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. Add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}} to the top of the page.
  2. Please use a change summary such as "nominated for deletion".
  3. Save the page.
  4. You can also check the "Watch this page" box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you to know if the RfD tag is removed.
Create a discussion page.
  1. On the box that has appeared at the top of the article, click the link to create a discussion page.
  2. Type the page name and the reason you are requesting deletion in the right places.


List it here
  1. Look at the discussion page you have just made, and follow the instructions in the red box.
  2. Once you have done that, you may wish to remove that tag.

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]

Photon torpedoes[change source]

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

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: While this appears to be a standard-issue weapon throughout the Federation, it probably is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Chenzw  Talk  15:27, 28 August 2016 (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]

  • Well, of course, the series is highly notable, but (unless demonstrated) the imaginary weapons are not. So delete.Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I looked for an article we could redirect this to. The only one I found is the main Star Trek article, but I don't think that's a good option. Enwiki redirects it to an article about the weapons of Star Trek, but we don't have such an an article. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Dante Parini[change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not show notability. There are no source citations to verify any of this information. There are also discrepancies; the most notable being the claim he was a sculptor "of monuments to the fallen soldiers of the First and Second World War..." According to this he died in 1932. Rus793 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Rus793 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2016 (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. I think this artist has not been shown to be notable. No in-line sources, and no critical reviews of his work by accredited experts on sculpture. The Brera Academy, though it does have standing, is not a national Academy, and a diploma from them is not entirely convincing for our purposes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 14:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Luca Bestetti[change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not show notability. Sources include 1 dead link, at least 6 failed verification. Creative retitling of articles as most are about his wife. Rus793 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion[change source]

  • Delete. Not convincing at all. A public relations handout, really. I looked with hope to the Saatchi Gallery link, to find that the artist himself had uploaded photos of his artwork. No sign of an expert critical assessment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - claims to notability are weak. Furthermore, I would consider source 2 to be a self-published one, as it seems that Saatchi Art (not to be confused with en:Saatchi Gallery) works on a similar model to that of en:Etsy. Chenzw  Talk  02:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Cantor's diagonal argument[change source]

Cantor's diagonal argument (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Some Gadget Geek has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article cannot stand as it is now. We need to explain how exactly the proof works and that will be very difficult without using technical jargon beyond what is generally appropriate enough for the simplewiki. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2016 (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: Cantor's diagonal argument, while complex, can be explained using simple language, if the editors aren't too lazy! It just needs to be explained in the right way! Give it time! 24.15.68.186 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone is actively working on it, that would be fine. If not, and if the article is insufficient as it is, then there's a limit to how long we would keep it. That limit is the length of time that this RfD runs. If does get deleted, it can always be recreated when someone can make it a better article. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete. The subject is encyclopedic but the article, as written, is nothing more than a bare mention, with no real explanation of the topic, nor even a source. If the creator or other interested parties are able to create a simplified version of the EnWiki version, then I would support keeping it. Etamni | ✉   03:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC) I can now support keeping this article. It still needs work, of course, but if we delete every article that needs work, we won't have much left. Other editors are reminded that the subject is not one that will interest, say, fifth-grade students, so our ideal is not to eliminate all of the mathematical jargon but rather to explain it so that English learners who have an interest in this arm of mathematics can understand the English used to explain it. Sources are still badly needed. Etamni | ✉   02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have spent about half an hour, translating some content. The article now shows the proof Cantor used; it uses everyday language. What still needs to be done: There are three publications of Cantor, of 1877, 1891, and 1899. At the moment, the article is about the article of 1877. Ideally, the content of the two other publications can be added here. The article also needs references. In short: I think it is keepable now. --Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is complex and without any source citations. Having to sort through this in detail is exactly what we do not want readers to have to do. To keep it would need to be simplified, wikified and cited with reliable source citations. Rus793 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Cantor was German, the three articles mentioned are in German. Über eine elementare Frage der Mannigfaltigkeitslehre. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, Vol I, pp 75ff. The problem with the proof is that is not formalized (and therefore probably easier to understand). A formalized proof was only given in 1910. Über eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen. Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik Vol 77, pp. 258–262.. --Eptalon (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see these German titles even mentioned in the article and it still has no source citations showing the subject is notable. My comment was based on the article as it is now, not what it might be at some point in the future. This is not one of my favorite subjects but I'll "prime the pump", so to speak, with a source citation (OK, two, I got a little carried away). I used one of the titles you mentioned above. Two, however, doesn't seem to me to be enough so I think more would be needed. Rus793 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Latest preview software release/Mozilla Firefox[change source]

Template:Latest preview software release/Mozilla Firefox (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Group request for unused "latest software release" templates. Some are for preview releases, the others are for stable releases. Ideally, we would be able to retrieve release info from Wikidata instead from these hardcoded templates. Until we do that, we can at least not keep the templates we aren't using.

Templates included in this request:

Note to closing admin, in the event this RfD passes: since this is a group request, you will have to enter the delete reason manually for most of the templates. Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2016 (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]

  • If someone wants to add these templates to their subject articles they can be kept. Any not in use by the end of this RfD should be deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Using these templates is just a matter of defining a non-blank value for the frequently_updated parameter in the software infoboxes (the infobox will call them automatically). The question is, are we able to remain reasonably up-to-date (within a few weeks or so) if we use these templates? Chenzw  Talk  13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • By the way, I tried to use {{#property:}} and {{#invoke:Wikidata}}, but it seems that they will return all the software versions currently recorded on Wikidata. Chenzw  Talk  13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      It will return every version with the highest ranking. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Welp, it looks like every version is currently being ranked at "preferred". I note that there was some attempt to coordinate this at Property talk:P348, but until that has been sorted out, I don't think we can reliably fetch this kind of data from Wikidata for now. Messing around with {{#invoke:Wikidata|ViewSomething}} doesn't seem to help either, along with the fact that there is virtually no documentation for this particular function... Chenzw  Talk  14:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Good question. Note that I didn't nominate the similar templates that are actually used (see Category:Latest preview software release templates and Category:Latest stable software release templates), but neither did I check to see how up-to-date they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I intend to help out with maintaining Template:Latest stable software release/Mozilla Firefox and Template:Latest stable software release/OS X. These two templates are currently not included in their respective infoboxes yet, because changing |frequently_updated= will also cause the (horribly outdated) latest preview software release templates to be transcluded. I will modify the infobox param when the "unadopted" templates are deleted/looked after by someone else, whichever comes first. --— This unsigned comment was added by Chenzw (talk • changes) at 06:20, 12 August 2016‎.
  • It has been about 2 weeks since the last comment on this RfD. I would like to move for a keep verdict for Template:Latest stable software release/Mozilla Firefox and Template:Latest stable software release/OS X, delete for the remaining 3. Chenzw  Talk  02:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:PBS Kids[change source]

Template:PBS Kids (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused navbox, very similar to Template:PastPBSKids shows. (Although that template says "past" shows, it actually has current shows in it.) This template was originally created with very few entries and bad formatting, so I updated it from the enwiki version. However, when I started to add the template to articles, I found that most of the articles already had the existing template on them. I don't think this additional template is needed. Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion[change source]

  • Redirect to existing template. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one is tricky. The nominated template duplicates material that is contained in another template; one that has been placed in more articles, but I think this is actually the better template. For example, the nominated template includes the years that various shows were produced, which could be handy info. The nominated template is nearly identical to the template that is used on EnWiki as well. This could simplify future importation of articles from EnWiki, especially if the template is renamed to exactly match the name it has on EnWiki. Ultimately, I like this one better than the one in use. I would support deleting the other one, or redirecting it. (And I would be happy to help change the existing articles to use this template if the decision is made to keep it.) Etamni | ✉   14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever, only one is needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 04:27, 17 August 2016 (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]

Related pages[change source]