Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:BEFORE)
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|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]

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 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]

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 source]

Felix Zembdegs[change source]

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

Only has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don’t believe beating this record is notable Only (talk) 23:12, 17 March 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 23:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Zaki Ameer (entrepreneur)[change source]

Zaki Ameer (entrepreneur) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Only has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Questionable notability. Many references seem to be trivial in nature. This was deleted multiple times on English Wikipedia and recreated by socks, one of whom created the article here. Only (talk) 11:22, 17 March 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 Not notable: PR promotion-type. Individual lacks suitable independent awards or critiques. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 11:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Movies banned in China[change source]

Movies banned in China (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I get it, but it is a list of articles that don’t exist. I don’t think this article has much of an encyclopedic value anyway, it doesn’t exist in this form on enwiki. IWI (chat) 11:35, 15 March 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 per nom. Do note this is just a fork of the enwp article which has a tag which says expand from Chinese Wikipedia. Well the Chinese version has tags of OR, NPOV, disputed, needs explanation and etc which actually means that very little is suitable for us to expand into the English version and subsequently here. This is POV laden and must go.--Cohaf (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think articles that are subtly homophobic should be welcome here, nor should the editor making them. IWI (chat) 11:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Article isn't remotely homophobic, if anything its the opposite by bringing light how China banned films of that subject. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Djsasso. There's a difference between being homophobic and discussing or pointing out homophobia. If anything, the article does the latter. However, I don't think I would have paid more attention to the "Gay" section than any of the others if this discussion hadn't been started. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable topic. Covered in the news excessively. It was mentioned in another thread that it is POV just because it only lists China's actions, but that is not POV because the topic of this page is China's list of banned movies. Another page can be create for any other country banning films. This article is just listing facts, therefore it can't be POV. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    The POV is the article is trying to say that the Chinese government censors films without trying to give reasons or other government also. I'm not for PRC censorship but this form of article isn't neutral. This is subtly portraying Chinese government as irrationally censoring films or etc.--Cohaf (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    As I commented on the other page, this article is about China's censorship, not about any other countries so to list other countries reasons here would be out of scope of this article. You would mention those countries reasons on their own page. If this was a general page about general censorship of movies that yes you would make comments about all countries. But in this case you wouldn't. Just as you wouldn't start talking about China's reason for some economic decision on an article about US economics. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    I would say that some background context may be good, but that's a side reason. I'm saying the article is biased in a way that it just give films that are banned without giving reasons why they are with more details as well as giving why they are banned. It tried to portray the Chinese government being irrational of just wanting to ban an article due to it portray gay or Tibet. This is a POV stance. --Cohaf (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be honest, your comments come across as very POV trying to keep the Chinese government from looking bad. And I say that assuming good faith, but it does very much look like that. It is just a list, of movies that were banned. Does the article need to be expanded. Of course it does, but that doesn't make it POV. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That comment is scandalous. Saying that something is POV doesn’t instantly make you part of the opposite POV. IWI (chat) 12:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: How so? IWI (chat) 12:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As in I literally have no idea what you are trying to say. The last sentence doesn't make sense at all. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Rephrase–if you say that someone has a certain POV, it doesn’t mean that they must have the opposite POV. IWI (chat) 13:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  (change conflict) Alright, I shall not expand further lest it's really POV. To be honest, I'm not and there's no reason for me to defend that. To sidetrack a little, I just nearly mistype List of Articles banned by Chinese Government which is the whole zhwp. This caused a lot of zhwp editors to use proxies which cause IPBE backlogs everywhere. . I understand your point but I'm in dissent. Hope you understand.--Cohaf (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    Oh I understand. We are all free to disagree. Was just debate. Like I said I assume good faith, was just indicating how the arguments came across. And yeah wikipedia is not in China's good books. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It is definitely a notable subject. As deletion is not for cleanup, I cannot support deletion. It needs expansion, not deletion. Vermont (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is notable. The text is not satisfactory, but obviously can be improved (notice the comment about Hong Kong in the light of ref #9). There's the making of an interesting article here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    If someone can clean-up, willing to change delete to keep. I'm sure it's notable but this is close to a restart over state IMO.--Cohaf (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What's interesting is that the 1st Batman movie and the 3rd Batman movie are allowed. Only the 2nd Batman movie in the series is banned. 84.54.77.196 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 84.54.77.196 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Above comment is a block evading sock puppet, most likely of Tony85poon. IWI (chat) 16:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Niloy Neel[change source]

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

আফতাবুজ্জামান has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable for a stand-alone article. Because he was killed, it doesn't make him notable. Delete or merge with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh (like enwiki) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:46, 13 March 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 21:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Outhouse[change source]

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Should be returned as a redirect to toilet, I don’t see the content here as being necessary. IWI (chat) 21:28, 12 March 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]

  • Comment. @ImprovedWikiImprovment: This is Requests for deletion. If you want the article kept but changed, this is not the place for that discussion: you could just make that change yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Isn’t changing to a redirect effectively a deletion? I don’t want to take that upon myself unless it meets QD, that's just my opinion. IWI (chat) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see it at a deletion. The page remains, and the earlier content is still in the page history. If the author objects, they can change it back, and if necessary you discuss. The RFD process is for proposing the kind of deletion that requires an admin to do. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Close it if you see fit. I’m sure you can see where I’m coming from. While the article won’t be technically deleted, replacing it with a redirect would be effectively a deletion. It doesn’t fit into a QD category; if it wasn’t a redirect in the first place, this is where it’d go. So no, I disagree. Removal of an article with a valid topic but (perhaps) invalid content requires community consensus IMO. IWI (chat) 01:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentNow it's a dicdef plus very little, so unless expansion it's sensible to redirect back but add the little bit to the main article. It'll be more complete in this sense. --Cohaf (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • en:wikt:outhouse See the language used in the wiktionary? That's not simple English. The most direct way to explain the concept is to just allow the word "SHIT" to appear in the article. The "SHIT" dirty word immediately allows reader (who are confused by the meaning of "house") to understand, really because people say it a lot. "SHIT" is a frequent word used in Hollywood movies, (world-wide) Television, Radio et cetera. If you delete this article, you are defeating the purpose of having Simple English Wikipedia in the first place. Tony85poon (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that redirect is clear. The page doesn't contain anything which is not obvious, and the account on the toilet page could always be extended. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep An outhouse is very much different from just a toilet. A toilet is inside an outhouse. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Really appreciate when someone cares about the simple English wiki, as the regular English wiki over-complicated it. Tony85poon (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a word which describes brick-built structures which are on land as part of real estate, and that is outbuilding. That word would not imply that a toilet was inside. Wooden built structures which are part of an estate are usually described by their function: barn, stables, etc. I'll have a look at all the redirects after this discussion is over. As far as usage is concerned, British and Australians, and probably North Americans, would assume that an outhouse was an external toilet inside a brick or wooden shell, and at least in Britain a lean-to is an outhouse which is physically touching the house, but which is accessed by going outside. At first glance it seems several new pages are needed, plus changes to the disambig page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to fit within the goals of Simple English and should stay. I would like to see the article grow. --PhobosIkaros 21:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


User:Fabant[change source]

User:Fabant (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: List article draft in user space, not changed in over six years, can't help this wiki because it's in French. Auntof6 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 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 10:20, 16 March 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  Delete.  -- Enfcer (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Matt McIlwain[change source]

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

Only has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not clear that this person meets WP:BIO. Being 75th on a list of tech investors and 94th on a list of venture capitalists doesn't seem to be that notable. Only (talk) 01:38, 8 March 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 01:38, 15 March 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.


Language barrier[change source]

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

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not a notable or encyclopedic concept. This a brief and self-referential definition of an idiom. QD was declined, so RfD Gotanda (talk) 04:26, 7 March 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. Rather poor dicdef rather than an article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. As it stands, @Mac is absolutely right. The concept might be encyclopedic, though; it does exist on several other projects. Does anyone want to take it on? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:26, 14 March 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  Keep. Non-admin closure. Retained as a redirect. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC).

Flora (plants)[change source]

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not encyclopedic. IWI (chat) 02:27, 9 March 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]

  • Redirect to Flora per redirects are cheap. Plausible way someone will type. We do have an article so it could be redirected and the contents can be essentially the same, so no risk of not redlinking it. --Cohaf (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect I agree with Cohaf here to redirect the article to Flora instaed. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect. We don't need to discuss this further. I'll do it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:27, 16 March 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. Notability wasn't shown.--Eptalon (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

DanteWuzHere[change source]

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

Only has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not appear to be a notable musician. Only (talk) 23:47, 6 March 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. She got an award, and the article shows potential. The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  •  Delete Not notable. Supplied supposed Junos reference does not mention this artist. Doesn't come up in search. --Gotanda (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete My bad, thought the name in the source was a pseudonym. 22:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC) The Duke of Nonsense (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:47, 13 March 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. old version of article we already have at Alzheimer's disease, creating user hasn't edited in years..--Eptalon (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Addihockey10/Alzheimer's disease[change source]

User:Addihockey10/Alzheimer's disease (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Sandbox that is just copied from en many years ago. Editor hasn't edited since 2013. Can be undeleted if they come back and want it still. But they would likely just want a newer version of the en one. DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 5 March 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. Clear-cut case, can be undeleted when/if the editor comes back. Hiàn (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Too complex to move to mainspace and unlikely to be improved soon, per Hiàn, can be undeleted easily. --Cohaf (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note that we do have an article, on Alzheimer's disease, and a lot of work has been put into that article. It is also moderately comprehensible, and with a bit f work could be made a good article. This is not the point here. This article in userspace was the attempt to create & sipmlify an article when our mainspace article didn't look like it does now. Addihockey probably gave up working on it when he realized how much work was behind simplifying an article. Since he is no longer around, we can probably delete this, after making sure that our article on AD doesn't lose any info that can be added easily, from this article, up for deletetion..--Eptalon (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:44, 12 March 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]