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]

Bloom filter[change | change source]

Bloom filter (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: OR, non-encyclopedic and incomplete Rus793 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 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 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Subsidy[change | change source]

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I think the definition given in this article is at best incomplete and therefore misleading and at worst just wrong. Specifically:

  • Subsidies aren't always from government.
  • Subsidies aren't always to promote economy, local or otherwise
  • This article focuses on subsidies given by government to needy people, whereas that is only one kind of government subsidy.
  • The point about subsidies not getting distributed overgeneralized base only on an example from the 18th century Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 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 if not fixed. The article seems biased; gives partial and misleading coverage. Rus793 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very significant subject independent of itself which affects daily lives and is covered heavily on the English Wikipedia and by numerous sources in books and on the web. I have added more current sources, and the definitions have been clarified. FordDixon (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a bad page on a notable topic. It violates NPOV (a core content policy) and Follow English Wikipedia. It can certainly be deleted on the grounds of NPOV. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Article clearly violates NPOV. The writing and ideas seem very one-sided and somewhat misleading. Carriearchdale (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – Does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 06:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Louis Philippe, Crown Prince of Belgium[change | change source]

Louis Philippe, Crown Prince of Belgium (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability. This is based in small part on a single genealogy web page. Could not find any reliable sources on this person. Rus793 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 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]

  • Keep. I think the subject is notable. We've had articles about queens consort survive notability challenges, even though all those articles said was who they were married to. If they are notable, then so is someone like this. However, if it survives this RfD without being simplified, I would QD it because it's a copy/paste from enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that, unfortunately, infants like this were historical footnotes. Very little was recorded of them at the time so in most cases there isn't enough provable information for even a small article. What is out there is mostly colorized information passed back and forth between enthusiasts on royal genealogical websites and a few similar books without any form of verification. Queen consorts, many of them at least, were written about. So finding reliable sources is not so much a problem. Remove the fluff and unprovable statements and we are left with a permanent stub in this case. His information might be better added to his father's article. Rus793 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, as Aunt. An heir-apparent is inherently notable. And yes, might be deleted on the other ground. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • comment - I really have no problem with the notability factor here. The sources, however are not nearly up to the standard of RS we accept here at WP. One of the sources is an angel fire account page which frankly could have been written by anyone. angel fire source. One other source goes to a very simply built website for what is stated as a travel agency to show royal homes?travel agency site as a source]. I would tend toward voting delete unless at least one or two RS can be found. The third source has a one sentence mention, "Belgium —The family of King Leopold are plunged into the deepest distress by the sudden death of the Duke of Brabant, the heir-apparent t0 the throne."(from The Christian Remembrancer: A Quarterly Review VOL. XVI. JANUARY—DECEMBER, 1834. 382–383) In my view the book source is slightly okay. I reserve my vote at this time. Carriearchdale (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 22:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Gogna[change | change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability. Both the cited web page and Gogna stone page are by a single web author with no cited sources. Searches in G. Books and G. Scholar turned up no other information on this subject. Rus793 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 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 12:24, 21 October 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]