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]

Khanom jaak[change source]

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article is written in such poor English that it is hard to understand. In addition, much of it is about how to prepare it, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia, or about where one of the ingredients grows, which would belong in an article about the ingredient, not the dish. If we removed the parts that don't belong, what's left wouldn't show notability. Besides, that, some of the text appears to have been copied from elsewhere. Auntof6 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 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]

This request is due to close on 23:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Wedlease[change source]

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

Etamni has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability. Wording of this article suggests that this is an established thing, where the source is an opinion piece that merely suggests that it might be something to try in lieu of traditional marriage. A Google search shows that others have proposed the same thing, but to date, it does not appear that any jurisdiction in the world recognizes a wedlease as a valid form of marriage. It should also be noted that, as currently written, the article is little more than a dicdef, although this could be fixed. Etamni | ✉   23:37, 28 May 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]

  • Comment. As a concept, this is valid (see en:Marriage#Temporary marriages). However, this particular word seems like a neologism. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term is not encyclopedic, neologism and POV. There is no objection to the concept of temporary marriage, although they are not recognised in the western world. A page under that latter title would need to meet the usual requirements. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Premature discussion I was planning to add a lot of content to the page, yetit will take time due to paywalls, and delivery. The request started 4 days after creation. Nonetheless if the closing admin ignores this i vote keep. Antamajnoon (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not premature. Articles need to be in good shape and show notability as soon as they're created. Sometimes exceptions are made if an article is actively being worked on. This RfD wasn't started until four days after the article was created, and at that time no edits had been made since creation. What we could do is move the article to your userspace so thst you could work on it there. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Group request for multiple unused templates (May 2016)[change source]

Auntof6 has nominated these pages for deletion for the reason: Miscellaneous unused templates. Other issues as noted above. Some are out of date, but not worth updating if we aren't using them. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 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]

  • Template:Geologic history to scale - Created in 2013.
    • This we don't use and don't need. In historical geology the information is in tabular form, and appropriate information is given in all pages relating to Earth geological history. We had a struggle to keep certain non-Simple editors from stuffing our geology pages full of templates. This particular template is lurid and excessively distracting. All our historical pages have sensible data with soundly based dates. So delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 7:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Zim, Minnesota[change source]

Zim, Minnesota (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I've proposed this as an example. All towns and cities are notable if they have official status. But unincorporated "places"? "neighborhoods"? It seems to me that they should have to prove their notability. Incorporation is not a big hurdle in the U.S. I think it should be our benchmark for notability there. I don't think we should let the general permissiveness for geographical places go so far as to be absolutely anywhere! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:34, 27 May 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]

@Macdonald-ross: Please put an RfD notice on the article. You also need to notify the creator. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, unincorporated communities is the obvious target. What these pages and editors would be asked to do is to show notability, rather than just "X is an unincorporated community in Y", which is all most of them do now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC).
  • In most cases I'm aware of (US and Canada), unincorporated places do have official status. They are recognized by federal, state, county, parish or townships as being an official place. However, they do not usually have a local government. Most depend on the next largest entity of government for their services. I agree with unincorporated places needing to be notable. Zim does not claim or show notability so delete. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Post office - Murphy Idaho
  • Comment I'm uncomfortable using an RfD nomination to establish or change our policies or guidelines regarding notability. To the extent that the nomination appears to be a test-case for making such a change, I feel that a better place to suggest such a change would be at WP:ST. In regards to the comment about incorporation of a community not being difficult to obtain in the US, I believe that this comment was made without a full understanding of the requirements for incorporation of a city or town. In most states, an incorporated city or town must be able to provide police and fire protection, roads, schools, water, sewer, trash, etc. While there are numerous exceptions, and in some places, these services may be provided by a special-purpose district of some kind, the point is that not all populated places are able to fulfill the requirements of incorporating, and for one reason or another, they forego doing so. An article I started back in January was about a small town called Murphy, Idaho. With a population of 97 (2010 census), the town has never been an incorporated community, but nevertheless, it is the county seat of Owyhee County, Idaho (population less than 12,000) -- a county that, at 7,697 square miles, is physically larger than three of the US states (CT, DE, RI). Would this town be ineligible for inclusion if this change were made? Etamni | ✉   15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you've just made a good case for its being notable! That's what I'm getting at. Most of these pages do not say anything interesting or useful to the reader. It's effectively just "A is a place in B". Asking for evidence of notability immediately makes them a) genuinely encyclopedic, or b) gets rid of them. I think the way to go is just because it's a fact, that alone does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, it comes down to the question of whether or not we still have consensus for the idea that inhabited places are inherently notable. Although we are not EnWiki, I looked through some of the archives there to see the history of this concept and found that every attempt to formalize it as a policy or guideline failed, but that inherent notability of populated or inhabited places is considered a common-sense exception to the policy of proving notability for these places. Please see, for example, this discussion from seven years ago: en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theba,_Arizona. Etamni | ✉   22:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but Theba, Arizona is a real article, with 7000+ bytes, and is notable! It would not fall into the scope of this proposal. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The point wasn't about the state of the Theba article today; I was referring to the discussion itself (which likely prompted an expansion of the Theba article) hoping that we can avoid completely rehashing the same arguments. Etamni | ✉   19:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I also don't want to make a decision via RfD for a whole class of articles. I think that should be done by a discussion on the notability pages (where I'd have some suggestions on how to deal with these). Until/unless that happens, I think we should leave things the way we currently manage them. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Pikepass[change source]

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

Etamni has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article fails to assert or show notability; subject of article not related to single interwiki link; little meaning as currently written; article may have been a test page by a currently-blocked IP user. Etamni | ✉   02:18, 25 May 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 per nom. @Auntof6, you should have accepted the QD on grounds A4. This is a waste of time. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It was a judgment call. Not everyone will agree with all decisions made by every admin. If you think it's a waste of time, you didn't have to spend time weighing in on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 02:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Great Seal[change source]

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

The Newspaper has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The Newspaper (talk) 18:01, 24 May 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]

  • Quick delete. Duplicate of Great Seal of the United States. I checked to make sure there was no material needing to be merged in, and there isn't—except for the image of the reverse of the seal, which I incorporated in the older article. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steven. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Saturday Night Live (season 12)[change source]

Saturday Night Live (season 12) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not claim or show notability. This is one of several SNL stubs that likewise do not claim or show notability. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 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]

  • I created this article along with some other ones about different seasons of Saturday Night Live. I think it should be kept because it is a popular television show. I am currently working on the ones for other seasons. The Newspaper (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@The Newspaper: Each article has to show that its subject is notable, not that it's popular. These articles are not showing notability. It's possible for a TV series to be notable (as this one is) but for its individual seasons not to be. If this page is deleted, the ones for the other seasons will be deleted, also. Please stop creating these until this is resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge all of them into the parent article. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Given that articles on the individual seasons exist on enwiki, I'd be ok with leaving behind section redirects on these to the parent article. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We should take this as an example discussion. All season articles which do not clearly show notability should be merged into the main article. The main article itself needs to have its notability evidence beefed up. Principle: the notability of parent articles is not automatically inherited by their 'children'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I will start by adding the information on the main page. The Newspaper (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 18:09, 30 May 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]