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]

Charlock and Chloson[change | change source]

Charlock and Chloson (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: notability, orphaned sub-stub with no sources. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2015 (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]

I thought it marginal as to whether or not it fitted the QD criteria. It was safer to get a consensus here. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I take your point. To me, the the key phrase was something like "...will be available soon," which meant it wasn't available yet, which made it advertising. However, I couldn't go back and check the exact phrase, as @Peterdownunder: QD'd it on A4 (no claim of notability). (So Peter, you should probably close this out.) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Arch bridge[change | change source]

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

StevenJ81 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: For now a dicdef. But–other bridge types have own articles, some substantial. Probably can be kept if expanded and language simplified. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2015 (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 14:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


NES Advantage[change | change source]

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

StevenJ81 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article contains no claim of notability and has no sources. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2015 (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 as not claiming or showing evidence of notability. Articles like this should be available for QD: it is illogical to restrict that criterion to biographies and companies (A4), but not to an object a company provides. Everything in an encyclopedia has to be notable, and claim to be. We should only discuss cases which are borderline. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Women's position in the 19th century[change | change source]

Women's position in the 19th century (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: According to the Women's rights page on ENWP this is probably factually incorrect. John Stuart Mill stated that women should have the right to vote. Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen was published at the end of the 18th century. I can also imagine that during industrialization, many women worked in factories. I am putting this through a regular RFD to see whether the statements should be rectified (and perhaps moved somewhere suitable), and whether there are people willing to work on this, in the case of a positive decision to keep.--Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (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 as OR. Vague and generally written it is largely incorrect. Not a good title. User:Rus793 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: written in essay style and unsourced. It has extreme words like: 'always' and ' no say whatsoever'. We have an article on women's rights that is a stub and also unsourced. Delete this and work on that... Fylbecatulous talk 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Blog-like spiel, OR and POV, wrong on many points. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wish we had a user who could take it back into userspace to work on it, but we don't. And it's just too vague, unsourced, etc., as everyone else has said. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's doubtful that even the title would be used. And v. difficult to write anything which would not be culturally limited. No such thing as a worldwide account of women in the 19th C. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 11:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Poltergeist (2015 movie)[change | change source]

Poltergeist (2015 movie) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unreleased movie with no indication of notability. Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2015 (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]

  • Strong keep: This article can be improved and show notability. Angela Maureen (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Then improve it -- add something to show notability. We don't keep articles that have the potential to be improved. We keep them based on what they currently have. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Many movies are being produced/released each year. In what way can we be sure that a movie which is about to be released is indeed notable? en:Zombeavers was released end of 2014, and had generally positive reviews. Is it notable enough that we write an article on it? --Eptalon (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a tough one. For most movies, I'd personally be inclined to wait until release for the movie to demonstrate notability. But Star Wars: The Force Awakens was clearly notable the minute it was announced. So it's too difficult to make a hard-and-fast rule. In this case, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say (weak) keep because of its tie to the original, definitely notable Poltergeist. But please improve on it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited, so the fact that the original was notable is not a reason to keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Technically true. But if it is otherwise a tossup, the fact that the original was notable might just be enough to push it over the line. More to the point is what has happened with this: because (at least partly) of the notability of the original, this movie has gotten enough pre-release review and buzz to generate some mention in reliable sources. So the article is now fleshed out enough for me to have changed my "weak keep" to a full "keep". StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In what way? By using the notability guideline on movies. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The movie comes out this Friday, so more information will be added till then. But try to focus on deleting other articles that only has one sentence as the entire article. This article is notable enough for now, but can be improved once it comes out. Honestly I'm not sure why this article is threatened to be deleted when it has far much more information than other articles I've seen. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
By the time you wrote here, more information had been added, including some references. At the time it was nominated it had less info and no references (unless you count the IMDB link). Still, none of the info added since the nomination shows notability and it fails WP:NOTFILM. If it can be shown to pass that guideline after it comes out, then people can change their comments here. As for other articles with little information, feel free to nominate them as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Optionally return to submitter's sandbox until after it is released and after it meets notability criteria. The "improvement" is based on reviews mainly of the trailer. There is nothing notable about a remake until it is reviewed. It can't be reviewed until sometime after it is released. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they can be reviewed before release because critics get advance copies for that purpose. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've been hearing a lot about this movie. I'm sure plenty more information will be available once it's released. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't decide whether to keep articles based on what information there might be in the future. We decide based on what's currently in them. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as improved: I do not wish to have an unneeded deleted edit. Whatever else is happening here, I do not believe this can currently be deleted based on the content. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 13:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, an article like this can and should be deleted. As mentioned above the improvement is based solely largely on the trailers. A consensus among critics on the actual movie could be a week or more after the release. Interesting that those cited by Metacritic are not that good (1 positive, 1 negative, 5 mediocre). At any rate, the article will need to be rewritten again to reflect the actual movie. Consensus in the past has been we don't write articles on future movie releases. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not quite so. Movies can be reviewed before they're released because the critics get advance copies for that purpose. And we can have articles on future releases if they meet the guideline -- the guideline addresses that specifically. --~~
And as I pointed out before, some movies are clearly notable before they are released. The guideline actually has a fair amount of flexibility in it. And while I wrote above that I think it's probably better to wait until after release most of the time, consistent with what Rus793 just said, you just can't make that a hard and fast rule. Sometimes, it just doesn't apply. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Murdered African-American people[change | change source]

Category:Murdered African-American people (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Overcategorization. It might be informative to have a category for African-American people whose murders were racially motivated (or maybe just a more general one for any people murdered because of their race), but this category does not specify that. If a murder isn't racially motivated, the victim's race is not relevant. Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2015 (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 per nomination.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. A cat is considered justified if its topic is distinct enough for an article to be written about the topic. African Americans are murdered at a far higher rate than Americans of other ethnicities; an article about violent crime in the African-American community certainly could be written. Some of the people (eligible to be) in this cat have become much more well-known as a result of their (unsolved) murders, including Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. Jim Michael (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Considered justified by whom? We've deleted cats before that could have articles, some even because an article was better than a category for some things. Remember that we keep things simple here besides just the language. A primary example of that is the category structure. We don't create categories just because we can. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. User:Rus793 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's say there is a category "Racially-motivated murders" (or similar, name of the category is not an issue at the moment), how many of our current pages can we put into that category? 10? 15? - Most of these will be in regimes that were racially-segregated to say the least. And now we take the 15 or so entries we have, and segregate by skin color? - This will leave us with 5 pages for the black people. I am not an advocate of racial segregation (by skin color), but I really think the "Racially-motivated murders" category might be a tight fit; the category we are discussing here is definitely too narrow for this wiki. Everyone is of course welcome to think differently; provide ten entries which are not stubs and which fit the category, and I will change my mind.--Eptalon (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    No-one is saying that any of the people in cats like this one were killed because of their ethnicity. If we had a racially-motivated murders cat, there wouldn't be enough entries to subcat them by ethnicity. Jim Michael (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: Is this intended to be a vote, or maybe something that should have been indented more to fall under the comment above? You already "voted" above. Please either remove this second item, combine it with yours above, or indent to show what it's a reply to. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mooseknuckle[change | change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: a dicdef. User:Rus793 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2015 (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, It is a notable slang term of the calibre of cameltoe. It fits the scope of encyclopedic content due to the various subtopics that are formed from it, such as wardrobe malfunction, fashion, public decency etc. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as word more suited to wikt. Not a concept, and none of the topics listed by the author depend on this word. It's probably culturally limited as well. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: as a dicdef only. Fylbecatulous talk 12:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Attractiveness[change | change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A dicdef. It was redirected to Physical attractiveness but an objection was raised. I brought it here to gain consensus as to whether to redirect or delete. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2015 (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 as dicdef. Doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose it should probably be redirected rather than deleted outright. But it's not an article itself. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:04, 21 May 2015 (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]