Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

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!

Quick deletion[change source]

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]

  • 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]

List of J.League players[change source]

List of J.League players (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pure Evil has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is a decade old list of every person who has played in J League. It has been tagged as needing updating since 2014. According to iw's only one other wiki has kept a similar article Pure Evil (talk) 15:01, 28 January 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: This article is so far out of date that it provides little useful information. It has not had any non wikignome type edits since 2012. The same is true for the other language page (Turkish). There have been more edits by a broken bot (repeated webarchives) than anything else. Pure Evil (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 15:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


D R Upadhyay[change source]

D R Upadhyay (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to pass GNG. No reliable sources. So called "108" world records don't appear to be significant. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 05:35, 28 January 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 05:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Yah[change source]

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

Gordonrox24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I've considered just QDing this, but I'm not entirely sure which criteria I'd use. I feel like maybe I'm missing something. Woh definitely exists, but I don't understand what Yah has to do with it. So, suggesting we delete this redirect. Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:23, 25 January 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 Probably a hoax. I can only find it mentioned here, here, and on the simplewiki article Woh itself. No reliable sources. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note, see recent discussion here, which was for supposedly an episode of the show called Yah (Woh?). Some confusion, which doesn't make it easy to follow. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Per the above. Confusing, and Yah could also mean many other things. Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 09:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete LTA infecting all articles surrounding It and Woh by multiple IPs and accounts. None of the related articles can be trueted to have anything close to reliable information due to the extensive adding of hoax material from a host of sources. The entire group needs to be closely examined to ferret out all the vandalism. Pure Evil (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This request is due to close on 22:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mraimdy[change source]

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

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG --Ferien (talk) 19:26, 25 January 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 help us make this article granted

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 19:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


FaZe Rug Tunnel[change source]

FaZe Rug Tunnel (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pure Evil has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable Pure Evil (talk) 20:32, 24 January 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. Illiterate rubbish: an obvious candidate for QD. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This request is due to close on 20:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mihran Prgiç Gültekin[change source]

Mihran Prgiç Gültekin (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Hockeycatcat has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No wide coverage at all. A member of Parliament would have immense coverage. Google only shows 130 results for Mihran Prgiç Gültekin. Sources are not strong either. Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 15:33, 24 January 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 While I strongly disagree with the main reasoning, I can't find much in the way of references to support the notability of the subject. As Western Armenia is an unrecognized country, the low level of coverage for its MPs is not at all surprising. It does lead to the same result though - not enough coverage to be of note at this time. Pure Evil (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 15:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Jayanth Reddy[change source]

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

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Has claims of notability but I don't see many reliable sources that pass GNG. Some of the claims appear to be unverifiable, notably the presidential awards. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 12:33, 24 January 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 This Decision Comes because I have checked Him He has Reliable resources As News and books which makes it enough notable to stay on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SURESH KUMAR 01 (talkcontribs) 05:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You only added an infobox to the article. That does not help with notability. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will add some refrences Please Wait As I am Student I cant be able to contribute much of my time I Watched His Refrences Over Internet He Has Lots Of Pics Over Internet Where He Get US Presendetal Awards Manpreet09876 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I HAVE WATCHED HIS REFRENCES BY HIS NAMES AND HIS CATEGORY TAEKWONDO SO I GET INFORMATION AS HE IS ALSO AUTHOR HE HAS HIS OWN BOOK LINKS EVEN HE HAS LOT OF NEWS WHICH MAKE IT ENOUGH FOR BEING IN THE WIKIPEDIA@Fehufanga @ImprovedWikiImprovment SURESH KUMAR 01 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - insufficient reliable sources available; fails GNG. --IWI (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have added 10 more refrences Now number is 25 so can you please take a look on that And Make decision Also As He Is an Taekwondo Trainer his refrences Doesn't Comes by Typing His Name Just His Refrences Comes By The Tittle " Jayant Reddy Taekwondo " You Can Check And Revert Back To decision
    - Thank You Manpreet09876 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Coverage relates to the world record, which is not enough to establish notability. We need significant, in depth coverage. --IWI (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 12:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:EN Wikipedia[change source]

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Old attribution template that isn't what we want used today. I considered redirecting to the preferred template, but the preferred one needs a parameter that this one can't handle. Only two links: one is a transclusion on a user page (which doesn't really belong there), and the other is an old mention on a user talk page. Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 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 21:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Philippine knifefish[change source]

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

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: may not exist, no sources provided Lights and freedom (talk) 20:14, 23 January 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 - Likely hoax. Nothing on name, scientific name or person who found it. Pure Evil (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: I find the following article Finding a sustainable use of knife fish in the Philippines when searching for "Philippine knifefish". Note also, Electrophorus is the genus of the electric eel, in the article the fish is given as "Chitala" (which is a species of freshwater fish from Asia, with a few species, the biggest existing growing to sizes of 1m/5kg. Some of them are popular in aquariums. I do however not know which were introduced as an invasive species. In other words: if there are a few corrections, the article may be keepable.--Eptalon (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete. Simple existence is not real content. The term "knifefish" is a common name to describe shape and weak electricity. It is used for members of several families, some of which are not closely related. See Gymnotiformes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So its just another invasive species, I guess... Eptalon (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This request is due to close on 20:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Spongebob villains[change source]

Template:Spongebob villains (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pure Evil has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

  1. 1 on the list of villains: SpongeBob.. We already have a navbox for the series with a character section. Do we need a villains list with questionable entries as well? Pure Evil (talk) 19:13, 23 January 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 template for Spongebob is enough. This is just opinionated, for example listing all the main characters as villains. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - Already a template for Spongebob. This isn't needed. I agree with nom and Lights+Freedom. Friendly Human (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:DJ LYTMAS[change source]

Template:DJ LYTMAS (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused navbox template created in 2017, no blue links. The purpose of navboxes is to link between related articles. That can't happen if there are no blue links. For what it's worth, in 2017, English Wikipedia deleted both an article and a draft about the artist. Auntof6 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 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 of no use, no blue links and not enough articles anyway. --IWI (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Not Used -Friendly Human (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Friendly Human: There's no QD option that applies, or I would have gone that route. The option for deprecated template doesn't apply because "deprecated" means that it was once in use and now isn't. I don't think this one was ever in use. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I see. Thanks! Friendly Human (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note to closing admin: the user above changed their vote from quick delete to delete, just for the record. --IWI (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - Just no. (for qd-g6, the deleting admin just needs to say "I didnt feel is needed discussion". The scope of the rule is entirely the admins opinion on the need for discussion) Pure Evil (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, for quick deletion, we have to follow the exact wording very strictly. In this case, I used my admin discretion to determine that QD was not appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, no.

    Housekeeping. Pages that do not need discussion to be deleted, for example if the page needs to be deleted to merge histories.

    word for word.. What determines that something does not need discussion. There is absolutely nothing in the rule to define the term. The only thing an admin can do it decide for themselves if it is needed. If they decide it is not, then that rule, as written, applies in the strictest sense. You chose to think it needed discussion. That is your personal choice. It does not mean another admin could have used their discretion to chose the other way. If they decided that it did not need discussion, the rule can be used to justify their action.
    Add in WP:IAR and the fifth pillar on the overall core of Wikipedia (which easily trumps any policy) and the basic fundamental - Be Bold - kicks in. That is something lacking too often. People will not be bold. Pure Evil (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the past, we have not used the housekeeping option for this kind of case. This is not a case of needing deletion to merge histories, or make way for a move, or anything like that. I wish we did have an option for deleting unused navboxes that have no blue links. I actually proposed creating a QD option for that some time ago, but it was not approved. It was discussed again later (that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposal to add T3), but didn't get consensus. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You can not argue that you must follow the exact wording then argue that you are doing it another way since the historic stance has always been something else. Either you must follow the rule or you must follow how others chose to use the rule elsewise. If the two are different, you have to pick one side of the other. Either the wording must be followed or it doesnt. It is better to change the rule to be something that is actually followed rather than just pretend it says something else as that has been how it has historically been. Pure Evil (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This request is due to close on 00:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Conservatives[change source]

Category:Conservatives (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Category:American conservatives (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:British conservatives (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Per w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 30#Category:Conservatives, too vague to be useful. --Ferien (talk) 20:56, 22 January 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 per nom. Any category that includes both MLK and Alex Jones isn't clearly defined enough to have encyclopedic value. American Eagle (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The British and American uses are quite different. The British Conservative Party is right of centre, but only modestly so. It is the party of government more often than its opponents, the Labour Party. The American usage is very different. This can be fixed by having two pages: "British C..." and "US C..." The British C party is 100% against the kind of street violence which, sometimes, characterises the U.S. variety. Now to the other point. You cannot just delete a term or name which is official and important. The British Conservative Party is not just the party of government at present, but it is the linear descendent of the old Tory Party. It is absolutely not a vague term in the UK. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think this is about members of a party that has the word "conservative" in its name. I think its about classifying people as politically conservative, regardless of what party they belong to (or whether they belong to a party at all). No one is saying to eliminate the category/ies for people in the Conservative Party (UK). -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think I could make the same argument as with the category liberals (also noimated for deletion): As is the definition is too broad; yes there are conservative thinkers, and people who defined what "conservatve" ought to mean. Also, depending on where you are, "conservartive" can mean different things. In Europe, conservatives focused on the state, that plays a central role; in Anglo-Saxon counties (England, the US), the focus is more on the individual. SO again, the category is too broad to meaningfully bridge the gaps there are. So... delete--Eptalon (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - All of them. Too broad to be definine, and opens up room for OR/self-interpretation.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:Liberals[change source]

Category:Liberals (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Category:Belgian liberals (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:British liberals (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Per w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 6#Category:Liberals. A very general category, with definitions that vary globally. --Ferien (talk) 20:55, 22 January 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: I am confused. How is the Belgian or British usage of any term defined globally? Pure Evil (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Same sort of idea: political ideologies are subjective concepts, that was also discussed more in-depth at w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 26#Liberals by nationality. --Ferien (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And that was a total and completely useless waste of my time that didn't get close to answering the question. Do I need to repeat it? Pure Evil (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My nomination statement said "A very general category, with definitions that vary globally" and I will admit that did not touch on the two subcats about British and Belgian liberals in that so treat the comment above as my nomination statement for the 2nd two. Yes, I should have put that in the original nomination statement, as it is different to the main category Category:Liberals but the incivility was just unnecessary there. --Ferien (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • as is, this category is very problematic. I could define "liberal" as adhering to philosophical liberalism; this means that most politicians would likely no longer be in that category. I could define "liberal" as "economically liberal" (free markets, wherever possible), but I could laos define liberal as a woman ought to have a choice whether to keep her baby (pro-choice, vs. pro-life), or even as "everybody is entitled ot have a gun". So, as is, the category isn't discerning enough, and only good for subcategories. Next question, in what way is a Belgian liberal different from one from the United Kingdom? - In short, we'd probably do best with deleting the category, and come up with separate categories for the cases I cited. --Eptalon (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - All of them. Too broad to be definine, and opens up room for OR.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 20:55, 29 January 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) 20:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aamir rafiq (actor)[change source]

Aamir rafiq (actor) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, fails GNG. For the record, an article for this subject went through an RfD around six months ago. However, the contents then were much less than recent versions, so I'm sending this here. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 13:51, 21 January 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 GNG. --IWI (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - Not notable. Three of his named roles were " Isro scientist", "Contestant" and "British Army Officer". Not exactly screaming lead role. Pure Evil (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 13:51, 28 January 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. --Eptalon (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahesh Jadhav[change source]

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

DRC-B5 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable activist. Fails WP:GNG guidelines Dibyojyotilet's chat 07:38, 21 January 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 - Not notable, no reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece for the subject.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete - Not notable. If abuse of bold text was a valid reason, I would "per that" as well. Pure Evil (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This request is due to close on 07:38, 28 January 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. Quickly deleted by Auntof6 under A4. @Ferien: Also a note for the future that a QD being contested does not mean it automatically has to go to RfD.. --IWI (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nova Lee LeClair[change source]

Nova Lee LeClair (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG, disputed A4 --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 26 January 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]

  • Auntof6, I'm not sure whether you saw this discussion. If you wanted to delete the article for A4 anyway, that's ok, but could you close this RfD please? --Ferien (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This request is due to close on 16:18, 2 February 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) 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Country data PES[change source]

Template:Country data PES (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Template:Country data PGO (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nominating two unused country data templates intended to be for the Italian city of Pescara.

For what it's worth, English Wikipedia never had a Country data PGO template, and their Country data PES template was deleted in 2013. It appears that neither site ever had a Country data Pescara template. Auntof6 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 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, 27 January 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  Keep. And to comment about A4: if it is not a clear case then it should be declined. Calling an apartment building a product is really stretching the boundaries of what A4 was originally intended for. According to wikt:product, A product is an item that can be bought. You cannot buy this whole apartment building. --Ferien (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belk Hudson Lofts[change source]

Belk Hudson Lofts (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Was declined for QD A4 as not applying to building. Apartment buildings are a product. They are built to be sold or rented as a service. And, in this case, nothing notable about the product or the service. Gotanda (talk) 11:15, 20 January 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 11:15, 27 January 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]