Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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

Before nominating: checks and alternatives [change source]

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletion[change source]

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
  • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  1. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
  • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
  • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  1. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
  • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
  • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
List it here
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  1. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

Quick deletion[change source]

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 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 source]

  • 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 source]

Mouse Trouble[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Probably a 1:1 copy of the respective EnWP article, created by an IP editor. Our copy now includes a number of templates that refer to the fact that the 'plot' section needs rewriting (which has not been done), or that do not exist on our wiki. Navigation boxes/categories: non-existent, various people/studios in the infobox: red links. Copying an article from EnWP ('importing') is fine if it is used as a templare for cleanup/simpilfiction. What I do not see is that there is simpilfication under way. Since this article also has a history of removing the QD template, I think it is best to go through the regular deletion process. Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2019 (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 source]

This request is due to close on 08:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Rowan Winch[change source]

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

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable social media user who has not been covered with in-depth in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2019 (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 source]

  • Rowan Winch is verified on Instagram and has had dozens of articles in mainstream media. He has grown accounts to millions of followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zucc11cs (talkcontribs)
  • Delete, if I take the first five hits on Google, 1I get 1x NY Times article ("student opinion"), twitter,(SE)Wikipedia and Yoube. If I search for Ronald Reagan, I get Wikipedia twice, some Museum, the Alzheimer Foundation and the White House official biography. So even if we assume that he is a succesful journalist, that wouldn't make him notable. So: clear-case delete, for the article in question. --Eptalon (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete Self-article. If you truly are notable, someone else will create the article. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete References are only passing mentions, therefore does not meet notability. Zaxxon0 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Gowling WLG[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Large (1400+ employees) law firm founded by merger in 2016; there is an EnWP page (en:Gowling_WLG), from which we have the blurb. My problem is towofold: Are companies with many employees inherently notable? - Looking at the matter: EnWP doesn't have much more than we do. The five biggest one in Canada (by Revenue) seem to be Gowling, Osler, Blakes, McCarthy, and Fasken. Thinking further, are any of the Fortune500 companies notable? - There's enough material for discussion, and certainly no reason to do a QD (as Advertising, or Notabiliy), is there? Eptalon (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2019 (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 source]

  • Keep. To answer Ep's question, the leading law and accountancy firms in major countries are all notable. In London they are known as the "big five" by newspapers because the big companies need to have big firms doing their accounts (etc). I mean, just think about doing the tax accounts for Marks & Spencers... Evidence for their notability comes from the discussions in serious newspapers. It's not so much the number of employees, it's the fact that all their main-line staff have professional qualifications which are recognised by the government and the world of business generally. For other types of firms the top 100 quoted on the London Stock Exchange would all be notable. Many are not well known to the general public, however, and that would also be true of the law and accountancy firms. We don't get many proposed as pages here simply because young people don't yet know how the world works! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Chipko Movement[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Originally created by an IP as a mobile edit, this article is currently in a shape that needs a lot of work. Looking at other wikipedias (en:Chipko movement, for example), the movement looks notable, at first glance. Since I know how difficult it is to create articles from a mobile device, and I think the article could possibly be kept, I want to go through a regular RfD process, rather than deleting it as "test page". What do others think? Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2019 (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 source]

  • Deletion has this merit: that later the editor who puts the work in gets the reward as the founding editor of the page. This is important to some people. We want to attract and reward good editors. If not deleted, but just revised, the original bad editor gets to look good, and his bad behaviour is rewarded. (Of course the topic is notable, but the page reflects the author's state of mind as being careless and uncommitted to quality. A girl of 7 could do better with a hand-held). Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I restored the history that was deleted incorrectly and carelessly during vandalism. The topic is notable and the article is good. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - while most of the article is unreferenced now, a quick search reveals the presence of multiple suitable sources. As a procedural matter, I would like to put on record here that I disagree with the idea that we should delete bad articles so as not to reward bad behaviour. WP:BEFORE also applies here. Chenzw  Talk  13:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, policy makes it clear that we can't delete articles just because they are in a bad state. If articles are notable they can not be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject matter is notable and deletion is not cleanup. Operator873talkconnect 14:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated and following Macdonald-ross' reasoning. We do not want to encourage frequent low quality copies from En or elsewhere. This article is not remotely simple. There is an imbalance here. Poor quality copies are quick to make, but take longer to repair. --Gotanda (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would argue it isn't remotely complex. There are definitely some words that could be changed. But it is in no way a complex article. (and for anyone reading, the article as it currently sits is not how it was when Eptalon nominated it or Macdonald-ross commented. It is drastically different.) And while I don't think this is a low quality copy, yes we do actually want them. A low quality article is better than no article every time. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 Keep I have done some work to make it simpler. Of course it could still use more but I think it is in a better state now. As commented by others, it is certainly a notable topic. Desertborn (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Sant soyrabai[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article originally nominated for quick deletion, seems to be a copy-paste of the respective enwp article (en:Sant Soyarabai). Personally, I think we should go through the regular deletion process, esp. since I (and probabably many others) lack the cultural background to decide if this person is notable enough, to be kept. If kept, we at least need the references the EnWp article seems to have. Dear community: should we delete this? Eptalon (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2019 (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 source]

  • Delete (with caveats) - similarly to what I mentioned in another RFD, NEXIST applies here. I don't think that we can delete an article via RFD on the basis that the subject is not notable enough given our (lack of) relevant background/credentials, unless we repeal WP:GNG. However, I would support deletion on the QD A3 grounds. Chenzw  Talk  16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Recently closed deletion discussions[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  DeleteChenzw  Talk  16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Kazy Tauginas[change source]

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

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Looks like a promotional article for a non-notable actor. 1. Simple is the top result on a Google search followed by YouTube and then other social networking. 2. Article created in a single edit from an editor who only made this page. 3. No reputable news sources. Blogs etc. 4. Some refs do not support major claims such "Philadelphia Independent Film Awards for Best Supporting Actor" not in the cited ref. Gotanda (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2019 (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 source]

  •  Keep. The page was originally promotional; but he did appear in at least one of the films according to IMDB [1] so as an inclusionist I would say the page (after a good edit - I've had a quick go but need citations improving) should stay. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. "Appearing" does not cut it (so not notable), and the page is obviously promotional. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete This page does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Examknowtalk 02:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yash gawli[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Young person from India, with doubtful notability; there are a number of links. Let's go through a regular RfD to decide on whether ot keept this. Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2019 (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 source]

This request is due to close on 22:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. Consensus to delete as failing notability guideline. Vermont (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

Sabrina Jalees[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Media personality from Canada, with doubtful notability; contested quick deletion, so loet's go through RfD. Eptalon (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2019 (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 source]

  • Delete, as nominated. --Gotanda (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: enwiki article has existed since 2013. But I'm on the fence about notability. I may have another look later. Desertborn (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Not notable, and remember, claims must be supported by appropriate independent sources (not a chance of that, I think). It's a version of "doing a job for which one is payed is not by itself proof of notability" (otherwise half the planet would be notable). Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 21:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn by nom here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Idiot[change source]

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

轻语者 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 轻语者 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2019 (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 source]

  • This page should not be here. It is a perfectly normal Simple page, and was momentarily seen in a vandalised condition. It's not good process for us to discuss pages which have been on the wiki for some years and do not meet the deletion requirements in any way. It is in no way a candidate for deletion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: I am unclear. Are you choosing to vote  Keep or  Delete? --Examknowtalk 02:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Examknow: 99% sure he is saying keep. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - the section "In literature and folklore" makes the article more than a mere dictionary definition. Chenzw  Talk  11:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Page is stone-etched, and nomination reason invalid. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Considerably more than a dictdef. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  DeleteChenzw  Talk  11:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

List of countries by official languages[change source]

List of countries by official languages (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not meaningfully maintainable (as to completeness); there are 190-200 (recognized) countries in the world, there are hundereds to thousands of languages; take india: Over 20 "official languages", some of which will also be spoken in neighboring countries; other problem: Are Afrikaans/Dutch two separate languages, or is it one language? -Same problem with Portuguese and Portugese in the former Portuguese colonies, or French in Polynesia. In short: this list offers little to no informationm, and is a nightmare to maintain. So: delete? Eptalon (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2019 (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 source]

  • As an example of the problems, this list includes Occitan, which is not included in the En wiki list. Spain and Italy are mentioned, but I know its main area is in France round about Provence. The issue here is that Occitan is probably not an official language even (or especially) in Spain (it is in Catalonia!), and there are no sources to allow the reader to check. Let's delete it as too full of problems, especially in the long term. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree to  Delete since keeping it complete and up to date is likely not sustainable. Desertborn (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 22:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Related pages[change source]