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]

Template:Pp-sock[change source]

Template:Pp-sock (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Template dependent on non-existent module. For those who have trouble keeping up with the rapid MediaWiki-related developments (too rapid, if you ask me), modules are pieces of Lua code that can be called (invoked) by pages. They can be considered the successors to templates with complicated and hard-to-read source code ({{esoteric}}, anyone?). This particular template was recently created and invokes the non-existent module Module:Protection banner. Given that we don't have enough resources to maintain templates (or even the protection templates), using modules is overkill. Chenzw  Talk  06:41, 3 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 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Ajitabh Bose[change source]

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

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability not shown. Notability of authors is not proved by the size of their books. Sources are PR puffs, not serious independent assessments of merit. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:35, 2 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. Many of the sources are undoubtedly based on a single PR. Confuses someone's 15 minutes of fame with notability. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 13:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


User:AdrianHernandez1/Draft:Top Model Latina (season 1)[change source]

User:AdrianHernandez1/Draft:Top Model Latina (season 1) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Another made-up userspace "draft", previous related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/User:AdrianHernandez1/Draft:NBL VIP. Chenzw  Talk  04:50, 2 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 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Atlantic Coast Brands[change source]

Atlantic Coast Brands (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Advertising masquerading as an article. Most of the references do not lead to notability. Was deleted at en for the same reason. DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 29 April 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]

Help to improve and save this page for deletion! — This unsigned comment was added by Neeboki (talk • changes).

  • Delete. The content is clearly directed towards advertising the company and its products. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Agree entirely that this is promotional and has no other purpose. Advertising here in all disguises is one of my biggest peeves. Fylbecatulous talk 20:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is looks like plain and simple advertisement trying to promoted the company and whats it is selling. After looking at the external links some lead to nothing, but a missing page. Lolcats20 (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.



Countermand Amendment[change source]

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article is supposedly about the book, but most of it is about the proposed amendment that is the subject of the book, and not in a form that summarizes the book. If I recall correctly, it started out to be an article about the amendment, but was changed to be about the book. There is no indication that the book is notable: the only sources for the book itself are the Amazon page for buying the book and a web site about the amendment. If the parts not about the book are removed, there isn't enough left to support the article. Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 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]

What if we merged the ideas of a countermand amendment with another article? Such as with an article about Article 5 Conventions to propose amendments to the United States Constitution? We could group the countermand amendment together with other Article 5 Convention projects such:

  • Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) Convention of States (COS)
  • Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA)
  • Countermand Amendment

The book, Countermand Amendment, could be just one reference about one subsection of the new article. Kaydell (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. If the book were independent of the proposal -- that is, if it were a book written about the proposed amendement by someone who was unconnected to the proposal -- then it would be possible to make a claim of notability for the proposed amendment. But this isn't the case. The book was written by the person who wrote the proposed amendment, and that makes this piece a promotional piece for either the book or the website (or both), and in either case, it doesn't belong here. WP:UNDUE may also apply. Over the years, there have been numerous proposed amendments to the US Constitution that never got any traction; without more than their mere existence, I doubt very many of them meet our notability guidelines. As written, this one certainly doesn't. (Note: if this article is kept, it should still be re-written to make the focus of the article the proposed amendment, with the mention of a book being just a section of the article.) Etamni | ✉   10:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - (disclaimer: I am not a U.S. person, so please correct me if necessary) I am concerned about the issues of a conflict of interest and undue weight given by the article.
    • First, "There is also a website that supports the passage of the Countermand Amendment" is a statement which gives the wrong idea to readers - the website is one run by Citizen Initiatives, of which Charles Kacprowicz (the author of the book) is also the director. In the context of this article, this website is not sufficiently independent of the author to be considered "a website that supports" the amendment.
    • Second, to the best of my knowledge, proposed amendments to the US Constitution are sent through 2 phases in the system: the actual proposal, and ratification. At this point of time, two named states (out of 34 required for a 2/3 majority) have resolved to call for a national convention. To me, this looks like a very premature proposed amendment and I don't think it is sufficiently significant yet for inclusion. Chenzw  Talk  10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You have the general idea. For those who are less familiar with how it works, there are two alternative means to start the process: Either 2/3 of Congress (both houses) may propose an amendment, or 2/3 of the state legislatures may call for a "Convention for proposing Amendments" -- in either case, 3/4 of the states must then ratify (approve) the proposed amendment for it to become part of the constitution. Personally, I suspect that most Americans have never heard of the "Countermand Amendment" and, because of this, it is unlikely to get enough traction to go anywhere. Etamni | ✉   15:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily follow: it doesn't require the general public to have heard of it for the amendment to pass, because the general public doesn't directly vote on it. Also, being likely to pass isn't required to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Quite true on both counts. It is technically possible for an amendment to be passed with little or no public awareness of its existence, but this seems extremely unlikely. This particular proposal would be highly politicized if it were gaining any traction, and that would guarantee the types of media coverage and academic discussion that would demonstrate notability. It would also assure that the elected politicians who do vote on such matters would hear plenty from their constituents regarding people's opinion of the amendment -- opinions that would likely be formed based on how the media treats the subject. As to the second point, the Equal Rights Amendment is certainly an example of a proposed amendment that is notable, but was not passed (although efforts to pass some version of it continue to this day). My comments following Chenzw's reply were more for the edification of those not familiar with the process. Etamni | ✉   22:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page is about the book, and the book is not notable. The proposals is at present supported by two states, and that is a very long way from the 2/3 of state legislatures necessary for an Article 5 Convention. Therefore the proposal itself is not notable at present. Therefore, neither the book nor the proposal should be here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book is not notable. The fact that so much of the article is about the proposed amendment only makes it more so. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Unused user language categories and templates[change source]

Auntof6 has nominated the following for deletion for the reason:This request is for some user language categories and templates that no one is using. Here is a list: the request is for the categories listed and all the current subcategories and contents.

When users add a user language template to their user page, their user page is added to one or more of the user language categories. As of the time I looked at the categories listed above, there were no users in them or in any of their subcategories.

Part of the reason I'm nominating these is that I'd like to see us move toward using the Babel extension to indicate user languages. That extension doesn't require templates, so I thought a good place to start would be templates and categories that aren't being used now. You can see an example of how it is used on my user page. However, use of the extension is a separate discussion and you don't have to agree with that to agree with removing these unused categories and templates.

Note to closing admin: If this request succeeds, I realize that taking care of these could be tedious, so I am willing to do the deleting if you like. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 13 April 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 categories, weak delete templates - I saw the discussion on your talk page between you and StevenJ81, and went to look at the documentation for the Babel extension again. Take a look at the configuration section, in particular $wgBabelCategoryNames. In essence, if a particular babel category does not exist locally and a user uses the #babel parserfunction to declare that particular language, the category will be auto-created on demand (by the pseudo-user User:Babel AutoCreate). Since the category creation is the work of the extension, I believe that it works on the database directly and thus bypasses any protection or block. Since the extension will be using these categories anyway, I think deleting the categories right now, no matter how uncommon the language, is not of much use, and will do nothing but make Wikidata noisier when the interwiki status propagates over.
    • Regarding the templates: deleting them may cause inconvenience to other editors who may need to use them in future. In particular, older editors (by account age), for whom the only way to state language proficiency back then was the template (the extension didn't exist at that time), may find difficulty with our forced transition to #babel without a templated fallback. Not that I am objecting to the transition to the Babel extension, but it may be better to allow backward compatibility by rewriting these templates to call the #babel parserfunction instead. Chenzw  Talk  17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This RfD is neither proposing nor encouraging transition to the extension. I only mentioned that as a side note. This proposal was only because the categories and templates are unused. You make a good point about the categories getting auto-created: it seems better to create them manually so that they're set up the way we want them. --Auntof6 (talk)
Sorry, I wasn't clear when I typed that paragraph. What I meant to say is that while I don't particularly lean towards any stand at this moment regarding a transition to the Babel extension, if we do ever transition over, it might be a better idea to let the templates continue existing, and re-write the templates to directly call #babel instead. Chenzw  Talk  13:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. One problem with the pseudo-user Babel AutoCreate is that it also creates categories where no users exist. And it recreates such categories even after they have been deleted. I blocked the pseudo-user for a time at Ladino Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, it was indeffed at Meta! (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:30, 20 April 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]