Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Pages to delete)
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/2020/(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]

Abdur Razzak Bin Yousuf[change source]

Abdur Razzak Bin Yousuf (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Searching on Google, I essentially find social media. sites. Likely the person is not notable; Inviting people from India/Bangladesh to comment, as the videos are not in English. All English is this page. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2020 (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 19:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Peace TV[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: To me, this looks like at attempt at televangelism. There is an article at EnWP (en:Peace TV). If I believe the article, they are located in Dubai, were founded in the 2000s (2006), and received an award for responsible broadcasting by an UK based Muslim association. If I further read the EnWP article, they were banned in the UK, India and Pakistan for spreading religious hatred / breaching somer broadcasting laws in 2020. The links given in the article are basically dead links /linksd to archive.org.While I am in favor of freedom of speech/freedom of religion; I see very little which would make this article worth keeping: 1) verifying the info will be difficult 2) we are talking about some TV station which is banned in most of the areas it targets. I therefore propose we delete this article. (Note: this also applies to Peace_TV_Urdu. Peace_TV_Bangla and Peace TV Chinese). Thoughts? Eptalon (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (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 very fact that this TV network has stirred controversy (and banned/voluntarily withdrawn from) in multiple countries is evidence that the network meets GNG. Chenzw  Talk  15:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Nevertheless we can delete/merge the different language sections; they are likely just other-language versions of the same. Like BBC broadcasting in another language. --Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - This page is not in the worse shape, sure expansion would be nice but I've seen worse, and per Chenzw. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:City-state[change source]

Template:City-state (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This template doesn't provide any benefit that I can see. English Wikipedia deleted their version of it in 2010, and I think we can, too. We have only 35 pages that link to the template, so it would be easy to substitute it, then delete it. Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2020 (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. Is useless really. Wikitext will do it. --IWI (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mountain Sweet Honey[change source]

Mountain Sweet Honey (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The usual searches turned up no sources that indicate notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2020 (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. Agreed. --IWI (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Neha Bagga[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Indian actress in her late 20s, mostly active on TV (serials). Seems to have won a Golden Petal Award for her role in one of these serials (in 2013). Article cites a number of sources (Deccan Chronicle, News Track, Bollywood Life, IWMBuzz), which need to be cross-checked if they are independent. The article was created by an IP editor, and nominated for QD by another IP editor, but without giving a reason. If I search for her on Google (in Europe), this SEWP article is on the first page of hits. The interwiki linked for EnWP is about the serial she won the award for. So I decided to do a regular RfD, the actress could well be notable in India, or the region which broadcast these serials. Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (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]

  • I think this is a borderline one, which I wouldn't be surprised to go either way. There clearly seems to be coverage about the actress, although as you rightly say, determining how reliable that coverage is needs to be done. Looking at a few of the sources, they seem legitimate and independent, so I am wavering towards a weak keep. Would be interested to see what others have to say, and am willing to change my opinion! --Yottie =talk= 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, those sources do not strike me as being reliable or independent. A google search did not bring much either, so I would go with delete on this one. --IWI (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - no comment on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the sources. However, majority of the coverage is either (1) non-independent coverage consisting of interviews or (2) about the shows which Neha Bagga was starring in (e.g. casting announcements, plot roundups). If anything, the cited sources are more effective in supporting the notability of the TV series than of the actress. Chenzw  Talk  10:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Frasers Property Industrial[change source]

Frasers Property Industrial (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested Quick dleetion (originally as advertising); therefore going through RfD. Article is currently not promotional in tone. So the very basic question: What makes this company notable in an encyclopedic sense? - The only link we currently have in the article, is a press release, which is not independent. Eptalon (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2020 (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]

  • Per enwp and my wait comment on the talkpage, if it is possible redirect to Frasers Property, this is clearly a subunit of Frasers Property (which is notable). This is per alternatives to deletion. I will try to create the page (as a stub) over the weekends, and this information can be incoporated into the parent company article. I agree this subsidiary isn't notable on it's own. Redirect Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Frasers Property. Chenzw  Talk  10:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ashish Shrivastav[change source]

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

Thegooduser has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem to be notable, I did find very little in a Google Lookup, though I don't know if it's the same person, also the sources in the article, are mere mentions Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:59, 13 October 2020 (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 no significant coverage in reliable sources. I tried but can't find a single reliable source to support his role in the listed tv shows. Also, please note that this article was created by a sock of a globally blocked user Arshifakhan61. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • should be a speedy delete. Quakewoody (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Quakewoody: Under which criteria? I’m not sure whether it does fit any or not, despite the lack of notability. --IWI (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete - Not notable. --Yottie =talk= 19:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


War of God (1976 movie)[change source]

War of God (1976 movie) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

TDKR Chicago 101 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I find the notability of this page to be in question due to the lack of sources, no English wiki and any reliable references to this film. Searching up online all the sources are mainly wikifandom pages TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2020 (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]

  • I seem to have a choice between War God (1976), ‘關公大戰外星人’ (for example here), and God of War (1976), 戰神, ([1]). This does not address the general issue of notability, and if we consider sites which allow user-contributed content as reliable (probably not). Anyone with notions of Chinese able to clarify what the title should be? --Eptalon (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eptalon: 2nd one is correct one (per my skimming), may be wrong. I see some sources in the zhwp/zh-yue wp article, some seems okay. If I have some time I will look into the sources in depth but maybe someone else (perharps Chenzw) will get to it eariler. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eptalon: Pardon the above. I had seen through the sources in zh, apparently War God is the title when the movie was broadcast in Hong Kong and at the same time, in Taiwan the same movie is broadcast as God of War. I will go with Weak Keep here per these sources. Apple Daily is a reliable source and cover this in relatively depth[1] and there is a sort of gold horse award mention (didn't win any but a passing mention). [2].Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Camouflaged Mirage. --IWI (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - there is some evidence of significant coverage (and even a cult following) for this movie, which can be described as a Taiwanese version of Godzilla, except that the featured character is a Chinese war god. To clarify the contents of the 2nd link which Camouflaged Mirage gave, this movie is not being nominated for the 2020 Golden Horse Awards (and as far as I can tell, was not nominated in 1976, either), but is instead being screened as a remastered version during the same Golden Horse Film Festival.
    • I am voting for weak keep because as the Golden Horse Awards press release concedes, this film only recently gained renewed attention from Internet communities (no specific group cited). While WP:NFILM does talk about movies "screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.", I don't think that in this case it follows that this movie is "historically notable". --Chenzw  Talk  12:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, I should be clearer. Chenzw explained well about the 2nd source which I just state in several words. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The stated reason, "the lack of sources, no English wiki and any reliable references to this film," doesn't support deletion here. There is a pattern here of nominating articles with limited coverage in English when there is clearly coverage from reliable sources in local languages that is easily found if one looks at wikis other than English. (Thank you, eptalon, Camouflaged Mirage, and chenzw.) Most of the notable people, films, books, and events around the world will not have much or any coverage in English. If that is all we look for, we will just be extending the already well-documented biases of Wikipedia. --Gotanda (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep I added the refs. Meets WP:MOVIE. The article has now 2 independents and reliable sources, with significant coverage. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. "彭浩翔數碼復修Cult片王 千嬅、樂仔聲演關公大戰外星人". Apple Daily 蘋果日報 (in Chinese). 2010-04-23.
  2. "金馬影展重現亞倫帕克七部傑作 奇片《關公大戰外星人》修復登台". 台北金馬影展 Taipei Golden Horse Film Festival (in Chinese). 1909-02-18. Retrieved 2020-10-13.

This request is due to close on 11:30, 19 October 2020 (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. --Eptalon (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Amrin N. Chakkiwala[change source]

Amrin N. Chakkiwala (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Was a G4 but I couldn't see an Rfd for it unless I am blind (which is totally possible) so G4 didn't apply so bringing it to Rfd. Djsasso (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2020 (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 The original page has been deleted for advertising and recreated multiple times [2] by socks of Arshifakhan61 (incuding IP editors), hence the G4. I saw the non-initial article name had been deleted under G4 previously, so used it here, apologies for the out of process. On the article itself, this isn't a notable actress, with no major roles in any productions. The sources are a lot of website searches/tags and casual mentions, nothing really in depth to support. Ravensfire (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

keep , she is notable actress and she have done many shows . i request to keep her article .—This unsigned comment was added by Thewarrior22 (talkchanges) 02:10, October 10, 2020‎ (UTC)
This user has made few or no contributions outside of this page.

This request is due to close on 14:57, 15 October 2020 (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. Speedy Keep in some sort. I stand corrected and withdraw this nomination, merger discussion which had been on talkpage can continue there. (non admin closure) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush and broccoli[change source]

George H. W. Bush and broccoli (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is a page regarding a en:WP:ROUTINE quote of the President. I will say the quote itself might be included in the president page with a one line explanation. Merging wholesale is very en:WP:UNDUE and the event seems en:WP:ROTM and en:WP:NOTNEWS also applies. and the title isn't suitable for redirect. Propose deletion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2020 (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. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --IWI (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 Keep Comments on the enwiki discussion have convinced me. Meets the notability criteria with coverage in books and the press. --IWI (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
While this event can be notable, I will think the impact can be grossly overstated via the sheer load of media reporting. It's seems to be like a NOTNEWS etc. I will state that many of the enwp voters just say meets notablity, the sources at the time is valid for notablity, but there isn't sustained coverage. I am now on the fence for this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete Interesting article, perhaps a sentence or two from this article can be put into GHWB's article. Yet, I find a man's dislike for a veggie isn't that notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 Merge Per IWI, the English Wikipedia comments have convinced me otherwise as well as to finding a bunch of reliable sources about this ranging from his time in office to his obituaries so I am not supporting deletion. However, I'm still finding it hard to see if this merits a separate article vs a simple redirect with some info at Bush's article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I am okay with merger. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Me too. --IWI (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep - while our version of the article does not mention this (yet), additional events highlighted in the EN version of the article makes the broccoli comments something which meets WP:LASTING. Notability is not dependent on the content (or lack of) in an article. Chenzw  Talk  10:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:46, 16 October 2020 (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.--Eptalon (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Leavy (sociologist)[change source]

Patricia Leavy (sociologist) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Sources do not demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find anything else to suggest so either. --IWI (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2020 (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 I don't think this page needs to be deleted on notability grounds. I did a three-minute search for who's using this person as a source in the news, and The Washington Post thinks Patricia Leavy is important enough to quote in their 2016 article "There's a single-mother heirarchy and that needs to stop," in addition to the sources cited in the article. Leavy is also quote and cited in enough other publications, like Mic and Bustle (Patricia Leavy, Ph.D says..., sociologist Patricia Leavy says...) that Simple can provide the public a service by telling them who Leavy is in a neutral manner. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Darkfrog24: This doesn't demonstrate that they have had significant in depth coverage from reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Passing mentions and quotes are not examples of this. --IWI (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm also taking a closer look at the sources that the original editor used. Some of them are a lot stronger than they look at first. Sociological Review, for example, has been around since 1908 and it's associated with Oxford University Press. SR refers to Leavy as "a leading sociologist" and gave her a full interview about her inventions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
An interview is not really an independent article about the subject. If they had covered her independently I would agree. --IWI (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep Have added two new sources to the article that point towards the notability of patricia. Hope they help. 110.93.214.38 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Was going to close, but it seems better to comment. Though I really, really don't like the state of this article, being nearly entirely an egotistical, promotional, unencyclopedic mess, we !vote in RfDs based on notability and not current status. As such, I am in favor of keeping it. The awards, department chair position, etc., reflected in reliable (though mostly primary) sources seems sufficient to me to establish notability. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficient sources are provided, though the tone is quite promotional. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:23, 13 October 2020 (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. Not notable. Could have been an A6 but, since we've done the week at RfD, it's now in the G4 realm if recreated. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC).

Christopher Wells (explorer)[change source]

Christopher Wells (explorer) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. None of the claims to notability can be backed by reliable sources. --IWI (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2020 (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]

  • Could have just been QD hoax. --Gotanda (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Doesn't really fit the criteria as an "obvious" hoax. It might be true, just not notable. The claims to notability of being in Time magazine are certainly false. --IWI (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete Per nom. --Infogapp1 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete Probably qualifies for Quick Deletion. Note this is an attempt to re-create Christopher Wells which has been deleted three times and is now protected from creation. Ditto Christopher Wells the explorer. Ditto the same page on English Wikipedia [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Worth obtaining community consensus so it can be G4'd in the future. The claims of notability mean it does not qualify for the A4 criteria, no matter how true they may be in reality. --IWI (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It is also clearly a hoax. The subject is 13 years old (or so he claims). His writing is completely ungrammatical, and the claims of being a notable explorer, cartographer, and philosopher are simply unbelievable and the time frame is preposterous. There is absolutely nothing about this alleged child prodigy anywhere on the internet. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Almost certainly fake info, but the A4 criteria is for articles that do not "claim to be notable", which this one does. So it requires a discussion. --IWI (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
A4 has nothing to do with this. The article is clearly quick deletable as A6 "Is an obvious hoax. An article that is surely fake or impossible." Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I always took that to mean that the article subject is fake (such as a completely made up film), as opposed to the article content. People often make false claims of notability in order to avoid QD for notability. Perhaps someone more experienced than me can clarify that for the future. --IWI (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
IMO both can be. And if the claims of notablity cannot be verified, it can be removed and then the article seems A4-ish. For this case I think it's clear this is just a hoax, make up contents. I think let's end it speedily, either via SNOW delete or A6?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete Subject is not notable. --Lefcentreright (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • QD A6. Hoaxs are hoaxs and hoaxs if recreated can simply be QDed again. No need for community consensus for G4? Tagged in case an admin agrees. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:48, 14 October 2020 (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. Quickly deleted as xwiki hoax Operator873talkconnect 16:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC).

Penguin and Me (2005 film)[change source]

Penguin and Me (2005 film) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Likely not notable. No sources can be found and it claims to be a "fan-made" film. --IWI (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (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]

  • Note: I have just realised that a similarly titled article on enwiki by the same user was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. That user was also blocked indefinitely as per NOTHERE as a result. --IWI (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A3+A6?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    I would agree with that yes. --IWI (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:56, 22 October 2020 (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]