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 | change source]

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}} to the top of the page.
  2. Please use a change summary such as "nominated for deletion".
  3. Save the page.
  4. You can also check the "Watch this page" box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you to know if the RfD tag is removed.
Create a discussion page.
  1. On the box that has appeared at the top of the article, click the link to create a discussion page.
  2. Type the page name and the reason you are requesting deletion in the right places.


List it here
  1. Look at the discussion page you have just made, and follow the instructions in the red box.
  2. Once you have done that, you may wish to remove that tag.

Quick deletion[change | 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 | 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 | 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 | change source]

Heaven Sent Gaming[change | change source]

Heaven Sent Gaming (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability: bare urls only verify minor details. Book mentioned (not cited specifically) is a 27-page pamphlet with bios of the three employees, company history, etc. Describes the co. as a (part time) mom & pop operation. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 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 | change source]

  • Keep - Agree with User:Auntof6's assessment that there's enough doubt here for an RfD. There are other sources, outside of the book written about them, and various facts (like founding and co-founders) confirmed in reliable secondary sources. I do not think using the independent non-reliable Japanese book about them would be wise, but it definitely lends to their notability. Since they are a publisher, it is rare for secondary sources to cover them at any length, but this has multiple external sources; including various interviews and confirmed information in multiple sources. I'm from the English Wikipedia where there is a Draft about this subject, I do not believe this subject meets the notability guidelines on the English Wikipedia, but it meets the WP:GNG here, and there is an article on the Navajo Wikipedia (which is rare enough that I think it warrants note); I would be careful to make sure that non-notable members or publications by this group do not crop up, an example being that Isabel and Mario would potentially meet WP:ENT, but Jason and their individual comics do not. The bare URL citations should be fixed. Publiology (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not sure where you are getting this idea, but Auntof6 definitely did not say that "there's enough doubt here for an RfD". In the edit summary it was stated that "there's enough doubt" to warrant declining a quick deletion. Chenzw  Talk  15:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think Publiology was referring to Auntof6's statement "there's enough doubt that I think this would be better at RfD". DunDunDunt (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. What I meant by that edit summary was that the sources provided may or may not show notability (that's the doubt). If someone thought notability wasn't shown, we should have an RfD so that it could be discussed instead of being quickly deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not proven. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Publiology, meets WP:GNG. DunDunDunt (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not proven, and existing sources cited in the article are not independent either. No potential independent, reliable, verifiable sources that I could find. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination) on EN, and associated drama don't make me particularly optimistic either. Chenzw  Talk  15:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with you Chenzw those AfDs, along with the one about Comic Book DB, are the reason I stopped editing the English Wikipedia. If this does devolve into that I will recant my vote, but as it stands I do believe this subject meets WP:GNG. I've added a few sources, you can check those out as well. I may be able to find a few others, but I think there is more than enough to meet the Notability guidelines on the Simple English Wikipedia. DunDunDunt (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, especially to @Publiology: and @DunDunDunt:. Just to clarify, the requirements for notability are the same here and on English Wikipedia. Notability isn't different on different Wikipedias. If the notability guidelines seem less stringent here than on enwiki, it is probably a fault in the simplification of the text and we should fix it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I personally think that's untrue, different Wikipedia policies (such as notability) can vary from wiki to wiki. (but in this case, indeed they are the same, but not always) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 06:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I was only talking about notability (which is a guideline, not a policy). --Auntof6 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Actually, we're all oddly correct. User:Chenzw is right, each of the Wikipedia languages have different guidelines, this is to make sure that the encyclopedic nature of each of them befits that language's understanding of encyclopedic. User:Auntof6 is correct, the notability guidelines aren't policy, they are rules for us to interpret for a policy of notability. I do want to clarify, that I was trying to say that I agreed with User:Auntof6 saying that we should discuss this in RfD, because I too have doubts. While I'm at it, I will also say why I think that the policies are different on the Simple English and English Wikipedias. First of all the English Wikipedia has a guideline for "Organizations and companies" that requires "CORPDEPTH", this company does not meet that requirement, as it needs depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Simple English encyclopedia doesn't have this requirement, and it doesn't need it. The goal of the Simple English Wikipedia is "an easy-to-read online encyclopedia for people who are learning English" for "help with school homework or just for the fun of learning", and "Simple English articles take articles from other Wikipedias and make them simple; they are usually not new articles". The WP:GNG on this Wikipedia help with that, as they say that subjects have to satisfy "one of the guidelines for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia", this article has two of them, the "Sources" and "Independent of the subject," covered. I would also like to say that, I think this article came from the Navajo Wikipedia, in this revision a Navajo word, "naashchʼąąʼ", can be seen. Whoever created this article used the Navajo article. That is my rationale in a nutshell, and it is why I think this article meets the notability guidelines on Simple English Wikipedia. Publiology (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Keep in mind that where we don't have a specific policy or guideline for a specific area, we have the guideline that we use English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Therefore, the enwiki guideline on organizations and companies applies here. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Agreed, which is why I consulted them in regards to this subject, WP:FOLLOW. I believe that the English Wikipedia's organizations and companies guidelines are at odds with what the Simple English Wikipedia is. They don't take into account non-English speakers and that "Simple English articles take articles from other Wikipedias." The people and music guidelines have been adapted for use here, but I think the WP:GNG rules are more than enough; and, I think, this subject meets the notability guidelines here. Publiology (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
              • You keep referring to the guidelines here, as opposed to at enwiki or elsewhere. Again, the substance of the guidelines on notability here is not meant to be different from enwiki's. If it appears to be, it's an issue with simplifying the language and not because they're meant to be any more or less strict. This is apparently something we need to check on, to see what we need to clarify or improve. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Back when I used to edit the English Wikipedia pretty steadily, on my old account back around 2007-ish, I was a part of the Deletionist camp. I dislike spam and promotional material masquerading as encyclopedic entries. So believe me, I will call out an article if it doesn't meet notability. According to WP:FOLLOW, "Simple English Wikipedia is different from English Wikipedia, so you should be careful in applying those rules." And that's a good thing, the goals of both encyclopedias is different. What works on the English Wikipedia, may not work here. Publiology (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Link GA[change | change source]

Template:Link GA (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Magioladitis has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The template is nullfied (works only as a placeholder). It is being deleted from the English Wikipedia. It serves no reason since all info is kept in Wikidata Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 25 February 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 | change source]

  • Keep, along with the related FA and FL templates. The template is being discussed for deletion on enwiki, not actually being deleted yet. It's too soon to get rid of these. Many articles link to the template both here and on enwiki, and new transwikied articles could still have it. If we delete the template(s), those articles will have messy template errors. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Delete, with condition. Changing my vote, now that it has actually been deleted and removed from mainspace on enwiki and therefore there's little chance of it being copied here. The condition I'd want to see is that the template is removed from all pages here before being deleted. That includes drafts in userspace. I'd be willing to help remove. I'd even go so far as to say that we should include Template:Link FA in this RfD. Assuming this RfD and the one for Template:Link FL both pass, it would be most efficient to remove all three at the same time. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete when the time comes - Amir's bot is currently exporting the badges to Wikidata, and is getting global bot approval. After that, they'll be useless. Delete - Everything exported, no reason to keep the template. I can use AWB to remove the templates if needed. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 07:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Caliburn:, I don't see you on the list of approved AWB users here. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Rethinking, I'll just let a user with AWB permissions remove them (I was going to request rights, but rethinking it, I don't think I should). --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Auntof6 the template has been deleted from both English and German Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias sush as the Greek, the Armenian followed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

lv, ru, ilo, ro Wikipedias deleted the template on February 27. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ka, or, id, frr Wikipedias deleted the template on February 28. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6 I agree. Let's deal all three templates together. In English Wikipedia we used Dexbot which removes the templates after ensuring that the badge already exists in Wikidata. Then we removed the rest manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the way to go then would be to get Dexbot to do the same here. I will be willing to help remove remaining cases after that :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 10:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm Dexbot operator and I can remove them if you want Ladsgroup (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Link FL[change | change source]

Template:Link FL (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Magioladitis has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The template is nullfied (works only as a placeholder). It has been deleted from the English Wikipedia. It serves no reason since all info is kept in Wikidata Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 25 February 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 | change source]

This request is due to close on 09:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Enroachment[change | change source]

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

Caliburn has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Dicdef, should be moved to SimpleWikt. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:23, 24 February 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 | change source]

  • Delete per nom, plus it's misspelled and doesn't have article potential. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A good one for wikt. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If this really exists, it should be moved to wiktionary. --Eptalon (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdef. Eurodyne (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Transman[change | change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A dicdef; also WP is not a slang or idiom guide User:Rus793 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 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 | change source]

  • Keep. This is not slang or idiom. It is a standard term and is a good topic for an article here. It does need some more info in it, of course. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a dicdef. Scope for an article is not an article, it is a thought. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Hefemale[change | change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Dicdef; also WP is not a slang or idiom guide User:Rus793 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 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 | change source]

  • Delete. It's a dicdef, and seems a rare word. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete uncommon, and little potential for an article.--Eptalon (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


OkCupid[change | change source]

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

Abigor has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Is this encyclopedic enough to have an article? Looks like a small website, nothing big. Abigor (talk) 09:35, 23 February 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 | change source]

  • Comment Keep. It's actually one of the major dating sites. If no one else gets to it, I'll look at adding some info and references in the next couple of days. I've added some information with references, and an infobox. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is notable IMO. Has been operating for ten years, has 5 million users, listed by Time in 2007 as one of the top 10 dating sites.... Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite possibly the biggest dating website there is. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Chenzw  Talk  15:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely meets WP:GNG. Publiology (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Computer topology[change | change source]

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

Abigor has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The article don't touch the subject. Besides that the text seems to be copy pasted. Abigor (talk) 09:24, 23 February 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 | change source]

  • Comment. It doesn't read like a copy-paste to me. Can you point to where it was copied from? I'll leave it to others to say whether it covers the subject. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. He may be right. I found this: [1]. It's not good content either. It is off-target and rambling. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The correct term to refer to how computers are arranged/interconnected in a network is network topology. Other than that what comes to my mind is describing in what way the different components of a computer are arranged, which would be computer architecture. So, no, I do not see a future for this article here. --Eptalon (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - copied from Computer network, another Simple English Wikipedia article. Publiology (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:24, 2 March 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 | change source]

Related pages[change | change source]