Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Shortcuts
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]

Shortcut

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.
  3. 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.
  3. 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)}}
  4. 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!

If this is too complicated for you, there are some gadgets like Twinkle that you can use. This allows you to do it faster.

Quick deletion[change source]

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Quick deletion

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.
  • Requests for deletion is not a war zone. Because of Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia, you can click here for more information.

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]

Parthenon Frieze[change source]

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

Rathfelder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Same as Elgin Marbles. The two should be merged. I think Elgin Marbles is the more commonly used term. Rathfelder (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 article makes it sound like the two terms mean the same thing, but they don't. The frieze is only part of the marbles. We could redirect to Elgin Marbles (which should probably be renamed, but that's not a discussion for here), but there aren't any incoming links and there isn't anything in this article that's specific to the frieze anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per Auntof6's comments. AJ (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Jemm TV[change source]

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

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don't see any reliable sources for this. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 if that article have no source, you must delete.‎‏ Agent arotalk 20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Jonathan D. Ross[change source]

Jonathan D. Ross (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Justarandomamerican has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I think this may be simply not notable, yet, and only time can overcome that. The references don't really show notability. If he were to win a major NCAA tournament, and USA Today had in depth coverage of him, that would show SIGCOV. This is simply too soon for an article to be created. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

  • Understandable can your just move it to user space instead of deletion and i though so cause he has run a state championship ring for information! EmilyT111 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Userspace pages are allowed as long as they contribute to the wiki in some way. That is why I kept asking you what there is about this person that makes him notable: if there is something notable about him, it would be OK to work on the article in userspace. However, if the consensus here is that notability cannot be shown, it may not be allowed to have the article in userspace.
    Also, what does "run a state championship ring" mean? -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete I was about to nominate this page myself, but Justarandomamerican beat me to it.
Notability is not shown, even though there are a lot of references. The subject is apparently best known for being a basketball player in high school and at a local community college. The article makes it sound like it was a big deal that he "committed to play" for the college, but that doesn't establish notability. In fact, terms like "committed to play" and "shared his abilities" are peacock terms that can be used to make a person seem more important.
In a discussion on my talk page with the creator, they asked for more time to establish notability. When I asked what they thought made this person notable, they said that they'd seen his "good following" on Instagram. That doesn't show notability. I explained that having a lot of references doesn't make a subject notable; the references have to support statements of notability, and that's not the case here.
Besides the lack of notability, the article is written in an unencyclopedic tone. It uses sports jargon and sounds like they're writing about a favorite local personality rather than someone notable in a larger sense.
A previous version of the article existed at Jonathan Daniel Ross, but was QD'd for lack of notability; that was a clearer case because it contained only two sentences.
One further item of concern: the creator's user page says "professional Wikipedia editor 4+ years". I'm not sure how that's true since they don't have any edits on any Wikimedia site before this month. Even so, if the creator is being paid to edit, we should pay even closer attention to the articles they create to make sure they aren't publicity. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understandable but I wasn't paid thrower that out there, as I didn't know the sudject, I got in contact let him know "aye i research you and didn't see a Wikipedia page so I created one for you" that's only communication back n foward but I totally understand and asking if your can just move it to user space instead of deletion EmilyT111 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to userfy it myself. I will defer to community consensus on deletion or userification. Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete is what I am leaning toward.--"has already earned over $2,000 in profit", says a lot about the article.--When I read the article, I saw a hint of cross-wiki spam from a non-native speaker. 2001:2020:331:D717:45D4:596:6AF6:43F5 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete – Poor reliability and depth of coverage in references, failing GNG. Insufficient notability for an encyclopedia. --IWI (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a side note, I am against userfication as this subject is not notable or likely to be considered notable soon (en:WP:TOOSOON may be relevant here), so it does not support project aims. --IWI (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per comments made above. AJ (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


UK Holocaust Memorial[change source]

UK Holocaust Memorial (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rathfelder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Futurology. It never happened. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: This shouldn't have been on Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I withdraw this. Since there is planning permission granted, and it is a education center for a very notable event, I think we should  Keep the article for now. Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep: Planned or cancelled structures or buildings can be allowed on wikipedia. DingoTalk 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment: As long as it's sourced and pretty notable, it can be allowed onto wikipedia. DingoTalk 17:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  (change conflict)   Keep Because it still has a good chance of being built and there have been many reliable sources covering its design and planning stages. The reason it didn't get planning permission initially was because of a 1900 statute that related to Victoria Tower Gardens. But Rishi Sunak is now introducing legislation to repeal that 1900 statute. --Ferien (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep: Just because the building was never built doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. There are hundreds of more articles that said that some building was proposed to build but didn't get built but why did those ones not get Quick deleted or Requested for deletion? The article needs to be keeped. It's also not deleted on the English Wikipedia so why would it be deleted here? Keep this article. Koqkpa talk 17:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just to remind readers that the objection was not to the memorial, but to the suggestion that it be placed in an area which is already overfilled with ancient historic buildings. We'll see in due course whether the ban gets lifted by Parliament. It'll be controversial for sure. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The title alone suggests keeping. I can't see why this is in any dispute. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Very notable even if it didn't happen. AJ (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 17:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Tracy Chapele[change source]

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

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail WP:GNG. Initially nominated for A4, but there's a claim to notability. --Ferien (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

  • After a second look, the only coverage is a Nigerian news website, and BBC News Pidgin. Is that SIGCOV? Doubt it.  Delete. I disputed the QD because it didn't meet the QD criteria, not because I thought it should remain indefinitely. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Notable enough to be on Wikipedia with coverage on BBC, Guardian Newspaper and other big media houses. God2much (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep A notable journalist who has appeared on several programs on BBC. Godtoomuch (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment: This appears to be !voting twice on two different accounts, see above keep !vote, compare usernames. Justarandomamerican (Discuss!) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect to Urhobo people - that is what I am leaning toward. (It might seem interesting that The Guardian seems to have written about her c. one year, before BBC pidgin did.)--There is one thing that maybe does not count in her favor, in regard to wiki-notability: She is not the first woman chief in Nigeria, in 100 years to break some kind of "barrier for female chiefs"; So, being a chief for how many people - what number would maybe make one wiki-notable.--Another thing: if there are 100 Urhobo chiefs at any given time, then maybe she is not notable.--One can claim that wikipedia is slightly skewed (by perhaps having more less articles) of persons that live in countries with a lot of internet-journalism; I am guessing that Nigeria has a fair amount of internet-journalism. 2001:2020:331:D717:45D4:596:6AF6:43F5 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak Delete - that is what I am leaning toward.--The wiki-article does not say that she is a household name in Nigeria.--Maybe any wiki-notability boils down to: How many famous female sports commentators are there in Nigeria - and where does she rank among those sports commentators of today.--For the record: it is my belief that i voted yesterday, redirect. 2001:2020:331:D717:6C31:245F:9CCF:BBB2 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)=Reply[reply]
  •  Delete due to Justarandomamerican's comments. Also, both the users who voted keep are very suspicious. Similar usernames and both just started editing on Simple Wiki this month. . AJ (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep notable for two reasons: as a sports commentator journalist and as the first woman to reach a political office in 100 years. Coverage in BBC and Guardian as well as local media. That's enough, particularly in media markets and about subjects where systemic bias works against coverage of the article subject. --Gotanda (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Gotanda's view seems to try to say that she has reached a milestone for women in all of Nigeria. Instead she has reached a (one hundred year) milestone for those (female's of the) Urhobo people, that are in the small fraction that live in the Udu Kingdom (Udu).--With only around two good, internet hits (when searching) on her name - that tells me that she is not notable as a "sports commentator journalist" etc.--Her main claim to fame, might be a position in local government.--Note that the article does not tell about any notable radio stations that she were she has done anything notable.--Is the lady from a country that has no internet, and where there is significant repression agains social media? No. So, all of this seems to point to that she is not wiki-notable. 2001:2020:315:BDEC:3D97:86FD:482E:FE3D (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 16:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


FTSE 100 Index[change source]

FTSE 100 Index (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rathfelder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Suggest a merger into London Stock Exchange. Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 22:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Woking High School[change source]

Woking High School (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article about a high-scool (Ages:12-16) in Woking, England. In my book, such schools are rarely notable, so we should delete this without much further ado. Article was created about half a year ago, and also exist in EnWp. Opinions? Eptalon (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 because of Eptalon's comment. AJ (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Operation Moonshot[change source]

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

Rathfelder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Futurology. As far as I can see this never happened. Rathfelder (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 think it's very much a notable article. Cancelled, delayed, or planned operations can still have articles on wikipedia, as long as it's notable and relates to something thats also pretty notable. In which this one relates to the COVID pandemic. Which is definitely notable. RiggedMint 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep: per RiggedMint's comment. AJ (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mark 1[change source]

Mark 1 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rathfelder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No useful content. We dont have any other articles about the individual chapters of the Bible as far as I can see. Rathfelder (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 because that is not article.Agent aro (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete It's pointless, because there is no content. Before writing individual articles about the chapters, it would be better if people added to the articles about the books of the Bible. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per above. AJ (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 10:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Play with Me SpongeBob[change source]

Play with Me SpongeBob (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Play With Me SpongeBob (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be real. The two articles are similar enough to be included in the same discussion.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 01:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Scp 250[change source]

Scp 250 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is a fictional entity of some kind (see SCP Foundation) ... I don't think it's notable but it doesn't seem to fall under WP:QD#A4. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 Fails WP:GNG, but indeed doesn't fall under A4. --Ferien (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Fictional monster. Better covered by the fandom --Angerxiety+ 00:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Fictional, covered by fandom, has no significant coverage Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol speedy delete vote.svg Quick Delete Fictional and is covered by it's own wiki. Also fails notability.  Delete Does not fall into any QD criteria, I'll still vote delete since it's way better covered on SCP Wiki. (And GNG too) (p. s. you guys should check the scp wiki out. It has pretty nice writing.) DingoTalk 15:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth, this article doesn't fall under any QD criteria so it cannot be quickly deleted. We are allowed to cover fictional characters and cover topics that happen to be on other non-Wikimedia wikis. --Ferien (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, I'll change my vote. DingoTalk 18:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol speedy delete vote.svg Quick Delete  Delete per all the comments made above. AJ (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Shoot for the Stars: I think it’s best to change it to delete, since it doesn’t fail A4. It only fails GNG. DingoTalk 13:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Richard Bunts[change source]

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Seems to fail WP:GNG. --IWI (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 23:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Acharya Rakumjee[change source]

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

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I think this founder of a school for the blind doesn't meet WP:GNG and isn't independently notable enough for an article. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 22:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Macross VF-X 2[change source]

Macross VF-X 2 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I noticed that there are no good sources on this article, and it doesn't exist on any other Wikipedias. It might not be notable. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 20:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Bui Quoc Huy[change source]

Bui Quoc Huy (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, most of the sources are unreliable or are not in-depth. One is only focused about a single role. Note that this article is salted on viwiki. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Former Members of Knesset[change source]

Category:Former Members of Knesset (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Overcategorization, per similar categories such as Category:Former members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands and Category:Northern Ireland Assembly, Former Members — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 22:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Richard Burnham[change source]

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

Peterdownunder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I don't think that this person arrested for one crime meets our guidelines for notability. Peterdownunder (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 multiple reliable sources talking about appearing in the sting, his arrest, sentence, and where he is located now. How is that not notable? AJ (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per w:WP:BLP1E – the arrest and sentence both are a result of the sting. --Ferien (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Fails BLP1E, because 1. The subject is only covered in reliable sources for 1 event (the sting, arrest, and sentence), 2. is low-profile, 3. The event is not of particular significance so as to warrant a separate article for each person involved. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete changing my vote to delete due to Ferien and Justarandomamerican's comments. I was not aware of w:WP:BLP1E until recently. AJ (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 21:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Notable concerts[change source]

Template:Notable concerts (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not a specific enough topic for a navbox, a lot more than just what is featured here could be included in such a template. It was first created in 2007 and has not been touched much since, and for what it is worth, enwiki does not seem to have an equivalent. --IWI (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 It is filled in with a lot of concerts that are objectively notable. It looks like it is helpful. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep I feel like this template would be very beneficial. AJ (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 15:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


A Vietnam Vets guide to fishing[change source]

A Vietnam Vets guide to fishing (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Clearly fails WP:GNG --Ferien (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Toby Randall[change source]

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

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG --Ferien (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Purple Heart and the Medal of Honor are very prestigious decorations, and it should not be difficult to track recipients of either. His name is not found in both cases. That, with no significant coverage leads me to think it's a hoax. Delete. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: note that a comment was added by an anonymous user to the talk page of this RfD. --IWI (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete due to it almost seeming like it's fake. AJ (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 19:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Milo Goj[change source]

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

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem to meet Notability for people. Of the three references, two are written by the subject and one is an interview with him. And I can't find other good sources online. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 17:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Insomnia Music[change source]

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

Derpdart56 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable music label, no hits on google. Derpdart56 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 17:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Sportswomen[change source]

Category:Sportswomen (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is a category for Women that are active in sports. Per our recent guideline, we no longer classify by gender. The category currently contains 231 pages, and 3 subcategories. I propose to delete this category, without replacement. People in there are usually classified by the kind of sport they do; so this category just adds the info 'look this athlete/sportsperson is a woman.' As the people should already be in a subcategory for the sport they do, we can delete this category altogether. The three subcategories (Female athletes, Female footballers, Female tennis players) are already addressed by another RfD. The same argumentation holds for Category:Sportsmen, though there are far fewer entries. Eptalon (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  •  Comment: 'Female footballers' and 'Female tennis players' remain as subcategories (again, we are looking at moving over 50 pages, if the categories get deleted). In the case of the Sportsmen, there's 'Male tennis players, with subcat 'British male tennis players'.--Eptalon (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I may have come late to this discussion, but it seems to me just plain silly to categorize sportspeople without distinguishing men from women. The mere fact that almost universally women play sports separately from men is itself adequate reason for separate listing. Added to that is the fact that all sports reports in the media do separate them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that sportpeople are often segregated by gender doesn't mean they're really doing anything differently. If they compete separately, it may be enough to categorize them under the team or league they play in. And what sports media do doesn't have to guide what we do here.
    And, of course, anywhere that we have a category for the females, there should be a corresponding one for males.
    And besides that, it's a little insulting to call your fellow Wikipedians' proposals silly. Please be civil. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are the following options:
    • this becomes a parent category, without pages, there are subcategories for each sport, so, Lucette Berlioux (1909-64) ends up in 'Female swimmers' and 'French swimmers', if there are enough, we get a category 'French female swimmers' or 'Female French swimmers'; those that stay in the parent category are where we don't have three of a kind. -> that's more or less the state before the RfD about gendering I closed yesterday (were all agreed we should delete)
    • we delete these categories, and subcats, the sex/gender of a participant becomes apparent from first name or pronouns used in the article, perhaps there are categories (like tornaments only open to female teams).
    What I saw in the Categories I propose for deletion is that there's a lot of overcategorization, see my rationale above. In what way is a female tennis player different from an actress or a female physicist? - the discussion about gendering has been going on for ages. I think we reached a decision? Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6 Sportpeople are still separated into men and women categories in many sport events. I think grouping all of them together makes things confusing for those trying to find pages on any one of those categories. I think usefulness to the readers and significance in real world should be considered. Also, I read it a few times but I don't think Mac is being uncivil here. It's just how he views this way of categorization, and I don't see him insulting anyone specific.-- BRP ever 11:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Auntof6: Mac commented on the actions a user took, not the person themselves, which is entirely compliant with the civility policy ("you should always talk about a person's changes, not the person his or herself"). People are allowed to have strong opinions about actions taken on-wiki. --IWI (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have no idea why we need to delete gendered category in every field. There are clearly distinguishable sport events by gender, and there are women who take part in those events. And I think readers do want to find those people in different categories. Keep.--BRP ever 11:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete I cannot see a reason why categorising by gender would be "unavoidable", in order to meet point no.3 of WP:CATGENDER. Therefore this category should be deleted per that guideline. If it is kept, it should be moved to Category:Female sportspeople. --IWI (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Sportspeople has always been something separated by gender. This is probably the area where gender is most defining. Categorising by gender here is absolutely unavoidable – they compete in separate races, get separate awards etc. --Ferien (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ferien: But they are not doing anything that is different from what the males do, so why the need for a separate category? Why is it unavoidable? We can have categories, as Ao6 said, for particular leagues and such. --IWI (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ImprovedWikiImprovment, they don't do anything different, but if we're going to assess these categories based on whether women can do something different from men then there's little to no point in WP:CATGENDER condition #3 because women can do everything men can do. I think the question should more be "Is gender defining in this area?", which was the past unwritten consensus before we had this guideline. It's why many RfDs on female categories ended up in keep before we had the addition to the guideline: it just depended on people's opinions as to whether gender was defining in that area. For most categories, I wasn't really bothered either way but I'm glad we've settled on something that ensures most our categories are uniform.
    However with sportspeople, gender is always relevant. There are separate competitions for men and women, who get separate awards as I've already pointed out. There's also a whole article about w:Women's sports on enwiki, that points out many differences between men and women's sports. In professional sports, female competitors rarely get a livable income. At schools, girls still often don't get to have football and rugby in PE lessons while boys do, which can limit women's participation in these sports. There are also sports like netball and w:ringette where there are more women who do these sports than men. A lot of differences with what they earn, what sports they do etc makes gender a defining factor in sport, therefore I think this category's needed. --Ferien (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: I added female professional wrestlers to this category, so now it contains three subcats and a number of articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per Ferien. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: The following categories were deleted (and the entries merged into the parent; amongst others: 'American male athletes ','British male athletes','British female athletes','Female athletes','American female tennis players','American male tennis players','Australian female tennis players','Australian male tennis players','Czech female tennis players','French female tennis players','German female tennis players','Russian female tennis players'. This was in the course of an RfD just below...--Eptalon (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: The other RfD I was refering to is this one--Eptalon (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep While it is worth noting that current public morality says that gender is an arbitrary concept, we nonetheless still do it in sports. Trans women have been banned from competing in women's sports in multiple major international sporting organisations for the simple reason that they are gaining an unfair advantage by being biological men, all of which says that it is important to separate them. If we get to the stage where there is no such thing as women's sports then we can perhaps change this, but then it is probably worthwhile keeping it for historical reasons. I don't think it is a good idea to remove them. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per Ferien. AJ (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 09:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Indochina Productions[change source]

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

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail WP:GNG. Has a reasonable claim that it can "meet the demands of Fortune 500 advertising commercials and high-budget Hollywood studio films" so sending to RfD --Ferien (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

  • Hi Ferien, Many thanks for pointing the specific concern to make the issue more clearer. Being a new editor, it makes very easy for me to make the Right corrections. I have removed the above mentioned sentence to make the page more simple and comply with WP:GNG.Sanbiz55 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upon searching online and reading references in the article, it is a clear fail of WP:GNG; so delete. --IWI (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - Fails GNG, no significant or reliable sources.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per Fehufangą's comments. AJ (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 21:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Maiden Pharmaceuticals[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Indian pharmaceutical company in 2023, the company was found guilty for selling coungh syrup/drugs that were contaminated. This contamination caused some people to die (in Gambia). Article was originally nominated as A4-notability. This story gives some notability/news/press coverage, so in my book, A4 no longer applies. For this reason, I am proposing to do an RfD. The article we have is short, and simple, but it has external sources, such as Reuters, and Financial Times. So, dear community, is this a keep or a delete? Eptalon (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

  • It is discussed in very reputable sources.Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    thats why I didn't quick delete; might be something big, a big controversy, and a big company forced to pay a fine (because likely they couldn't keep minimal standards)? Eptalon (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is said to be "the biggest tainted medicine scandal since contaminated cough syrup killed 365 people in Panama in 2006" and several executives have already been in court. Rathfelder (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Seems to only have coverage about a scandal surrounding contaminated drugs. Therefore, likely fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about the company itself. And the scandal maybe isn't suitable for its own article per en:WP:NOTNEWS. --IWI (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep even if the coverage is mainly about substandard drugs, cases in Gambia, Vietnam, and Uzbekistan over some years means this is not one event. --Gotanda (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not a case of one event, as this is a company. However we do have a case similar to what is discussed at en:WP:ILLCON, which means these events do not make the company itself notable. We would need sustained coverage aside from the usual news coverage around the time of the event for the "perpetrator" (in this case) of the crime to be considered notable (see en:WP:PERP point no. 2). Could it be notable in the future? Perhaps, but at the moment it is en:WP:TOOSOON. --IWI (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps this is something like Thalidomide scandal? - A drug that was used against anxiety, but that also causes birth defects? - I could also say Seveso disaster or Bhopal disaster but those were chemical accidents...? Eptalon (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe this scandal will have long-lasting coverage like the thalidomide scandal did, but that is not evidenced at this time. --IWI (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is still quite a lot of developing coverage. This article has a lot of detail about the company: https://www.forbesindia.com/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/its-not-just-maiden-pharmaceuticals-indias-health-care-authorities-also-need-to-take-the-blame-for-the-gambian-fiasco/80435/1 Rathfelder (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is the only source that contains significant coverage about the company itself, which is not enough to meet GNG. The existing coverage has also not shown the company to (at least yet) meet en:WP:PERP (a guideline I encourage to be read, which is stated to be relevant in cases described at en:WP:ILLCON). --IWI (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the real significance is the light it shines on the international medical drug market. Rathfelder (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That opinion is entirely reasonable, but I am still voting delete at this point. --IWI (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To add, like I said, no company is inherently notable, so we essentially have WP:GNG, which cannot be met with only one source covering the company itself. In my opinion, the other relevant guidelines mentioned above are also not met because of only usual news stories currently available. --IWI (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete due to ImprovedWikiImprovment's comments. AJ (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Israeli-Palestinian people[change source]

Category:Israeli-Palestinian people (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nominated for G5 as it's over-categorisation, but the author wasn't evading a block at the time of creation --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  •  Comment: As concerned since Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry and related discussions, this kind of categories will possibly bring endless confusion and wikiwars. In addition, I think this combination will be more controversial. MathXplore (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the moment, the category contains 10 pages. I can see that it might be important to say "I am Palestinian (likey Arab?) but I also feel like an Israeli.". I think it would be politically wise to suppress this category, and re-catogrize the 10 people it concerns with both parent categories.So, delete--Eptalon (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What would you think about moving to a new parent category like Category:Israeli-Arab people, which was mentioned below. MathXplore (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep and move to Category:Israeli-Arab people or something similar. This is for people of Arab ethnicity (which may be referred to as Palestinian) living in Israel. In many cases they are similar to the members of Category:Palestinian people, except they live in the territory controlled by Israel, not in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The article en:Arab citizens of Israel says that many of them consider their nationality to be Arab or Palestinian rather than Israeli. Their ancestors may have lived in the region before it became the State of Israel. We have Category:African-American people. This is likewise a defining category, and not overcategorization. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you mean we should keep this entry as a category redirect? MathXplore (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that would be best. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your response. I'm not sure if a category redirect would be needed, but I think your category renaming suggestion could be useful, not too much limited range, maybe less controversial, and not included in the former discussions. Although since this discussion seems to be contentious, I would like to leave the final outcome to the closing admin. MathXplore (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Move per above. While WP policy says creations by a blocked or banned user should be deleted, I am more of an opposer to the rule, because one time a blocked user actually made something constructive but then it got reverted, and I thought it should be kept due to the page, not the user.Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    May I have your opinion about the over-categorization concern? MathXplore (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think we shouldn't create too many categories like this, but we can still keep this, because it would also give more sspecific details, so the page in a category becomes unknown while a user is browsing a category. So I'm fine with oveer-categorization. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 16:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One more question, you said "per above", but may I ask which comment are you talking about? I think this should become clear for the closing admin. MathXplore (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    the " Keep and move to..." is the comment above I'm talking about. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 16:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @WPchanger2011: The policy does not say that creations by banned or blocked users should be deleted, it is just a criterion that an administrator can use on articles they deem it is useful for. There is no requirement for such pages to be deleted. --IWI (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry about that, so perhaps I misunderstood the criteria. I was viewing a sockpuppet's page. Edit: But still, i kinda disagreee with the policy, but it's a policy, you can't disobey it. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 02:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 16:00, 18 March 2023 (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) 16:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quizplus[change source]

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail WP:GNG. Was also deleted on enwiki for this reason. --IWI (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 18:42, 21 March 2023 (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.  --IWI (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

84 (singer)[change source]

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

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Last RfD (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/84 (rapper)) ended up as a soft delete so can't G4 this page and have to send to RfD again. Clearly fails WP:GNG. --Ferien (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 16:08, 24 March 2023 (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.  --Ferien (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Former MEPs[change source]

Category:Former MEPs (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Same type of over-categorization as well as Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Category:Former members of the Senate of the Netherlands and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Category:Former members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands. I think the issues pointed out at the former discussions also apply here, and the parent category should be enough to cover the entries. In addition, I'm not sure if "MEP" is a well known word, so renaming might be needed even if we are going to keep it. MathXplore (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 09:53, 22 March 2023 (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. After assessing arguments from both sides, the keep !votes did not sufficiently address the issue of GNG, particularly significant coverage of the subject..— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Peace One[change source]

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

Rathfelder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Very worthy, but Promotional unreferenced futurology Rathfelder (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 but Tidy The subject matter is notable therefore this shouldn’t have been nominated. Some parts do appears a bit like promotion however if that’s an issue, we could just cut down the article. This is off course if nobody is willing to simply rephrase the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1TH Music (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: looks like something such as 'we are the world' by 'USA for Africa', where many well-known artists of the time each sing a line of the song?--Eptalon (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasnt clear to me that it was notable. It wasnt even clear if the event actually happened, as the article seemed to be all about how wonderful it was going to be. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete seems to be a project of some foundation with little to no coverage in independent sources. On enwiki it redirects to en:Claes Nobel, a person of also dubious notability in my opinion, despite being related to Alfred Nobel, the founder of the Nobel Prize. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep and improve: Notable, has at least 3 references, but how about we add more? Improve it to be NPOV, if it is promotional. Or I can do it if you'd like, but I don't see any way this is an ad/promotion. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 22:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The coverage in the references is all about their plans, not about anything they actually did. I cant find any online coverage now except their own promotion. The British end was dissolved in 2010.[1]. I dont think it still exists. If someone can find evidence that it does I will happily withdraw.Rathfelder (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Two of the three sources in the article are from the website of the subject. I cannot find any other sources, so there is insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. I will also note that a company being dissolved does not make it non-notable alone, so if it is found to still be in operation, that does not mean it is a notable subject. No company is considered inherently notable, so we need significant coverage to be available, which does not seem to be the case here. --IWI (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ↑ "WORLD PEACE ONE LIMITED". Companies House. 24 April 2012. Retrieved 16 March 2023.

This request is due to close on 11:53, 19 March 2023 (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.  --Ferien (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yukti Thareja[change source]

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

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Indian actress and model, who appears to have mainly acted in music videos and competed in some modeling competition from what I can see. She seems to be somewhat famous (some website posted pictures of her appearance at the airport), but I don't see how she's notable. Also, created by globally locked sockpuppet Special:CentralAuth/Ushna.gf. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 06:39, 21 March 2023 (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]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=8745158"