Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
  1. 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|easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  1. 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/2018/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  1. 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]

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]

Legal marijuana age[change source]

Legal marijuana age (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

StraussInTheHouse has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Wikipedia isn't a travel guide or a collection of meaningless lists. This page is essentially a comparison of provinces of Canada by the age you must be to consume cannabis. There aren't any citations so I'm guessing it's original research. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2018 (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 10:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Brajwood[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article has been around since end of September 2017, and also exists in French, Hindi and Nepali Wikipedias. The French version is based on an EnWP article which has since been deleted (en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brijwood). The respective discussion on EnWP is from 2016, so the question is whether the arguments given in that discussion are still valid or not. Our article has six references to English-language sources. The article was listed as QD (Notabililty). Given the current state / history of our article, I don't think it should be QD'ed. The French version is pretty similar to our article; I know neither Hindi nor Nepali, so I cannot judge these versions. So I am putting it up for deletion, to get community input. Eptalon (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2018 (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 08:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Dadagiri Unlimited Season 7[change source]

Dadagiri Unlimited Season 7 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Hiàn has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable television series; unreferenced; no article for main article. Hiàn talk 23:15, 12 January 2018 (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]

  • Individual season probably not needed yet since the actual show article doesn't exist. Merge anything useful if there is anything into an article for the show itself. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete per Djsasso. We need to establish if the show itself is notable before deciding whether its seasons are notable enough for a standalone page. Currently, it just looks like a Radio Times type entry only there to raise the profile of the show. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Pablo Zibes[change source]

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

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Can't find any sources supporting notability. DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (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: Stuttgarter Zeitung (one of the more important daily newspapers in Germany) had an article on him (here, unfortunately in German). Other than that, I found little.--Eptalon (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Peoples after Cold War[change source]

Template:Peoples after Cold War (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

StraussInTheHouse has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Indiscriminate collection of information. This has been added to several articles since its creation by a range of IP addresses. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2018 (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 already deleted this as not really making sense once. I would be ok with it being speedy deleted again for the same reason but since its already posted here I will comment as a delete. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete --Hiàn talk 22:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete as per Djsasso said. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The scope for inclusion is unclear to me. I find Canadian, German, French and Russian politicians. General Consensus is that the Cold War ended in or around 1989 (Perestroika, Reunification of East/West Germany). Taking this as a scope, I would expect politicians from European members of either NATO or Warzaw pact states. Yet I find Canadian politicians; I am out of luck. I also find Japanese politicians: Note that Japan was/is neither part of NATO, nor of the Warzaw pact. Same argument: Finnish politicians; Finland was/is not part of NATO. Finnish soldiers serve as part of the KFOR mission, which is officially led by NATO. Austria also sends troops there, I find no Austrian politicians. I find both Kim Jong Un, and Kim Il Sung, both from North Korea, which is probably the most isolated country on this planet. I doubt that North Korea is part of the Warzaw pact. I also find people from Central and South American countries, yet people like Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro are missing. In short: the scope for inclusion is really unclear. Before answering: Ask yourself: Should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein also be included? - What about South Korean politicians? - Since we have no meaningful criteria for inclusion, and including all politicians that were in office after say, 1991, is too broad, we run out of argument which would allow us to keep this. In short: delete--Eptalon (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is just a comment: If the template is kept, we need to order the names by some criteria (ideally, alphabetic); at the moment the listing is not sorted.--Eptalon (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Djsasso: it's been recreated and the same IP range is adding it to articles again. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Noor Naim[change source]

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

StraussInTheHouse has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Most of the sources are either affiliated. Unfortunately these don't confer notability and the few mainstream sources which have been cited aren't enough for her to be considered notable. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2018 (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. The claim to notability from the Forbes list isn't one that I believe should be outright rejected and needs to be investigated and expanded upon if the article is kept. However, that's the only thread of notability I could find, which doesn't say too much for the article. Lithorien TalkChanges 14:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Keep I think this article should be on wikipedia watch the arabic version article, I think that we should only working on the Source and it will be a perfect article.-- Ali Ahmed 2002 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
To closing admin: this account had registered after the request had been opened. Hiàn talk 01:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete per nom. The Forbes source only gives a small mention, not enough to establish notability. Other than the Forbes article there are no third-party sources, no notability is established. Hiàn talk 17:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete. We have many times decided that social website clicks and likes do not constitute notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Keep all the sources are reliable (all the sources are from television channel website and from news websites) and you can remove whatever you want from the article. Maxkris88 (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That's doubtful. The first reference cannot be considered reliable, as with the second (dubious looking image slideshow with advertisements). The rest seem to only give a passing mention of the subject, not enough to establish notability sufficiently. Hiàn talk 01:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: it seems that two of the three keep votes are from users who have made little to no edits outside this article. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Zumbastico Fantástico[change source]

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

The Dales of Glendale has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn’t appear notable, and also appears to be either a copy-paste move or a re-creation of a deleted article given the fact that “no sources from 2012” was added with the original version of the article —Glendales 19:09, 2 January 2018 (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]

  • Looks like a children's programme, first aired 2011/2012. There seem to have been 20 installments of it. The lack of references is also a problem of the other wikis, such as Spanish, Portuguese or English. Finding the website of the producer is easy using google. Which raises the very interesting question: Is a programme with 20 episodes, which has articles in other wikis notable, even if no new ones were produced since 2012? Look at en:Futurama, where we have 140 episodes, produced between 1999 and 2013. Futurama is probably notable. So, in what way is Zumbastico Fantástico different, except that there are fewer installments? - so, we might as well 'keep it. --Eptalon (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Various IP’s keep trying to remove the RFD notice from the page. Semi protection may be in order. @Auntof6: @Djsasso: —Glendales 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We use protection sparingly here, generally only if people can't keep up with reverting. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:09, 9 January 2018 (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) 13:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Palazzo 23[change source]

Palazzo 23 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Voceditenore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is a completely non-notable residential apartment building built in 1950. The article has already been deleted on the Italian Wikipedia for this reason (see it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Palazzo 23). I have been unable to find anything written about this building in books or articles about architecture in Italy. Note that this page on an official website of the Lombardy Region lists notable examples of 1950s residential architecture in Milan. Three buildings on the same street as "Palazzo 23" are listed. Neither "Palazzo 23" nor what the article claims as its alternative name "Palazzo d'Este" are listed.

Background information: This article was created and edited by the IP socks of the globally blocked editor, Alec Smithson He mostly creates articles about members of the Natioli/Biotti/Polli families and things and places associated with them (see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson). For example, Palazzo 23 is where the non-notable sports promoter Paolo Biotti lives [1]. (An article on Paolo Biotti was created on English WP by Alec Smithson and deleted per this discussion in 2015.) Despite his name, Smithson is Italian and has a very poor command of English. His articles here are all machine translations in complex but garbled English. In fact this one could probably be quickly deleted on that basis (QD A3). It is a machine translation of the now-deleted Italian WP article on this apartment building. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Related to this article and also created by Smithson socks are the now deleted articles Viale Beatrice d'Este (the street where the building stands) and Bisazza (the company making the tiles which allegedly cover the building). Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2018 (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 07:01, 15 January 2018 (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. Page moved to Famous places in Shanghai, with redirect--Eptalon (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The famous places in Shanghai[change source]

The famous places in Shanghai (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I'm not sure whether this page should be split into separate articles or renamed (maybe something like "List of visitor attractions in Shanghai"), but I don't think the current name is encyclopedic. It might be OK if "famous places in Shanghai" were an official designation, but the article doesn't indicate that that's the case. Auntof6 (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2018 (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 is a difficult one: The different sections/"places" are too short to make articles of their own (apart from lacking references, different story), and I am also not sure they would make good additions for the "Shanghai" article. As it stands, probably have the options of moving the content to Wikitravel, or leaving it as it is. The main problem of the article is that it doesn't have a title people look for. Given the options, I'd say it's a borderline keep...--Eptalon (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd keep it, but move title to simply "Places in Shanghai". It's simple and useful. Only real technical weakness is a ref supporting the items' notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Macdonald-ross (talkcontribs) 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's obviously a keep in some form, even though it's now too long to be merged into the Shanghai article itself. It should be moved, though I was going to bring it up with the class about what to call it. (If it has people reading it and paying attention to it, how about fixing some of the other mistakes? It will make them feel like people are paying attention and they're being helpful. =D)
    In any case, if we're choosing now among ourselves, the real name of this subject would be Landmarks in/of Shanghai or Shanghai landmarks. As "land" + "mark", it should fit Simple English; is it standard here to say Places of/in Shanghai or Shanghai places instead? — Mr Spear (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Re landmarks: First, being a compound word composed of two simple words doesn't necessarily mean that the word is simple. Think of the meaning of the two simple words here: a landmark isn't a literal mark on the land. Second, the word landmark is vague, so I'd like to see us move away from it as was done on Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, @Auntof6:, what's the solution on Commons? Meanwhile, here are my two remarks:
N.B. I'd support a revision of this section name/heading; where to discuss this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The solution on Commons was twofold.
  • First, to recategorize everything in the landmarks categories to more specific things where possible. Some things were moved to categories for heritage registers (such as the National Register of Historic Places in the US), some were moved to categories for skyscrapers -- it depended on what was there, and it was quite a mishmash.
  • Second, to redirect the general landmarks categories to corresponding visitor attractions categories (hence my suggestion). I'm not crazy about this part, because a landmark isn't necessarily a visitor attraction. I say the general landmark categories because there were some cases where the word "landmark" is part of the official name of something, and those were left.
The issue you mention of landmarks being either natural or man-made is part of why I don't like the term: it would contain a mix of things that probably shouldn't be grouped together. There's also the fact that it can mean different things: something used for navigation, or something with some kind of historical significance. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm inclined toward "Cultural sites" per List of World Heritage Sites in China#List, taking the broad view of culture (human enterprise) vs. nature. Sites (not "sights") avoids the non-encyclopedic language and orientation of "Tourist ... " or "Visitors .." -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
1) With proper capitalization. 2) Maybe there's a better word than "famous": that can be a matter of opinion. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Demerge Most of these places are probably notable enough for their own articles. Just demerge them to be their own standalone stubs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:13, 11 January 2018 (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. There is room for improvement...--Eptalon (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Kundali Bhagya[change source]

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

The Dales of Glendale has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Very short article just barely passing A1. Definitely not a notable film either. —Glendales 12:14, 2 January 2018 (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 Nationally broadcast television series in one of the worlds most populous countries. Very clearly notable. Also numerous sources on google and in the en.wiki version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article doesn't show notability. However notable a subject is, the article must show that notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to show it, it has to claim it, and saying it was on a national TV network is a claim. And I should note considering the first sentence of en:Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming is about a show being on a national television network being notable, just stating it is being broadcast on one is definitely a claim. The not showing notability speedy gets used way to often here, that speedy is only meant for articles like "Joe Neighbour is an actor.". en:WP:BEFORE specially says you should not delete something that is notable. You (in the general sense) have an obligation to make sure of that before you nominate or delete something. -DJSasso (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Since when do articles only have to claim notability to avoid deletion via RFD? I've only seen the claiming aspect in quick deletion requests, which is not what we're looking at here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Articles don't have to actively show notability, they must meet WP:GNG or one of the various notability guidelines, there is nothing stating it must actively show it in the article. As per WP:BEFORE we are obligated to make a good faith effort to look for sources for something before nominating it. Was that done? I don't think so because I can find many sources proving notability. You can't just delete because an article doesn't show notability if you haven't done a good faith search for references. That being said meeting any of the Notability guidelines which this one does (en:Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming) means the article gets kept. DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I just equate "showing notability" with "meeting notability guidelines". For example, geographic places meet the guideline just because they exist, and people in certain sports meet it just by virture of playing on teams in certain leagues. Those aren't obvious in articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear I will quote the applicable section "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, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite 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}}." (bold mine)-DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per DJSasso. Lithorien TalkChanges 18:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd opt for the interpretation whereby we judge articles as they are and not as they could be. Claim of significance means no quick-deletion but this is an RFD and it doesn't demonstrate notability. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • With respect, that attitude suggests that we should RfD and delete more than half of the articles here. A large majority of articles are stubs, that in and of themselves only claim and don't really demonstrate their claimed notability. Leaving articles to be further edited and improved is a good thing for Simple, not a bad one. Lithorien TalkChanges 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • We do have a very large number of articles that do not show notability and therefore probably merit deletion. The fact that we aren't deleting all of them doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete any (such as this one). --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
        • There is no requirement that an article show notability, only notability requirement is that they claim it and that it can be prooven to meet WP:GNG or one of the sub notability guidelines. If a topic is notable it is never to deleted if there are sources available by doing a search. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete per StraussInTheHouse. Hiàn talk 00:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per StraussInTheHouse, Auntof6 and Hiàn. Claims Notability is one thing. Proving it is quite another. Article, meet Bin. DaneGeld (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • A claim of notability that can be sourced is the only requirement. Lithorien TalkChanges 00:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And this one is sourced in the article. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:14, 9 January 2018 (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.  --Auntof6 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aapke Aa Jane Se (TV series)[change source]

Aapke Aa Jane Se (TV series) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article about upcoming TV series, starting in January 2018. Has two references to "reliable sources", of rather poor quality. Also mentions 7 actors we don't have articles about; two of them even without role. Question to the audience: Given so little is known, and the poor quality of the information we have, do we really need this article? Eptalon (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2018 (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. We should not run doubtful pages on media which do not yet exist. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete per Macdonald-ross. Hiàn talk 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:08, 13 January 2018 (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.  --Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Re HaiVaan[change source]

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

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not appear to be a notable film and it hasn't been released yet so it is also a WP:CRYSTAL issue. DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (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]

  • Will be released in October; until then, a lot can change. I think we should delete now, and recreate after it was released, if needed. We can't really say much about a film that's more than half a year before its release. --Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree: delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, noting that the production is a one-man operation and the cited sources are essentially self-promotional announcements. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:34, 11 January 2018 (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. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Julia (2010)[change source]

Hurricane Julia (2010) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

The Dales of Glendale has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article is just so confusing that I can’t follow it. I realize that the subject is notable but this needs SERIOUS work. I could userfy the page and improve it, but this will take time. Therefore I put this page up for discussion. —Glendales 03:06, 4 January 2018 (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: Certainly needs some work, but I don't see the confusion. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Afd is not for cleanup. If it's notable it shouldn't be nominated. If you want to improve it, do it in mainspace, there is no deadline. -DJSasso (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Djsasso. --Eurodyne (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: and improve as stated above. Many of our articles have style issues and this is simply one more of those. Fylbecatulous talk 19:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep" as per above. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 03:06, 11 January 2018 (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]