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

Discussed deletion[change]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Retard[change]

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

Garrett39494949 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Bad redirect that makes people bad sorry I could not put deletion template as its protected Garrett39494949 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (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]

  • Comment/Keep. I think what Garrett is trying to say here, if I'm reading it right, is that we should delete the redirect. It is inappropriate for us to have a redirect at "Retard" because that is considered a derogatory term. Is that correct?
On grounds of principle I wouldn't argue if the redirect were eliminated (provided that it is then salted so nobody can create a trouble page there). BUT: Generally I would think we should keep this. We cannot stop people from typing "Retard" into search bars and looking it up. Under the circumstances, I think what we do is the most responsible approach. We redirect to a proper and appropriate article about intellectual disability. (That article should probably point out that some people use the term "retard", but that it is considered derogatory and insulting. The article doesn't say so yet.)
Note: on enwiki, "Retard" is a redirect to "Retardation", which is a disambiguation page that covers intellectual disabilities and other uses of the word (including in music and relativistic physics). If we have appropriate articles, converting our current redirect into a disambiguation page would be fine. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mi querida España[change]

Mi querida España (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability not shown, no album or artist's article to redirect to; wikipuffery. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2015 (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]

  • Comment. I added a sentence adapted from the body to place an explicit notability claim in the lead. Separate questions: is it true? and if so, is it enough? I don't know. Does anyone here have good enough Spanish to ask over at eswiki? I note that the counterpart article at eswiki has only existed for about a month and a half. If it had existed for five years, even in its relatively abbreviated form, I'd feel more confident in its notability. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @StevenJ81: I undid your change because I believe your translation was not correct. @Rus793: I undid your changes because the references I checked did seem to support the text. If there is puffery in the article, I believe it's because of a poor translation: Spanish is known for using flowery language. If we improve the translation, that issue should go awsy. I would say userfy, because the translation overall needs a lot of work. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Please go back and look what I wrote: My sentence was adapted from the body (of the already existing article on this wiki). I did not try to translate anything. My impression was that the writer was trying to say that this song is notable for the reason I included there. You can choose to agree with that or not. Please restore that text, unless you think my interpretation of what was already present was flat-out inaccurate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think it was at least potentially inaccurate, based on what was there before. The original said that the song was an important single, and that it contained social criticism about Francoism. That's two separate things that may or may not be related: we can't tell from the text we had. It also didn't say how much social criticism there was, or how strong, just that it was there. Your text said it was "an important piece of social criticism", which is a stronger statement. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ' Keep' @StevenJ81: Well, i have been read these commentaries as reviews, so sorry for the grammar, that would we fix it, but i'd be like to discuss about the article itself. I don't know what have to see Spanish Wikipedia with this one, it's true the article in Spanish has two months, but the song has almost 40 years and it's very famous in whole Spain besides another countries where Spanish is their language. Why there's no link to any album?, well, in the article itself says "It was added in her album: Un ramito de violetas", the only problem that i see is "there's not article yet" about the album in this Wikipedia, neither about the singer, doesn't matter, be bold. The single its also known by its lyrics as a "protest song" against Spanish Francoism regime, that's the why the song was target by the censorship in those times. In the first and fourth reference you can find information about its history. --Ravave (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ravave, you are not understanding what was said about having an album article to link to. It's okay that there is no album article. Rus793 was saying that if there had been an article about the album or the singer, this article about the song could have been redirected there instead of having this RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ravave: You also did not understand my point, which I'll admit was pretty wiki-rules-technical. At the time that I looked at this before, the source from Diario Público was not present. I did not see any sources here at the time that I understood to be affirming the notability of this song. However, I did not suggest "delete". Because the song looked like it might well be notable anyway, I asked a question instead, asking for information, which has now been provided.
In the meantime, my point about eswiki was this. This song is 40 years old or so, and is presumably notable. If so, why didn't eswiki have an article about it long ago? (Understand that I am looking for indirect proof of notability, because I don't read Spanish very well.) If eswiki had a five-year-old article on this song, and nobody there had questioned its notability (for a while), that would have represented pretty strong proof to me that the song is notable. The fact that the article there is new is certainly not proof that the song is not notable; in fact, it still serves to some extent to support the notability of the song. But it's not as strong a piece of evidence as if the article had been there undisputed for a while. That's all that was about.
Sorry for this misunderstood by my side. Is true an user removed the sources (although i don't know why). The only problem is my grammar, that's a big deal.
  • My point of view is now "keep". I would even say "snowball keep", but the translation does need work. So instead keep and userfy. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Is "userfy" really a word?)
@StevenJ81: I didn't listen "Userfy" in my life, I guess you want to say "Wikify" or "Verify". --Ravave (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No, he means "userfy". It means to move the article to userspace to be worked on until it's ready to be an article. It really needs a lot of copy editing and improvement of the translation. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK!, a new word to my dictionary xD. Well, you can do it --Ravave (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to worry, Ravave. It's not a dictionary word (yet?); it's slang. But that's what it means. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aside from embellishments, the sentence "Mi querida España is certified as one of the most important singles of Spanish music history in the 70s" is an exceptional claim (exceptional claims require exceptional sources). As such it needs multiple reliable sources (being careful to avoid synthesis. It uses the word 'certified' with no explanation or offer of proof. If this is notable for the insult to Franco, it was only one of many. From personal knowledge I know of a couple that were much better. Even before I removed several references for failing verification, the sources did not show notability. I found several sources that only mentioned the name of the song and/or were not reliable sources. I wonder too if this could be anything more than a stub if reliable sources are found to show or prove notability. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed "Certified" by "became". Regarding "insult to Franco", i would say the song is a criticism about his politics. Anyway i'm gonna read about SYN to see my mistakes. --Ravave (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There was no mistake with Synthesis. I was just cautioning that if using two or more source citations for an exceptional statement, to make sure each citation verified the statement in the article completely. Perhaps you will have better luck finding those sources than I had. A 40 year old song will be more difficult to find sources for. I could only find the few facts I gave you on my talk page. I also made suggestions as to what to look for. Userfication is a good idea. User:Rus793 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm gonna copy/paste the article to my Sandbox where i can to work about its translation and grammar. Thanks for your messages and i will take it in my mind. You can delete the page if you want meanwhile i'll be working in the sandbox. --Ravave (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment I have made some changes in the grammar (my apologise for saying "gramma" instead). If you want to see my Sandbox you guys are welcome, also, don't forget to tell me some suggestions. I just worked in the translation and the grammar. --Ravave (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Question. So right now, the article currently exists, but Ravave (talk · contribs) is working on a copy in his sandbox, too? I'd like to keep edit histories available. How do we handle this? Possibly "comment out" the current article, leaving a note that it is under development in a sandbox (with a link)? Delete it, knowing that admins can later undelete it to restore the edit history, and then merge the sandbox version's history in? Don't quite know. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment I'm a man, so in this case: "his" xD. Well, i'm aware about both, grammar and translation, that's the reason that i take the text to my sandbox, in order to improve it. So i ask you take a look between this article and the sandbox and you say what do you think, but if you prefer i could pass the sandbox's content into the article. --Ravave (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Further comment, in two parts. (1) I'd like to see something in the article lead describing its significance. (2) Do people feel that this is moving along sufficiently to mark this as a keep? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Infobox basketball game[change]

Template:Infobox basketball game (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Submitted for your deletion approval, four unused infobox templates that are each at least a year old. In addition to the one named in the heading of this request, I include three more:

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]

  • I have to admit that I'm inclined to say keep on the grounds of en:WP:NOTPAPER. This is especially true of the infobox on US legislation. These are fairly mainstream, general, usable infoboxes, and if someone decides s/he wants to start creating articles on the subjects, having these already present, rather than having to reintroduce them, will make the process easier. I really don't see these the same way as I do, for example, navboxes with dozens of red links unlikely ever to be written here. BTW, there was a failed RfD on the US legislation infobox in autumn 2008, but I couldn't find the archive. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It has been our practice not to keep unused templates. They can easily be recreated if/when needed, and they don't have to be maintained in the meantime. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm holding by my opinion on this. I won't lose any sleep if it is deleted per Auntof6, but I see no harm at all, and definite potential value, in retaining these. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I actually thought the 'dancer' one would be useful, so I started looking at our ballet dancer and ballerina pages. Even the most famous ones are using 'infobox person' or 'infobox artist' and this seems to be the case at English wiki too for their counterpart articles. The person or artist infoboxes fit the bill quite well, so I see no need to keep 'dancer'. I will thusly extrapolate and say if none of the other are in current use here, delete all. Fylbecat talk 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Recently closed deletion discussions[change]

None at this time

Related pages[change]