledge. You need sources to back up these claims: "really well known actors", positive reviews". Please read this page. As always, if you can find enough sources, I will change my vote to Speedy Keep. As it stands, it's simply not notable. Thank you, George Edward CTalkContributions 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And, once again, it is for editors to make sure they follow our rules for notability. The whole idea of a wikipedia is under constant criticism as being "unreliable" because we allow anyone to to write "whatever they think". Notability and sources are our main defence to that criticism. They are really important. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • KEEPI go along with what נייגעריגער says QUOTE even though its an episode within a series, it is a truly a notable separate long film for itself with really well known actors, which received mainly positive reviews. and the fact that the we don't have (yet) an article on that series, is not even an argument for dummies ENDQUOTE I will try to look in some british television and file database sources to see if there is or was any tertiary coverage of the series. More sources is always better, but I know how strict we need to be here, I am going to follow what נייגעריגער mentioned, and look for the reviews that were published independently in reliable sourced publications. ciao!!! Carriearchdale 13:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said above Carrie... there needs be sources to back this up. I found some YouTube clips, products on CeX and Amazon, but not much more. I'll keep on looking though... George Edward CTalkContributions 14:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do look at this new rewrite with two good sources. I paste the bit here but please all interested consider the full article again.
paste Down Among the Big Boys was a United Kingdom based english language television series that was later turned into a full feature length motion picture or movie in 1993. The full length movie was titled the same, "Down Among the Big Boys".[1] The movie was 128 minutes long.
Down Among the Big Boys was so notable it is even now still archived at the University of Glascow - Special Collections in the Scottish Theatre Archive.[2] end paste ciao!!! Carriearchdale 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm probably going to have to go with neutral now. George Edward CTalkContributions 15:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Look, if someone can find reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject and in sufficient quantity to show the subject is notable, then I'd go along with a keep also. What we have so far still seems to fall short of the guideline. For example, at the University of Glasgow special collections there are 3,656 scripts of BBC programs. The fact they have a script of this particular episode seems to be nothing out of the ordinary. It is simply one of the documents this special collection collects. Also, this citation fails to verify the statement about being "well received". It is simply verifying that a copy of the script is in their collection. The 1993 movie of the same name is certainly worth mentioning (and citing), but it is not the main topic of the article. When I looked, I found several reliable sources for the movie, just not for this particular episode. The BBC citation verifies the plot, but can't be said to be independent of the source since it was the BBC who aired the episode. Lastly, the Amazon.com reference isn't even a good source as they're selling the product in question. Rus793 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because the source is not what we'd consider reliable doesn't mean you have to remove it. It just isn't enough to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should change the subject of the article to the 1993 movie and mention the TV episode in the article. It would be much easier to keep. Rus793 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Fair enough, I'll be sure to make a note of that in future! Thanks! George Edward CTalkContributions 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
comment The actual subject of this article is the intellectual property of creator/playwright Scott McDougall. The man had an idea to write a story bout XYC. His script for television was adapted from his ideas and creation and this was all woven into a successful television series that ran on BBC It was such a good and notable series on BBC, that when they produced a special about the best shows shown on the BBC network in the past 60 SIXTY years, the TV show "Down Among the Big Boys" was one of the tv shows included in the special TV production show. (see the article the reference is there.) So then this guy McDougall thinks wow my idea or intellectual property of the story called "Down Among the Big Boys" did really well as a TV series. So then he thought, I am going to make my idea of the story, intellectual property, still the same name, and get it made into a full length motion picture. He just expanded his story line and the movie got made. Nobody should really even be saying, "well the title of the article is wrong! Come on people! I really cannot even believe some of this stuff that is being said. I m not even going into the proper debate to explain to Rus that a special collection library at the University in Scotland is not just collecting scripts, manuscripts, and things like that for every film ever made in their country. It is called "Special collections" for a reason. So, now I am going to go make a cup of hot tea, and when I come back I am going to change my vote on here to DELETE because I think the subject of this article is way too notable to be left here as an article. ciao!!! Carriearchdale 03:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Superhero Registration Act[change | change source]

Superhero Registration Act (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability; comic book trivia, does not seem merit its own article Rus793 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change | change source]

The subject of the article is "Superhero Registration Act" The created plot point which is the fictional "Superhero Registration Act". A plot point is a literary term for a literary element authors may use in the authorship of prose in books or comic books.(the prose part) In this particular usage of the plot point of the "Superhero Registration Act" was used by author Mark Millar to enhance the creativity of his work "Civil War". Quoting from the article "For his work Millar has been nominated for four Eisner Awards and two Eagle Awards. In June 2013 he was recognized by Queen Elizabeth II as a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for services to movies and literature." So the guy used the literary element of creating a really creative one and this article is notable because the author that used it, and made up the stories for the comic books it is used in has won several awards and has been very successful himself. I do have references three of them, but is probaly over the limnit already, so if you look at the article you could see the references on their that I found. WordSeventeen (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A quote from the article:
"One of the most notable authors who uses these plot points and literary elements is Mark Millar. He employed both of these literary elements in his work Civil War. For his works Millar has been nominated for four Eisner Awards and two Eagle Awards. In June 2013 he was recognized by Queen Elizabeth II as a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for services to movies and literature"
  • Delete. At the time I'm writing this, the article has three paragraphs. Only the first paragraph is about the Superhero Registration Act, and it doesn't show notability. The second paragraph is about plot points in general. The third one is about an author. All the references are in the same place in the third paragraph: of the two I can read (one goes to a site that puts up an ad that won't seem to go away), neither mentions the subject of this article so they don't show that the act is notable. The second and third paragraphs don't really belong in the article, because they are not about the act.
Besides all that, after looking at en:Registration acts (comics), I think this article has incorrect information it. "Superhero Registration Act" and the items in the list of alternate names (the part after "is also known as") do not appear to be alternate names. They appear to be separate things covered by the umbrella term "registration acts" (note the plural). --Auntof6 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 13:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Peace Service at St. Nicolas Church[change | change source]

Peace Service at St. Nicolas Church (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability / Wikipedia is not a news report Rus793 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change | change source]

  • Delete There is no context to identify the subject of the article. Eurodyne (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are millions of events every day which are absolutely not notable. It is for those who edit articles to give evidence as to their notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can't find notability of the subject on the web. However though, I think we should redirect this page to St. Nicolas Church if it is ever an article. Never mind, the church itself doesn't even seem to have notability. TheQ Editor (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think there are very few instances where a service at a church does indeed have notability. If there was an article about the building, I think the content we are discussing here could be moved there. But then again, I think this falls into the same category as timetables; there the general agreement seems to be that SEWP is not the place to publish them. --Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I have created a stub about the church, at St. Nicolas Church, Nuneaton. --Eptalon (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to St. Nicolas Church, Nuneaton, per above. --George Edward CTalkContributions 11:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not shown, and I don't think it's a likely enough search term to need a redirect. For example, would we create redirects for things like "Christmas service held at Westminster Abbey"? That's more of a news report than an encyclopedia article. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:White South African people[change | change source]

Category:White South African people (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I see no need for this category. We don't need to categorize people by either skin color or ethnic group, whichever this is considered to be. Not long ago we deleted a lot of ethnic group categories related to the US, and I don't think we need to start adding them for other countries. Auntof6 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change | change source]

  • The big question here is whether the classification makes sense in context. As examples look at F. W. de Klerk and P. W. Botha, both of which fall into the category white South African politicians. I doubt you will be able to talk about Apartheid without referring to the skin-color / ethnic group (in this case, probably the Boer). Of course you can try and leave out the skin color, but then you have to ask yourself: Can you meaningfully talk about people like Nelson Mandela (who was black-skinned)? - so the question becomes: if we can't talk about White South African people, should we talk about fair-skinned South African actors, or politicians? --Eptalon (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Auntof6 mentions the deletions of some of the ethnicity-related subcats of American people that she nominated. However, she didn't nominate all of them, as she recognised that some ethnicities of Americans, including African-Americans, Native Americans and American Jews have distinct identities and histories which are relevant. The same is true of South Africa, a country which had an Apartheid system which is in the living memory of most South Africans and racial identity is still relevant to SA now. This is why en WP has this category. Any biography of Mandela prominently states that he was SA's first black president. Jim Michael (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Here is another article: Afrikaner people for an example. As Eptalon says above, this article becomes meaningless without describing the white culture or ethnicity. "White South African" largely means people from South Africa who are of European descent and keep that identity. Diaspora (although our article is not correct), can actually mean a voluntary relocation. It is like erasing the facts of social studies to avoid classing ethnic groups in different geographical locations. Fylbecatulous talk 17:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A complicating factor is that the category "white" mixes two quite different groups, the originally Dutch settlers known as Afrikaners or 'Boers', and the British settlers. Since a major war was fought between the two factions (Boer War), sure as eggs are eggs some will want two sub-categories. And what about those who came from the Indian sub-continent? In fact, unlike American surnames, one can, almost always, tell to which group an individual belongs just from the name. From that point of view, we do not need separate categories. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
On en, en:Category:Afrikaner people is a subcat of en:Category:White South African people for that reason. We don't have enough - if any - south Africans of Asian origin for there to be a cat for them. For people who know how to determine national origin of surnames, it is usually easy to determine South Africans' ancestry, but most people who read Simple will not have that knowledge. Jim Michael (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Recently closed deletion discussions[change | change source]

Related pages[change | change source]