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]

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club[change | change source]

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. Has been deleted as enwiki for lack of notability. Auntof6 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 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]

  • Comment: the English Wikipedia article was tagged for a speedy deletion rather than a nomination or request for deletion like here thereby blocking any room for discussion.--DoctorWho42 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Just like here, speedy deletes can be contested, and articles already deleted can be reviewed. The type of deletion doesn't have anything to do with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The article in question (English Wiki) was tagged AND deleted within five or so minutes, no one had any change to respond or contest. Also its worth noting that all personal copies that were works in progress were also deleted with prejudice, this really isn't that clear cut of a case imo. --Buttsleuth (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – Looks fine to me, decent sources, but as it was deleted on enwiki it may not be notable enough. Looking at the above comment, the article was filed under the wrong type of deletion, so I change my argument to Keep. George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 06:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • How does the type of deletion affect anything? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The above comment will clear it up as the case really isn't that clear cut and seems to be prejudicial of some unclear nature. --Buttsleuth (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry, that doesn't clear it up for me. You may have had issues with the way the deletion was handled, but those issues could be dealt with at enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Considering that the deletion occurred and that the deletion was problematic and being cited for reasons that it should be taken down HERE, this makes the problematic events surrounding it simplewiki's problem now too, at least within the scope of this case. --Buttsleuth (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just want to throw out there that the version deleted from enwiki did not have some of the sources used in this version -- the group has really taken off and The Atlantic piece and the Betabeat piece were not written when the enwiki version was written. Disparaissant (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a problematic case. We seem to be talking about a social phenomenon (or internet meme). A facebook group attracted a large following, and as it did, the news spread over other channels in the social media universe. When it was large enough, the press (probably rainbow press) started reporting. The big question to ask though: is this notable? - in five to ten years time, will people talk about it? - I guess this is the case if there are sources which are neither social media, nor rainbow press... I guess, if we had an article on en:Ice Bucket Challenge, the situation would be similar. --Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Can you clarify what rainbow press means? --Buttsleuth (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I think in English it is called Yellow press. What I mean are journals that are either tabloids (such as The Sun in the UK), or that focus mostly on society themes. --Eptalon (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mitra Jashni[change | change source]

Mitra Jashni (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The references are public relations sources and self-report sources. They do not amount to notability. I have listed the notability requirements for creative people on the talk page, and have read the supposed references. A similar page has just been put up on English wiki, and similar points are sure to be made when their biography bods get to work on it Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:01, 7 September 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 - I agree with the nominator regarding this article. There are not enough independent references to establish notability. Carriearchdale (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Danny Teeson[change | change source]

Danny Teeson (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: English actor who also has articles similar to this one in other language editions. Looks like he is mostly known from commercials, which brings up the problem of notability. Going through regular RFD since quick deletion was questioned. Eptalon (talk) 07:45, 7 September 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. Yes, this is the right place for discussion as it was not a QD. I think it fails to show notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. No, the article can be extremely useful and such. So I suggest you keep the article and simply try your best to improve it. Though he is mostly known for commercials, he is still an interesting actor nonetheless. --70.190.251.157 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • We don't keep articles based on them being useful or how interesting the subject is, but based on whether they meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. We also don't keep them based on the fact that they can be improved: they need to be in good shape as they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – Fails to provide proof of notability. If you can find enough sources, before the expiration date of this request, I will change my stance. George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:45, 14 September 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]