Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Policy shortcut:
WP:RFD
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Discussed deletion[change 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|]] 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/2017/(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]

Category:Supernatural horror movies[change source]

Category:Supernatural horror movies (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: On enwiki, supernatural films are under paranormal films, which are under horror films. Therefore I think "supernatural horror" may be redundant and could be merged to horror movies here. Even if not redundant, categories such as Category:1990s supernatural horror movies may intersect too many variables and could be upmerged. Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2017 (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. On en, Category:Supernatural horror films is under Category:Horror films by genre and Category:Supernatural films. It's a valid and relevant intersection. Jim Michael (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm mostly indifferent as to keeping the base category. Auntof6 and Jim Michael both have good points. Naturally, if the base category is deleted, its subcategories can be deleted, too.
That said, if the base category is retained, then delete all its subcategories, and upmerge to the base category at least with respect to "supernatural horror movies". Every movie in each of the subcategories—the date ones and the "American one"—appears in two or more subcategories that cover the overlapping ground. We don't need quite that much explicit "intersection" coverage here. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Frequency-Severity Indicator[change source]

Frequency-Severity Indicator (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pmlineditor has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article doesn't explain what it is talking about. Currently, it has no sources, and is unwikified. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:02, 17 August 2017 (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. There's not even an enwiki article to give us a clue as to what this is about. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If these are standard terms, which they don't seem to be from a quick google search, the information could be included in Occupational Safety and Health. --Tbennert (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Laboratory thermometer[change source]

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

Pmlineditor has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem to have enough content or references to warrant a separate article. Should probably be merged with thermometer. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:51, 17 August 2017 (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. Most of the information is not specific to this type of thermometer. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to thermometer as a section. I was going to say delete and point out that we don't have an article on a clinical thermometer, but we do. For simplicity both should redirect to the main article. --Tbennert (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Sri Lanka Singapore Friendship College[change source]

Sri Lanka Singapore Friendship College (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

StevenJ81 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No sources here, and no notability claim. Found a couple of hits in Google mainly related to the school's opening and funding, but nothing thereafter. No other articles in Wikimedia world as far as I can tell. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2017 (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]

  • Question I believe en.wiki holds that most schools are inherently notable. Do we have anything similar? For this article I would recommend a note about the college added to the town it is located in, unless we have the same notability guideline. --Tbennert (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


User:Sju hav/answering spin, drama and broad claims (without good links) from a "Simp. Engl." administrator[change source]

User:Sju hav/answering spin, drama and broad claims (without good links) from a "Simp. Engl." administrator (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Only has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not an appropriate use of user page space. The purpose of this page is to make "argumentation" for unblock at another Wikipedia project. There's no purpose of it to help improve Simple English Wikipedia. Additionally, he can easily make his "argumentation" at the English Wikipedia user talk page he has. Only (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2017 (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 link to this page is at the bottom of my user page, and only three characters are visible: "[1]".
One administrator has made claims about my edits here on "Simple", and has made those claims on another wikipedia.
Claims about claimed wrongdoing on this wikipedia, I am entitled to discuss on this wikipedia.
If someone feels a need to bring up the topic on any discussion page on "Simple", then feel free to do so.
Now, arguable some additional damage has been done to my reputation, in part by the administrator offering his views on my prospects of being blocked here. (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no matter how much that administrator might want that.)
I have no problem renaming the page, if that makes a difference.
The following is a link [1] to the administrator's post (on English-wiki), where he/she is:

  • crystal-balling
  • opining about the ongoing deletion discussion about "List of scientists from" any single country,
  • generally "all over the place" in his/her post.
  • It is my opinion that the administrator has, possible inadvertently, possibly disturbed wikipedia.
  • I have no problem understanding that the administrator (with or without a tag team) might want to make the same claim about my edits. Sju hav (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In part, the page is a work page for suggestions of how to keep the noise down regarding discussions on this wikipedia.
The need for following wikipedia's good faith policy, has clearly not been recognized by all parties, and
"crystal-balling" a Simple English wikipedia User, for unspecified general edits (on Simple-), is not Good Faith,
even when the "crystal balling" is done over at English-wiki.
Whether the article gets kept or not, I have Good Faith that the administrator and I can reach a level of being curteous to each other,
even if we might never agree about the need for Lists of Scientist (which might be the main discussion, where the administator and I have disagreed on Simple English wiki). Sju hav (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
You haven't really addressed why this page is okay to stay based on our user page guidelines and policies. You say it's a "work page for suggestions of how to keep the noise down regarding discussions on this wikipedia" but it's really just a place for you to gather "argumentation" (as you call it) for your unblock on the English Wikipedia. The fact that it's only linked in one part of your user page doesn't justify it. Renaming it wouldn't make a difference either. It has no purpose to impact the Simple English Wikipedia and serves only as a place for you to attempt your unblock on English Wikipedia. Also, you're claiming I did all these terrible things and violated all these standards and guidelines in commenting on your unblock there; if those things were so terrible, wouldn't the administrator who declined your unblock there have ignored what I said there? Clearly I wasn't out of line if the administrator was able to see the concern. If you think my behavior here needs to be addressed by the community, you're welcome to open discussion at simple talk so that others can weigh in. Only (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The following link, has slightly updated wording [2].
Please re-read your last post, and then consider striking out the question(s) that are the least relevant, or non-relevant for Simple English-wiki.
The scope of this discussion, does not include why administrators on other wikipedias act, or don't act, in whatever fashion they decide. Sju hav (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Drafting out arguments on a page like this to use in the RfD discussions here on Simple English Wikipedia would be fine. What is actually here is not appropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a drafting of arguments, to illuminate how an admin has chosen to word her/his misgivings about my edits on Simple English Wikipedia, and what arguments say that she/he has been inaccurate at best, or something like that.
The page is more appropriate, than not, in my view. Sju hav (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - At the moment, all the page basically looks like is you moaning about something which has happened somewhere else. It does not seem appropriate to use userspace to draft your response to something like this. May I suggest you get yourself a pastebin account and do it there? DaneGeld (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
An admin at Simple English Wikipedia has made accusations against my edits in the past (of Simple English Wikipedia), and she/he has made accusations about my future edits at Simple English Wikipedia.
It does seem appropriate that a wikipedian can use userspace to draft appropriate text about the matter.

(If the admin simply stated that she/he does not have justification for the entire claim that she/he made, then I would very likely let the matter about this user page go;
eventhough I believe that the draft page is justified, even at its early stage.

If I was moaning, then I would not need a userpage. (One does not need a user page to moan.) Sju hav (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: if this were to be closed as delete: Sju hav has the same information from this page on his main user page. He added it there after I proposed deletion of this subpage. That would need to be deleted from his user page as a fork of deleted content. Only (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I have somewhat changed the text on my talk page, since your post. This [3] links to the last version. Sju hav (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Lists of scientists by nationality[change source]

Category:Lists of scientists by nationality (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This nomination is for the category and every article in it. The entries in the articles are all mostly red links, and I don't think having such list articles is helpful. The creator of most (possibly all) of these articles, User:Sju hav, was informed of the guideline about red links in list articles and was asked not to create lists with so many red links, but he/she declined to follow the guideline and suggested nominating for deletion. Hence this nomination. Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2017 (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: in their present state, these should not exist per our guidelines. I have no problem with them being userfied as I previously suggested. Lists of red linked articles are not appropriate for our Wikipedia. Simply putting cited information next to their names is still not what a list article should be. Only (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - [4] one name on the List of South Korean scientists, has extra information that says that the named person was the first female Asian station chief in the Antarctic; it is sourced. Wikipedia in English has a tradition for having red links in such articles, and so should probably we. Some of the articles have language link to the English article with the same name. Sju hav (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you please provide examples of English Wikipedia list articles where most, if not all, entries on the page are red links? Only (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest rather that you find out what their guideline says; perhaps thereafter I might search for examples where the whole list has red links, or how few blue links are on some lists; some guidelines at Wikipedia in English, are arguably not followed all the way.
Besides, this wikipedia can make rules of its own. (But that is something which is outside of the discussion that we are having here.)
The discussion for now is "Keep" or "Delete".
For now I am fine with that the following articles have been suggested for deletion, as a result of the discussion that we are having now;
but, I am thinking and saying Keep:

Sju hav (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • You say, I suggest rather that ''you'' find out what their ''guideline says''. I've quoted the guidelines both on your user page and on Simple Talk. Auntof6 has linked the guidelines above in the nomination statement. Only (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
And yet you are arguing against what the guidelines say. Sju hav (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I acknowledge the policies that Auntof6 listed in the deletion statement, I disagree with using them on a wiki as small as Simple. Red links are invitations to contribute to the wiki, and it's not as if the Wikimedia project is short on disk space or other potentially limited resources. By removing lists with a majority of red links - assuming we are otherwise alright with lists - we're discouraging contributive ideas, which is harmful for the project. As for userification - sure, that's an option, but it drastically reduces exposure. That reduction in exposure is almost as bad as complete removal. Lithorien TalkChanges 19:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The whole idea behind lists, though, is to organize and display existing Wikipedia content. As the guidelines say, it's not to create a list of things that we hope we will see created; it's to display, for the benefit of readers, here are things in this defined descriptor that do exist on Wikipedia. Only (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree. Were I making an argument of, "We should strictly follow the guidelines," I'd say delete these lists in a heartbeat. However, I take a fundamental disagreement with the guidelines as presented - while lists are designed to organize and display existing content, there's no reason that they can't be used as lists of things that should be on Wikipedia as well. It's why I brought up the fact that Simple is small compared to most - anything we can do to encourage article creation and expansion seems like a positive. However, like I said, if we're going strictly by the guidelines than I have to concede that it's a clear delete. Lithorien TalkChanges 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Red links are usually considered useful because, if the redlinked articles are created, they will help with the understanding of the articles in which they are linked. However, there are cases where creating them won't add to such understanding, and list pages constitute one of those cases. The purpose of a entry in a list is only to say something like "this person/thing is a member of the set of people/things that this list is about". Having something redlinked in a list page therefore doesn't really indicate that the article is needed, so the red link isn't as useful as it would be in an article that's about a subject. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The lists can have a lot of information and references, beyond names of scientists (, blue links and/or red):

List of Brazilian scientists is more than just a list of names, including referenced information about which of these that won the award,
L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science (en)[1] Sju hav (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Perhaps the following is not the strongest reason for keeping the list: One name on the list, is the 34th president of Brazil. The article's infobox says that he is a sociologist (which is a scientist). But the article about him, has not been put into the "category:Brazilian scientist", or any scientist-category. The article has been around for 3 years without being in the category "scientist" or "sociologist".
(Note to myself: If the result of this discussion is "Keep", then I must remember to add that scientist into one of the mentioned categories.) Sju hav (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do that now: that article will be kept no matter the outcome of this discussion, because we are talking about deleting list articles, not articles about people. Whether it's an argument for keeping the list is a different question. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The following is an argument for keeping the list (but likely not the strongest argument):
(Again,) One name on the list, is the 34th president of Brazil. The article's infobox says that he is a sociologist (which is a scientist). But the article about him, has not been put into the "category:Brazilian scientist", or any scientist-category. The article has been around for 3 years without being in the category "scientist" or "sociologist".
Perhaps you were trying to say that you don't think that the argument is good enough, or good at all.
Come to think of it, what anyone will or will not do to the article about that president, does not concern this "Keep" or "Not keep" discussion. Sju hav (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that one item in the list is bluelinked and that the bluelinked article shows notability is not relevant. The issue is the large number of redlinked entries in the lists. No one has said that there are only redlinked entries, just that most entries are redlinked. All the references being added to the list articles show notability of the individuals for which they are being added, but that does not address the issue with these lists. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It is relevant: The guidelines talk about "informational purpose" and also about Lists that are entirely (listing) red links. Sju hav (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am monitoring the content of this category. Lists continue to be added, and so far all the new ones I've seen are also mostly or solely red links. These new lists, and any similar ones that may be created, are included in this request. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: When several scientists asked me how they can find excellent coauthors for their work from a particular country, I generally answer them that they can find them by consulting the Lists of scientists by nationality. For each nationality, you can find hundreds of scientists and by clicking on the name of one of these scientists, you can find their biography and their main achievements and works and this what a scientist need for deciding his research collaborations. I know that there are many red links in such lists. But, this can be fixed. --Csisc (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It was suggested to the creator of these lists that he/she do such fixing, but the suggestion was brusquely declined. Without that, these lists are not useful for thge purpose you describe. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
As Auntof6 says, and as you've alluded to, these lists are only useful if they are collections of articles. They are merely collections of red links here and are inappropriate with that in mind. Only (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Csisc, and I would like to add, that the red links, sometime has extra information to very briefly describe the main achievement of the "red link scientist". Sometimes the red link has one or more notable references - and anyone can add notable references to "substantiate a red link scientist". It is wrong, and not accurate, to say that these List of scientists have no more information, than the red links (and only a few blue links, on this small wikipedia). Sju hav (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Only. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: Csisc's only edit here has been the one to this RfD page today. The rules of RfD allow -- not require, just allow -- giving less weight to or even completely discounting the input from new users, so you may wish to consider that. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Auntof6: I participated to the discussion upon the request of Sju hav as I am one of the main editors of such lists in French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. --Csisc (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Csisc: That doesn't affect the fact that input from new users can be discounted or given less weight. @Sju hav: Please be sure that you are not canvassing, which is not allowed. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6 - Be sure, that you know the difference between informing (about an ongoing discussion,) on an article's talk page - and canvassing.
I have held myself within the guidelines of wikipedia.
I am sure that I knew the difference, all along, between canvassing and giving general information. Enough said about that? Sju hav (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Inviting a single individual to participate, when the individual has experience of such matters on other Wikimedia projects, does not in my view violate the canvassing rules. Additionally, I have worked with User:Csisc elsewhere and consider him a serious and reliable Wikimedian. His view can be discounted to the extent that he does not have experience with the idiosyncrasies of Simple English Wikipedia, but beyond that, his opinion is worth taking into consideration. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
What did not happen, was inviting "a single individual to participate".
Here is the link [5] to my description of a topic that might interest editors on one of French-wiki's articles. Sju hav (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - One has said in this discussion, about me, that "It was suggested to the creator of these lists that he/she do such fixing, but the suggestion was brusquely declined".
I was, with a quite questionable degree of politeness, "asked" to write the article of a specific "red link scientist".
I declined the "offer", and I did it with Simple English. Sju hav (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sort of Keep: One of the reasons I like lists is for searching. If a reader wants to read about Marcia Barbosa and searches for her, they will at least reach List of Brazilian scientists. That list has some very basic information and so it is helpful in a very basic way. So, keep lists that have at least a highlight of who the person is, and delete those that are just a list by nationality. --Tbennert (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Most, or all the lists have at least one hightlight.
Is one highlight enough to keep any list, in your opinion?
Have you seen any lists in this discussion, which clearly are "Not Keep" (or delete), in your opinion. Sju hav (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If the list is nearly all red-links, then for me pretty much all the names need a note as to the person's field and importance. (Even with all blue links I would like that information in any list, but that's style/preference.)--Tbennert (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Taking Tbennerts further: Anyone who sees a "scientist red link" without "field and importance" should tag it with "clarify" and/or "reference needed".
Reference would be needed, if anyone is not sure if the scientist is notable. Sju hav (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. Explanation and references are not required in lists. When present, they do not support notability of the list, only of the individual list item. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. If someone puts a tag on a "red link scientist" asking for a notable reference that says that the scientist is notable, then such a tag is appropriate and within guidelines. Or can you show a guideline that says that one can not challenge a "red link" (scientist) with a tag? Sju hav (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't make sense to tag a list item to ask for evidence of notability: notability of an item in a list is established in the article about that item, not in the list. And I didn't say that references weren't appropriate, only that they aren't required. By the way, your arguments would carry more weight if you use your own words instead of mimicking others. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I will give you an example that perhaps make sense to some (even if you might disagree): If you or anyone were to add the name of Kumar j. doctor, to the List of Indian scientists, then I would ask for a notable and independent reference (regarding him being a notable scientist). At present there is an article about this doctor named doctor, and some might find it appopriate and within guidelines to tag his name, on suspicion that there are no (notable and independent) sources that describe him as notable. (If someone choses to tag his name, rather than start a deletion discussion, then I would say that I have not seen anything in the guidelines that would prevent someone from tagging his name.) If someone has doubts about a blue link (or a future red link) about "the doctor named doctor", then in both cases, guidelines do not prevent one from tagging his name. Sju hav (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have checked the guidelines, and all the articles that have at least one blue link [scientist] , can not be deleted (on the grounds of the linked [6] guidelines.)
And I still think and say that all the "List of scientists" articles should be kept, without having to change the guideline.
(Life is full of paradoxes.)
If the lists are deleted, then I will gladly be a cheerleader, and try to keep tabs,
on which countries do not have any scientists on "Simple English",
and which countries do not have Category:Scientists from country .... 14:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • So basically we should follow the guidelines if it allows articles to be kept, but we should ignore the guidelines that allow them to be deleted. Got it. Only (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
      • A discussion can decide to "Keep". You might like to think that the guidelines that are in place, cover all cases well enough.
I disagree with your view that "So basically we should follow the guidelines if it allows articles to be kept, but we should ignore the guidelines that allow them to be deleted. Got it";
Not sure that your quoted view is adding a whole lot to the discussion. Sju hav (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - the guidelines say that "a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space".
When there is one blue link ( - the name of any scientist), then the list should be in the main space (and not in the project or user space).
"Entirely" still means 100 % in Simple English as in English - or am I wrong on that point? Sju hav (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
So with that in mind, as you've quoted the guidelines, would you be okay if we deleted every "list of..." article that you created where there is no blue linked entry? Examples include List of Laotian scientists, List of Sudanese scientists, and List of Ghanaian scientists. Only (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
They are within guidelines because
  • These lists have two main problems: The term "scientist" is very generic: A biologist, a theologian, and someone concerned wwith the structure of a given language are all scientist,s yet they have very little in common. The second one is: most of these lists are lists of 10+ names, without reference, mostly redlinked. I suggest for a given list ot be kept: 1) At least 5 blue links, with refs 2) Two thirds of the names linked are blue link. So we can problably delete most of these lists. --Eptalon (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding theologians: On this wikipedia they are [7] "Religious workers", and not scientists (unless someone changes that).
(And if someone puts Theologians under Scientists, in the Category tree, it arguably does not make the discussion difficult, regarding List of scientists from ...)
(Arguably that discussion about who should be called scientists, belongs at [8].) Sju hav (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with your assessment and standard for which lists should be kept. At least 5 or at least 2/3 is a good standard. Only (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
And if a list has two blue links and one red link, then who is to decide which of the country's scientists should be the third to be mentioned (and the only red link in the list). I don't think there should be a limit on red links, but at least two blue links is an idea for a minimum requirement (and others say at least five). But that belongs in a discussion about making a more clear guideline, rather than this "deletion discussion". Sju hav (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - This "Keep" or "Not keep" discussion, for a whole category, was arguably started, because one thought that all the lists were against the guidelines.

For now, there is no indication, that the whole category can be deleted, with the existing guidelines. The right thing to do, is Keep the category (because there is nothing in the guideline that makes clear, how the category in this case, can be deleted.)
Afterwards one can change the guideline, if a discussion - in a different thread - says that "List of scientists from ....", is something wikipedia does not want in the short-term future. Sju hav (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure what I think overall at the end of the day, but perhaps I can share some ideas that could move this more toward a resolution.
    • As a general rule, this Wikipedia encourages red links as a means of encouraging and focusing the creation of new articles.
    • At the same time, we typically shrink or remove navigation templates that consist entirely, or nearly entirely, of red links. The reason we do this is because such a template does not really help one navigate. I see list articles as being fairly similar to navigation templates in that respect.
    • Excepting certain maintenance categories, we typically do not permit categories with fewer than three members. To some extent list articles also resemble categories. For that reason, I would delete, or roll up to some higher level (continent?), list articles that do not have at least (three?) (five?) entries, simply on the grounds that something that short isn't really much of a list.
    • Notwithstanding what I've just written, I could consider keeping one or two of these in main space at a time, provided that User:Sju hav, User:Csisc and others are in parallel working to create articles on the people in the list. This could really focus the work of anyone interested in creating scientist articles. And as the links in those articles move from red to blue, we could really see some progress in our project.
    • Let me emphasize: I'd do that for only one or two at a time, and userfy the rest. As it stands now, there is no real focus point, and a lot of red links with almost no hope of article creation in the short term. And in general lists like that aren't very useful here.
I think policy probably favors deleting these pages (or userfying them, as they are legitimate content for a user subpage). But I think if User:Sju hav would be willing to make a good faith commitment to create the underlying articles, we could stretch a point on the policy and allow a couple of these to remain as focus points for that commitment. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81 - Guidelines favors all lists with informational purpose; lists with blue links (at least one blue link) are also favored.
If you are saying that there are some additional policies, then show us those.
This discussion is not about singling out anyone, and asking one person at a time to write a few hundred articles about scientists.
(Please take those discussions to the talk pages of the individuals.
When you "ask" for a good faith commitment, is that not an admission of bad faith on your part? "Asking" for good faith commitments - i think is outside the scope of this discussion.) Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sju hav: At some point the question of whether a list serves an informational purpose is a subjective one, and my opinion is that as they appear now they do not serve an informational purpose. (FWIW, to say that a list article containing all red links fails to meet the guideline does not automatically mean that a list article containing at least one blue link automatically meets the guideline.[3]) So I would provisionally favor deleting the lists, consistent with the guideline quoted by User:Auntof6 at en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Development.
Starting from that point, then, I am proposing to compromise a bit. So I say that if you (and/or others) are willing to commit to working on articles to turn those red links blue, I'm willing to let the lists stay for a while, a few at a time, notwithstanding my reading of the guideline, to give those lists a chance to come up to standard.
And in that setting, my asking you for a "good faith" commitment is not bad faith on my part. It is merely asking for an acknowledgement that you understand that we're stretching a point here—and that we're doing so on the presumption that someone will fairly promptly add enough content to get the lists up to standard. And in truth, you don't have to be the one to make the commitment; if other editors looking at this page would make such a commitment, I'd be satisfied. But if nobody is willing to do so, then as the lists do not currently meet guidelines (per Auntof6), they should be deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the guidelines allegedly are not spelling things out (how many percent of the items can be red links; what adds informational purpose), then I think it is best to Keep, and immediately thereafter work to make the guidelines clearer.
Thereafter one can delete lists that don't meet one or two (by then) clear requirements, to be written into the guidelines.
If this had been a counting of hands, which it is not, then i count about three "hands" saying that there is not enough informational purpose in the lists.
But it is not clear to me how these three persons define "informational purpose".
There is not even consensus if the guidelines say that a list with one blue link is enough, or two blue links, or a majority of blue links.
And if there has two be a majority of blue links, are there going to be discussions (or edit-warring by others) regarding what scientist (or whatever) will "get its name as the least important red link".
The solution for now, is to Keep the category, and make a new nomination for deletion of the one article with allegedly the "very least informational purpose";
either a policy discussion or a single deletion (for one article) discussion might point out if two blue links and one red link has enough informational value;
there seems to be no consensus in this discussion about notes about a "the red-link person", with or without references: Can enough "informational purpose" be created; and what would such informational purpose look like.
My attempt (to "answer" your attempt) for a compromise, is that I am willing to help with non-scientist lists, to add informational value, without necessarily writing the articles that are named in red-links.
@StevenJ81 - If you have any more warnings (or "recommendation") for me, then bring them out in the open, instead of hiding the warnings in an edit remark (which not easy to find in the main discussion here). Your previous [9] not-in-the-open warning to me, was "... I don't recommend you try to wikilawyer me". Sju hav (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The idea about one or more saying that they are going to write "some of the articles that are red-links", has no place in this discussion, in my opinion;
we still will not be any closer to consensus about where does "informational purpose" begin and end; and
what percentage of red-links will be "too high". Sju hav (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the guidelines does not say that a list article containing all red links, must be deleted.
That might bring us back to the topic, can a red link together with a highlight add "enough informational pupose": I say "yes" and three seem to indicate "no".
Both "sides" have written their arguments. Sju hav (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - for now I think that a List should be able to stay with only two red links, but that every red link needs a "notability highlight" or a reference that the person is a notable scientist, or the red link needs a "reference needed" tag. (The person who writes a red link on a list, can not "demand a reference", but anyone who is not sure that the person is a notable scientist, can/should put a tag behind the red link). Anyone can demand "reference needed" about a "notability highlight".

One person from French wikipedia, answered my post about voices at "Simple wikipedia" wanting to delete the List of Tunisian scientists. The wikipedian (from French wikipedia) seemed to want the article kept: The article had one blue link, and four red links (and three of those had the highlights: historian, historian, expert of Arabic literature).
Small wikipedia's are interested in good arguments and those arguments that are even better, no matter which non-blocked users they come from. (As far as the bullying (or whatever one wants to call "you are new here, so we can disregard everything you have to say" etc.) of new faces on "Simple", I will not participate in that. And I see no reason for such bullying to continue.) Sju hav (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Recommend close as "no consensus". (Sigh.) @Sju hav, I concede that you have out-lawyered me here.
You are quite correct in stating the guideline is not very specific about what constitutes a list that has informational value (and can stay in article space), vs. maintenance/development value (and should move to Wikipedia: or User: space), vs. not enough value to keep. To me, that suggests that it is up to the community to decide. Ordinarily, on Simple English Wikipedia, we try hard not to be bureaucratic about such things, and instead work through consensus and common sense to decide. But you've created so many of these lists that it is hard to deal with them just one or two at a time, as we normally would. You are practically demanding that hard-and-fast rules be created here. So be it.
Accordingly, we need to create hard-and-fast rules here as to what constitutes informational value in a list, and that is a separate issue from whether any of these lists then reach that standard. So I would now propose closing this as "no consensus", pending clarification of rules. This is different from a positive determination to keep the lists, and allows us to go back to an RfD in the future once the rules are more settled. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
There should be no need to use the arguably negative label "out-lawyering" (or out-lawyered) - the guidelines simply did not give simple enough guiding.
My good faith takes for granted that nothing negative was meant by those words. Sju hav (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is about co-operating about building and making better, one general encyclopedia that has a version in different languages.
  • If "red link scientists" are highlighted in Lists on one English-language wikipedia, then there should be well-thought reasons for not having the "red link scientists" highlighted on a "Simple" wikipedia.
  • I have landed on, that Lists should be permitted even if they are all "red link scientists". However, if there is not a highlight showing notability, than there should be at least one notable reference that indicates that the scientist is notable. (I think the guideline for "Simple", should be strict in that respect, because this small wikipedia has a reputation for having problems with false information standing for longer periods of time, compared to similar problems at larger wikipedias.)
  • I argue that "Simple" has a lot to gain, when it has Lists, entirely with "red link scientist" that have "highlight texts", or references that show that the person is notable. Adequate Lists, that we have, before English-wiki gets their version, is likely not a bad thing! Sju hav (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The creator of these lists has now created lists for specific types of scientists by nationality, also mostly redlinked. (See List of Romanian natural scientists for example.) I consider these part of this request, although I have moved them to the parent of the category being discussed. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know what the specific guidelines are here, but at en-Wiki we have WP:REDNOT, which wisely instructs that personal names are not to be red-linked. Red links are fine, and on this project they may be particularly useful. Red-linking names, however, is just a bad idea. It's too easy to for a red link meant for a scientist or politician to wind up becoming an article about a serial killer or white supremacist. --Joefromrandb 05:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
At the "main" English wikipedia, there is no de facto ban of red links, in Lists.
That wikipedia's practices, allows red links as personal names. In other words, some/many of their lists have red links as personal names.
This wikipedia could take a vote, that one wants to disregard English-wiki de facto policy,
by making a policy that does not allow "red links made of personal names". (I give my voice against such a policy.)
One English-wiki guideline talks about lists and informational purpose. Please take a look at List of Vietnamese scientists; that is a list with informational purpose. (And for whatever reason, none of those scientists - all of them with articles on English-wiki - have articles here. This is in contrast with a list, such as the Brazilian one.)
Not having lists, have not led to articles being written about Vietnamese scientists!
It might be time to try something new, such as keeping lists about Vietnamese scientists etc. Sju hav (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it does not allow personal names as red links. I realize that has no bearing on this project; I just happen to agree with it, hence my vote. --Joefromrandb 14:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I have found the following List (on English-wiki) of "somewhat personal names", where some of the entries are black-printed. Those arenot blue and not red links:
List of WWE personnel has entries that are "black-printed".
If some (experienced users of "Simple wikipedia") think it is better with Lists with entries in black-print,
rather than red-links, then that would be interesting information. Sju hav (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
My last version of the List of Afghan scientists, has no "red link scientists" (only blue links- and "black print scientists" ).
I still prefer the version with "red links" and "blue links". Sju hav (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, wiki-English's de facto policy, is that red-links stay in some of their "List of scientists from ...", including versions from today:
List of Austrian scientists. Sju hav (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 23:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

  • Note - I'm extending this RfD, for five days from now, until Tuesday. There is no clear consensus as of yet, and discussion is still ongoing. Regards, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. 2015 L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards
  2. "Marian Ewurama Addy, Professor" (in en). www.ghanaweb.com. Archived from the original on 2016-12-18. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/people/person.php?ID=1240.
  3. I am willing to take you through the syllogism on that at your talk page, if you need me to.


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  Keep. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Announcements[change source]

Wikipedia:Announcements (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gordonrox24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Sort of found this page by accident again, and It seems... Odd to have this now. Original RFD in 2006 resulted in a move, but the main concern back then is that it just wouldn't ever be updated. Moving forward to today, and it's not been updated in over 3 years. It's a waste of time, irrelevant, and not something we need on the Recent Changes tab. Our time is better spent on content building, not maintaining a list of our good deeds. Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:48, 13 August 2017 (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: For what it's worth, I updated this page. I did not do so to render User:Gordonrox24's argument moot—I am not yet committing to keep this up to date—but just because I was curious. My reasons to keep are listed below. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is no policy justification for deleting this page. Whether it should be marked as inactive in some way, and kept only for historical purposes, is another matter. But deletion would not be appropriate. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Is that something we've done before? If we've got a bunch of old unused pages laying around, then sure toss this in that category and remove it from Recent Changes. If we don't have this, is it something we want to start? I'm not sure I'm a fan of a bunch of "retired" pages, it's just clutter that we don't need in my mind.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
See en:WP:HISTORICAL and en:WP:HISPAGES. Pages that record history or historical processes should nearly always be kept, unless it's pretty clear that all the information is available in substantially the same form elsewhere—and in some cases maybe even then. Remember, also, en:WP:NOTPAPER. There is certainly no reason, though, that currently obsolete pages need to be kept in WP:RC. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've no opinion on whether it's kept, but there are lots of old pages in the Wikipedia namespace. An admin can remove this one from New changes by editing Wikipedia:RecentChanges. Angela (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we don't want to see it at recent changes when there are no current announcements, then comment it at Wikipedia:RecentChanges until there's something current. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - If realistically it won't ever be used then mark it as Historical (if we can) - No need to delete old things like this. –Davey2010Talk 10:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - mark as historical. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:48, 20 August 2017 (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]