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]

High tea[change | change source]

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

Hydriz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Moved to Wiktionary (see wikt:high tea) Hydriz (talk) 02:45, 19 April 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 - unless somenone wants to come up with encyclopedic content, such as a history of the concept... --Eptalon (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, and what's more the wikt defn is wrong. A small meal between lunch and dinner is called just "tea" in England and Scotland, and I imagine elsewhere. I think the phrasing "high tea" is archaic. Anyway, this is more a debate about words than substance. We shouldn't keep the page unless it has substance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: as nominated. I agree "high tea" has fallen into quaint speech. My grandmother spoke of serving high tea in Savannah, Georgia, where she grew up. Fylbecatulous talk 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Columnist[change | change source]

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

Hydriz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Moved to Wiktionary (see wikt:columnist) Hydriz (talk) 02:42, 19 April 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: this could certainly be an article . We have nine articles in a category: American columnists and seven others in a parent category, and Hunter S. Thompson isn't even in either category, for example. But what is written is certainly a dicdef. Fylbecatulous talk 00:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete:. Yes, we do get many dicdefs on subjects which might make articles. Obviously many casual users do not understand about wiktionary, and perhaps we should advertise it more prominently. Since we do have wikt, it makes no sense to duplicate what it does, often quite well. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 02:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Responsiblity[change | change source]

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

Hydriz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page already exists on Wiktionary (see wikt:responsibility) Hydriz (talk) 02:39, 19 April 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, not for the first time, wikt does a better job. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 02:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Office[change | change source]

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

Hydriz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page already exists on Wiktionary (see wikt:office) Hydriz (talk) 02:35, 19 April 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 02:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Schedule[change | change source]

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

Hydriz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page already exists on Wiktionary (see wikt:schedule) Hydriz (talk) 02:32, 19 April 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 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The Report[change | change source]

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

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability; no reliable sources, IMDb has a single sentence on it. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 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 02:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


A Wedding Suit[change | change source]

A Wedding Suit (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Notability; no reliable sources, few if any reviews, even IMDb has very little on this movie User:Rus793 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 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 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC) 06:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Category:African-American female pornographic film actors[change | change source]

Category:African-American female pornographic film actors (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Intersection of too many (5) things. Even if we took out female, it would still be too many. Auntof6 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 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]

Why? We mix actors from other genres, such as comic actors and dramatic actors. We don't want to be judgmental: if they're an actor of whatever type, how do we justify leaving them out of a category that fits? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being judgmental. And I said I'm agnostic about it, not implacably opposed. I'd like to see what others may have to say about this.
Part of what I'm thinking here is: Categories exist, presumably, to help people find things. Let's assume, at least, that this category at minimum is merged with a parallel male category. After that, what would the reader's search task be?
  • If the search task is: "Which pornographic actors are African American?" then a further merge would be entirely counterproductive.
  • If the search task is simply: "I'm looking for a bio on a particular pornographic actor," the searcher will almost certainly look in Category:Pornographic actors before looking anywhere else. Is the searcher really going to look in Category:African American actors (or white or Asian or anything else)? I doubt it. And if that's true, there is no reason to merge this category into Category:African American actors.
In this respect, pornography is not quite the same as other genres, and can legitimately be treated in a different way.StevenJ81 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how this makes pornography different. The issues would be the same if we were talking about comedic actors or dramatic actors. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In most other genres, I could see at least equal possibility, if not greater, that a person searches by way of [[:Category:ethnicity Actors]] as [[:Category:genre Actors]]. I see pornography as different in that regard, even if the issues look nominally equivalent.StevenJ81 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge category with Pornographic actors. I too am doubtful about placing this category in with mainstream African-American actors that film other movie types. Fylbecatulous talk 22:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - as a subcat of American porn actors and African American actors. Porn actors are actors. The porn actors cats are subcats of the actors cats on en; there's no reason for it to be different in that regard here. The fact that some acting genres are respected more than others is irrelevant. Some genres of music, fields of science etc. are more respected than others - it doesn't mean that we don't or shouldn't subcat those people under the musicians and scientists cats respectively. African-Americans are a distinct type of American; porn actors are a distinct type of actor. Therefore this type of cat is valid. Jim Michael (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Without agreeing or disagreeing with your reasoning above, we do not automatically mirror categories from enwiki here. This is a much smaller wiki, and we do not always see the need for subcat detail here that one finds at enwiki. Given that, do you think that this level of subcatting is necessary/useful in this case? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We have deleted similar categories before that had only 3 or 4 criteria (if that's the right word) because it was felt that this is more complex than we need here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete the category as per George. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Request for clarification. @Rus793, would you please clarify how you would like it merged? There are a couple of different ideas on the table. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per first reply --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The category we are talking about currently contains 7 pages; if I look in the parent category (African-American actors, I see 3-4 categories (with about the same number, that is less than 10 entries, and 130 pages). In short: this categorization is probably bad. So, we should most definitely get rid of "African-American female pornographic actors" (that is: delete the category, and move its entries to the parent). To get a useful categorization; I would propose we split along the line theatre (stage)/ movie, and then by gender (male/female), if necessary. If we talk about actors in pornographic movies, how many african-american ones do we have? - If they are less than 20-30, subdividing the category is probably useless. --Eptalon (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just diffused "Pornographic actors" to "American pornographic actors", so that should be the merge-to category if this one is deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Side discussion[change | change source]
  • Is there any disagreement at all that regardless of the rest of the outcome of this discussion (even if keep), "female" disappears? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd agree. In my opinion, we should have as few gender-split categories as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Traci Lords became famous in the 1980s, and was quite successful as a "porn star". Later, it turned out that she was under 18 when she started acting, which increased her fame even more. She is white. Suppose I were looking for the article about her, was hoping to identify her with a picture, what would be the approach to find her? - I would have to browse through all female porn stars (which are obviously quite a few, because the "porn industry" lives of casting innocent-looking girls in dirty movies. Anyway, all I know is that she is white, female, and perhaps active in the 1980s. Would it not make sense to classify the porn stars by the years they were active (once we get more than the current 30 or so entries)? - Would such a classification not make sense for any actor? --Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    To me, that makes more sense than any other subcat. I'm not sure it's really necessary, though, especially here. Based on your search exercise, you probably either have her name already (so you don't need a category) or you have the name of a film already (which probably links to her, so you don't need a category. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 06:18, 22 April 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]