Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfD)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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|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/2019/(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]

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the user[change source]

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

Discussions[change source]

  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) and IP addresses will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete Quick keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussions[change source]

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Rasim Bajrović


Qassim Abdulkarim[change source]

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

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Likely a non-notable person. The page (although in a different title) was deleted and salted a few years back: en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qassim Abdulkarem. Zaxxon0 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2019 (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 14:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

  • Keep— The personality have more than 50 links in the newspapers in (En & Ar) language (This discussion from the created of article).--Basem3.Azez1990 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


Mainland Japan[change source]

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

HawkAussie has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: No such thing. HawkAussie (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2019 (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]

  • Then what's this? Vermont (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although it's a bit of a misnomer, it's apparently a real term. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge into Japan. Znotch190711 (Talk || Edits) 06:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep standalone article. Obvious lack of BEFORE done by nominator.--Cohaf (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 00:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Youssef Chreiba[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Moroccan blogger, probably non-notable. Google search shows social media sites quite high on the list. There are no links to other wikis; given Morocco speaks French and Arabic, I would have expected either a FrWP or an Arabic Wkipedia article, if the person is truly notable. In short: delete? Eptalon (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (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 10:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Kamil Fahad Mahmood Al Said[change source]

Kamil Fahad Mahmood Al Said (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am not sure if the Assistant Secretary Generals for the Cabinet of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Council of Ministers of Oman are notable enough to have their independent article. The article lacks reliable sources to verify the notability. BRP ever 13:26, 19 July 2019 (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 There are two articles on Simple WP about the same person. See Sayyid Kamil Fahad Mahmood Al Said ("Sayyid" is an honorary title, not part of his name). That article was created by the apparent subject. See en:User:Kamilalsaid. The creator of the article under discussion here, User:Mohamed Walid, is indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia as an advertising-only account and is a suspected sockpuppet of another advertising-only account. It is also highly unlikely that this editor actually wrote the article. Their level of written English is quite poor, example here. In fact, the original version of this article as uploaded by User:Mohamed Walid is identical to Sayyid Kamil Fahad Mahmood Al Said. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The minister role is notable but a secretary isn't. Nothing else suggest it meets GNG either.--Cohaf (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Elias Chabtini[change source]

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

Peterdownunder has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, and deleted on enwiki for that reason. See [1] Peterdownunder (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2019 (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: The enwiki article was deleted back in 2018. There are many independent sources discussing this subject in detail which proves notability. --Fredialabh (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Every bit as not notable today. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Peter O'Halloran[change source]

Peter O'Halloran (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Promotional page that lacks reliable sources. The subject is probably not notable. The article was deleted on enwiki after an AFD in September 2017. BRP ever 13:11, 19 July 2019 (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 enwiki article was deleted in 2017 doesn't mean someone can not gain notability in two years. The awards shows notability and there are several independent sources which establishes notability. --Aaronsheij (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the references are interviews, which do not contribute to notability. Awards are non-notable and the article has a severe case of WP:REFBOMB (possible paid-editing attempts to feign GNG). Please also note that the creator on en-wiki has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The Sun and Irishmirror are interviews and interviews are not independent as all the material except for the questions is straight from the person. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". London-post.co.uk is not a reliable source as there is nothing about their editorial policy, who publishes it, anything like that. The baltimoresun.com piece was posted and written by a community contributor, not by their staff. Tippfm.com yet another interview that nowhere support notability per WP:GNG and finally I would like to ask you disclose your paid status per terms of use. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You said, The Sun and Irishmirror are interviews and interviews are not independent - can you please tell why a national newspaper will get an Interview from someone if he is not an expert in his field? You also said, the awards were not notable so can you please provide citations as to why you consider those awards as not notable? The subject clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. I think you're confusing interviews by national newspapers as primary source but please check Wikipedia:Independent does not mean secondary. From what I have found that this nomination was canvassed by you through the nominator's talk page. Can you please disclose your paid status per terms of use first? --Aaronsheij (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Very funny. The investigation is undergoing so the truth will be out soon on your paid status and no the nominator wasn't canvassed to "nominate this page". Regarding awards they were not given by a notable body as per Wikipedia notability criteria and regarding interviewing someone, they were invited at the event so interviewing him was a part of their job. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, FYI "Wikipedia:Independent does not mean secondary" is an essay not policy. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I will consider these as WP:OR unless you can provide reliable sources to establish your claims like, regarding interviewing someone, they were invited at the event so interviewing him was a part of their job etc. You're more than welcome to do any investigation in your existing capacity however I would request you to comment on the subject per en:WP:AADD and community's decision will be final so I am no longer into this mud sliding anymore.
For the closing admin, I would like to state that I have provided sources which clearly show the subject is notable because the subject has been mentioned in several independent sources with in-depth coverage including in Irish national newspapers, the subject has own 3 awards in his fields. I will accept whatever the community decides. Thank you. --Aaronsheij (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Aaronsheij: I will note that interviews are neither reliable nor secondary. Further, your baseless accusation of paid editing and your claims that going to an admin for help is canvassing are not very good ways to prevent this article from being deleted. Please focus on content in your comments, not editors. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If you notice, I have been making policy based arguments until I was labelled as a paid editor. Anyway, regarding the interviews I would like to quote this Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline. from en:WP:INTERVIEW.
If it was an interview at the event there would be other people interviews and bit just writing on one person. There are radio interviews also. If not notable why would he be invited to speak on radio?--Aaronsheij (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There should be no "until". Your arguments should not focus on other people. However, considering the history of this article on other projects and other information, I find it highly likely paid editing is involved in this to some degree. I will note that speaking on radio and being interviewed do not necessarily confer notability. Vermont (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘

  • @Vermont: Please check your inbox. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing in the article seems to suggest subject is notable, sources are likely promotional in nature like interviews or articles done out of sponsored nature. Covert UPE very likely. I dont think the awards are notable too. And a corporal in army isn't going to be enough. Overall, per nom, delete seems to be the only option. Article is promotional in nature too.--Cohaf (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I wrote the article so can you please tell me which portion of the article is promotional? May be I can edit as I think this is salvageable. --Aaronsheij (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia[change source]

Wikipedia:Simple Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram on the English Wikipedia (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fram, an admin on EnPW was banned as an office action, on EnWp. People held different opinions on this, as is obvious from the EnWP community page about it. Since Fram hasn't edted on Simple, and in order to avoid drama (which we likely don't need), I propose we delete this page. We do not need to react to the ban on EnWp; whoever feels he/she should comment, can do so at the EnWP community discussion page. Eptalon (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (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 per nomination --DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Completely unnecessary page. This didn't happen here, none of us were involved, Wikipedia is not ending, and all this page would serve is to create an unnecessary timesink for people to complain on about an issue that's already being addressed. Vermont (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Vermont sums my thoughts up quite well. Hiàn (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy. There was no prior discussion before creating the page and it is completely irrelevent to this wikipedia.--BRP ever 22:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware that the custom here is to discuss pages before going ahead and creating them. . Where is this discussion supposed to take place? (I hope this is the right place to ask this question?) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Simple Talk to see if people care about the incident or not.-BRP ever 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Can someone please explain to me how this deletion request is not a simple act of censorship? If you don't want to participate in such discussions then simply don't. But why prevent others from doing so if they feel differnetly? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Vermont and BRPever both explained it quite well, if you ask me. Simply put, the incident didn't happen on our wiki, doesn't affect our wiki, and as such there doesn't need to be an unapproved "official" response to the incident. I suspect there are more users that agree with this analysis other than the editors that have voiced their opposition to such a page. I cannot see how this censors anything at all - unless you can put forward substantiative evidence suggesting there was an ulterior motive here, then please refrain from calling this a move of censorship. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hian, I guess I did not make this clear, but I don’t believe any of the participants in this discussion have ulterior motives. Having said this, I also don’t believe all government bodies, religious groups etc. have ulterior motives when they use censorship. Most groups who impose censorship do it because they honestly believe that they are doing it for the good of society.
For example, I don’t believe that the French king’s council stopped the distribution of Encyclopédie in the 18-th century out of ulterior motives. I think they probably honestly believed that the aquisition of knowledge was encouraging a spirit of independence which was considered bad for the average person.Ottawahitech (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually commented on talkpage on that article that we might want a discussion of if such unilateral office actions happened on this wiki, what response will we give. I, however, didn't expect a full page in Wikipedia Space. A ST discussion with this topic might be okay but a page, nope. Sorry but delete.--Cohaf (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Question: what is an “ST discussion”? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Simple Talk. Sorry I'm unclear.--Cohaf (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
ST is the best place to go to for community input on something like this. Vermont (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, but in my opinion, this is not the right time and place to discuss why wp:ST is not a good venue for discussing the constitutional crisis at all Wikipedias. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
ST is where all important community discussions happen here. We are not en.wiki where we spread our stuff all over, because by doing that our small community doesn't see it, so we centralize. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The issues involve the whole of Wikipedia. They are concerned with the basic process whereby a wiki regulates itself, and so is relevant to all wikis. The WMF has acted arbitrarily and banned a senior editor and mop for reasons which it has not disclosed, and which is not open to discussion or reversal. It has already cost English WP a dozen admins and has sent shockwaves through the community. As an individual, you may or may not have an interest in this. But I tell you it is the most significant event in the WMF history, and will have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences. Since editors are not paid, and give time freely, they will be influenced by how this event plays out. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That's an over-exaggeration of this issue. With that mindset, you could call a WMF employee getting a cup of coffee arbitrary since no one outside the WMF oversees it. The reasons are disclosed, mostly, at least: harassment and incivility, which is a violation of the terms of use. Attempts on that project to regulate the issue locally failed and the WMF involved themselves, albeit communicated that terribly. Regardless, the Simple English Wikipedia community does not need to spend time writing a statememt to the WMF on an issue already being addressed and of which our input would cause very little effect. Vermont (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't have an arbcom so the situation which happened there literally couldn't happen here because these sorts of incidents are already handled by them for us. Simple is unaffected by this other than tangentially because en.wiki is. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete I fully agree with the comments by Vermont, Hiàn, and Djsasso. Regardless of which way you feel about the issue, it is happening over on enwiki, not here. Editors here are free to go over to enwiki and voice opinions and comments in the existing discussions on this matter. @Ottawahitech: I appreciate your efforts, so don't feel bad about the opposition here. But I think in this case the page should be deleted. Desertborn (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Desertborn:, since you pinged me I just wanted to mention that I am not able to particpate in any enwiki discussions since I am indef-blocked over there. There may be other Users on Simple who may want to have their say here and not there for other reasons. Also, at the risk of repeating myself, it is my opinion that this is a Wikipedia-wide constitutional crisis, not just one small incident out of many on the English Wikipedia (enwiki). Ottawahitech (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I support deletion but it is better to archive the page. Znotch190711 (Talk || Edits) 13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to all participants Since this page will likely be deleted later today, I would like to ask all those who voted DELETE (including the nominator) to check out this page one more time before it is gone, and tell us if they still feel the way they did before. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve this page for the benefit of others since I started it 7 days ago (the same day it went up for deletion).

If nothing else it would help other contributors gauge where they can be more productive on Simple. Thank you all in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC) This request is due to close on 20:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Michael Snow (attorney)[change source]

Michael Snow (attorney) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am surprised this article has lasted this long. This fellow has done a good amount for Wikipedia. But he is not notable and fails WP:GNG. Was deleted for the same reason over at en a long time ago. DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2019 (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]

  • An unusual case where the page should be deleted even though it appears in a number of wikis. Notability has just not been established. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: According to the article Michael Snow was also the founder of The Signpost. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Constitutional republic[change source]

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

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I denied this QD as it had already been to Requests for Deletion. But their rational was reasonable so I moved it here to an Rfd for them. I have no opinion one way or the other, just moving it here. Their rational was "The limited sources cited are vague in their substantiation of the article's premise. Questionable if this really belongs in an encyclopedia when there are other articles that do a much more accurate job discussing the subject matter. You will notice the central theme of this article is the United States being the first "constitutional republic" but the United States has always been officially defined in academic circles as the first "democratic, federalist republic"." DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (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]

  • As pointed out previously, the validity of the phrase and premise is the issue because every country in the world has a constitution. This article seems to mainly discuss specifically the United States and was forked from a German Wikipedia article, I have to wonder if something was lost in translation and if the original creation of the English page was in error. Is this entire article a result of a translation error by a German speaker to which English is a second or third language? The word constitution just describes a charter for government and does nothing to actually add to the phrase describing a type of government. Calling a government "Constitutional Republic" is like saying "Charter Government". It doesn't tell you if the republic is democratic, socialist, federalist, monarchy, communist or a combination of those descriptors. Reputable reference material list republic based governments with a combination of those modifiers but not "constitutional" as one of the modifiers. Even Mainland China and North Korea, which are communist governments with no elections by the people have official constitutions. For example the article claims the US is the "first constitutional republic" but this is false, the US is the first "democratic, federalist republic". The photograph of a poster center pieced in this article which claims to be titled "Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union, the first constitutional republic", doesn't just not contain any reference to "constitutional republic" in the image itself or the United States being "the first" but the title given is actually false and original non-wikipedia official title doesn't contain the term "constitutional republic" nor is this term contained in the US Library of Congress description. This can be confirmed on the source LOC website at https://www.loc.gov/item/98503857/. In addition to this, I suggest you actually go read the two references listed in this article, the first isn't about this articles fictional "constitutional republics" but just citizens faith in the ability of a government to abide by its constitution, its charter, and the second reference isn't even about governments or political science at all but city police forces and ethics in community policing. There is a reason this is not an article or section atm on the non-simple Wikipedia. --ArhGee (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge into Republic per the comments by ArhGee. Vermont (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • First of all, the German article de:Konstitutionelle Republik isn't overly long, and is also focused mailny on the situation in the US. Yes, almost any state (in the modern sense of the word) has a constitution. It says:"... is a form of government where the head of state and important members of government are elected by the people and act according to a constitution..." The important sentence there is "...Die Tatsache, dass eine machtbeschränkende Verfassung existiert, macht einen Staat konstitutionell." (The existence of a power-limiting constittution makes a state consttutional." " John Adams definierte eine konstitutionelle Republik als „eine Regierung der Gesetze und nicht der Menschen.“(ref) (John A. defined a constituitional republic as a government of laws, and not of people.). Later in the article, they speak about protecting against the "tyranny of the majority", a phrase coined by J.S.Mill (On Liberty, 1859). I dont' have a background in political phoiliosphy, but to me the translation looks adequate...--Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge as above. FWIW, the French article isn't even entirely correct; republics using the British parliamentary model effectively have two branches (legislative/executive and judicial), not three, but are no less "constitutional republics" for that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:20, 4 July 2019 (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  Keep. Replaced with redirect to Eastern bluebird, as suggested--Eptalon (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Bluebird[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested quick deletion request, so going through regular deletion. In my opinion: The bird exists, but the info we have is too little to make this article keepable. I do admit though that this was createwd from a moble device, so I hope it gets extended during the discussion period. Eptalon (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2019 (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 09:15, 28 July 2019 (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.



List of U.S. state slogans[change source]

List of U.S. state slogans (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am going to steal the prod reason from the en version of this article that was deleted there way back in 2013 as it is just as applicable here and ours is just a magnate for vandalism on top of it. "This seems to be a mishmash of unsourced nicknames, poorly sourced marketing terms, official tourism slogans, official mottos, and official nicknames. I cannot discern any inclusion criteria at all and I can't tell what it adds beyond List of U.S. state and territory mottos and List of U.S. state nicknames, both of which have much clearer criteria. Neither the group nor most of these on their own are notable enough for an article. There isn't even a State slogan article." DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2019 (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 If it's all nothing but poorly sourced material with zero helpful edits the past few days, it's safe to delete this. Also notice some of the state "slogans" on this list is either the state nickname or the state motto. Zaxxon0 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete. At best, there are no standard criteria to define such a list. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete per above. Desertborn (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete. Same reasoning. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

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) 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Curing of tobacco[change source]

Curing of tobacco (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

大诺史 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Test creation with no descriptive content. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:19, 14 July 2019 (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 as a how-to-do-it, and therefore out of scope. A sentence or two could be added to our article on tobacco. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Carol Wilder[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Originally QD candidate (as a copyvio); This is not a copyright violation. I do however fail to see the encyclopedic notability of the lady: Yes, graduaded/PhD with honors. Where are the achivenemts that we can say that this is more than a person doing the job she was educated for? - I therefore propose deleting... Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (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 per insufficient notability. She is a professor at a reasonably notable institution, but she does not hold a named chair and there is zero coverage of her or her work in independent sources. It appears that its creation was a mistake. It was originally created as a draft on English Wikipedia. It was rejected for movement to article space because notability was not established. It was subsequently deleted as a copyvio [5]. The creator then tried to create a new version of the article, and appears to have created it here by mistake instead of on English Wikipedia. See en:User talk:HelloNYC for details. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and revise
Fair disclosure: The following comment was written by the page creator from a single-topic account. Deborahjay (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I think she did more than doing "the job she was educated for" ( being a lecturer in media) and she does hold "chaired name" and there is many "covers of her works in independent sources" as Eptalon and Voceditenore pointed out.
Having read dozens of Wikipedia profiles of academics, it is clear that Carol Wilder meets or exceeds the criteria for notability as it is defined by examples.
In short, in her exceptional academic career Carol Wilder early on was one of the youngest faculty awarded Professor Emerita status [bulletin.sfsu.edu/faculty/emeritus-emerita/] at San Francisco State University before moving to The New School in New York as Chair and Dean of the first and largest Media Studies and Film Graduate Program in the U.S [newschoolhistories.org/hstrs/film-and-the-new-school-passionate-provocateurs/]. for fifteen years. During this period she also co-founded The New School's pioneering Media Management Graduate Program.
She then was awarded in sequence both a Fulbright Senior Scholar Award [6] in 2007-2008 and Senior Specialist Award from 2010-15 for media research and teaching in Viet Nam. Wilder's first book Rigor and Imagination: Essays from the Legacy of Gregory Bateson(1982) received the National Communication Association Golden Anniversary Book Award [7] and her book Crossing the Street in Hanoi: Teaching and Learning About Vietnam (2013) was widely praised by respected scholars such as in The University of Chicago Press Books [8]. In 2017 she received the distinguished Kent State University Centennial Award [9]. In addition to these accomplishments, Wilder's community service and advocacy is best represented by her thirty years on the Board of Directors/Advisors of Swords to Plowshares [10], a preeminent veterans support and advocacy California.
Wilder has written many articles and book chapters on media theory and criticism, politics and the media, and the Vietnam/American war which are all critical contribution to public understanding on these realms. Her 16mm film Puttin' on the Dog screened at venues including the National Arts Club, Woods Hole Film Festival and the International Dog Film Festival in New York and Los Angeles and was selected for the permanent collection of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. She also received the National Communication Association Golden Anniversary Book Award for her editing work in Rigor & Imagination: Essays from the Legacy of Gregory Bateson (Praeger 1982).
I think her notability should not be questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloNYC (talkcontribs) 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article arrives here because rejected on EnWP. Their decision was that the person was just doing the job she was paid for. The author's opinion is not relevant. Exceptional achievements recognised by appropriate disinterested sources are the route to notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • keep. Previous Wikipedia reviewers have confirmed the notability of Carol Wilder, and I have several notes on the most recent comments.
All of the evidence cited earlier comes from reputable outside sources. The earlier version was criticized for being too much like subject's university bio, but it has been substantially updated and expanded. None of the data is undocumented "opinion," but well established fact.
The subject has accomplished wide ranging academic, administrative, and activist work in Media Studies that does not fit neatly into a traditional academic rubric. The fact that she is undeniably prominent in a diverse and emerging field like Media Studies that is sometimes marginalized should not be a negative factor. The earlier review from EnWP confirmed notability but argued that the entry was too similar to other bios, which has been modified and in any case should not be disqualifying because the facts used for different accounts are, of course, the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloNYC (talkcontribs) 16:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
HelloNYC, I have struck your second "keep". You may only vote once. However, you are free to comment as much as you like provided you sign each comment. Also your statement that "previous Wikipedia reviewers have confirmed the notability of Carol Wilder" does not appear to be true. Your draft at the main English Wikipedia was declined by the AfC reviewer for not demonstrating notabilty. It never appeared in article space and the draft was subsequently deleted as a copyright violation. All this information is on your talk page there and in the deletion log for the draft. Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Voceditenore, I thought we have to put our vote at the beginning of each comment. Thanks for clarifying it. The first draft of the article was suggested better reference so I edited but since I was not familiar with the system, somehow the second draft with better references had trouble submitted. However, the final decision of deletion was due to "copy infringement" potential ( which I have explained in my second comment that it is understandable since one's bio and achievement should be the same from source to source). My plan is to repost the article on EnWP after contacting the member who delete it for better understanding. For the article on this Simple English WK page, my first comment was all that I have to say. Yes, for its first draft, it might have appeared as not thoroughly referenced, that is why my comment has all the reasons and all the external links to disinterested sources. What I am trying to do here is just to record and recognize a notable scholar, writer, activist ONLINE. I believe you all are more familiar with this system than me and thank you for pointing out how the article can be improved.
HelloNYC (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
HelloNYC. Many new editors have a misunderstanding of what "Notability" means in the Wikipedia sense. It does not equate with being talented, accomplished, or respected by their colleagues. In a nutshell, the basic requirement for qualifying for a stand-alone article, i.e. notability, is:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
That quote is excerpted from Wikipedia:Notability (people) on the main English Wikipedia. I suggest you read the whole page (and the pages it links to) to get a fuller understanding of the requirements and why experienced editors here are arguing that the subject does not meet them. There are alternative criteria that can be used for academics. Meeting any one of them would be enough, although they require published sources to verify that they meet the criteria.You'll find them at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Unfortunately, Ms. Wilder does not meet any of those criteria either at this time. But I want to emphasise again that this is in no way a reflection on her accomplishments or talent. Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Voceditenore. Thank you and I appreciate your feedback. I have revisited the requirements for notability as academics and here are Carol's achievement into their category:
  • Criteria[edit source] Shortcut WP:NACADEMIC
Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
  • The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
--> Carol's book Rigor and Imagination received the National Communication Association Golden Anniversary Book Award, the highest book award in the field of communication and and had extensive impact on the field. It is cited in WP article for Gregory Bateson [11]
  • The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level
--> Carol received Fulbright Senior Scholar Award
  • The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]
--> Carol was on the Board of Directors of the International Communication Association and President of the New York State. Communication Association from 2002-2003 [12]
  • The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society:
Carol holds Professor Emerita status at San Francisco State University and Chair and Dean of the first and largest Media Studies and Film Graduate Program in the U.S. at The New School in New York for fifteen years
I read the requirements and find these achievement and positions notable according to Wikipedia's requirements. I appreciate if you can enlighten me on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloNYC (talkcontribs) 19:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • HelloNYC, I'm going to respond to each of these assertions in order:
1. Rigor and Imagination: Essays from the Legacy of Gregory Bateson is not "Carol's book". It is a collection of essays written by over a dozen academics, including one by Gregory Bateson himself. She was the co-editor of the collection and the author of one of the 17 essays [13]. The essays were originally presented at a conference in Bateson's honor co-sponsored by San Francisco State University and the International Communication Association. Nor does this now-discontinued book award qualify as "a highly prestigious academic award", especially since it was given by the same organization that sponsored the conference. According to WorldCat, the book is held by a total of 274 libraries worldwide. It has a total of 74 citations on Google Scholar. That's not the mark of "extensive impact in its field", even if she had been the sole author.
2. A Fulbright scholarship is not considered a defining qualification for notability, at least on English Wikipedia. See one of many examples here. The program awards 800 of these scholarships annually.
3. "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" does not apply here. Membership in the International Communication Association is granted simply on payment of a membership fee [14]. Being president of a local branch for one year does not qualify under this criteria. Ditto the Board of Directors, although no independent source has been offered for that. The only thing that would qualify would be having been elected a Fellow of the International Communication Association. The criteria for that is "distinguished scholarly contributions to the broad field of communication." This is the list of ICA Fellows. Ms. Wilder is not on it.
4. "Professor emerita/emeritus" is simply a title conferred on any retired tenured professor. It is not the equivalent of holding a Named chair which are generally reserved for distinguished scholars. Having served as the Dean of one school of one division of one institution (The New School) is not having held a "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post" in that institution. This is reserved for university Presidents, Deans of entire institutions, Provosts, etc. In any case, her official biography at The New School states that she was only the Associate Dean of the School of Media Studies. Possibly the bio is out of date, but even if she did serve as dean of the school at some point it is not highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at that institution.
In other words, Ms. Wilder has had a reasonably successful academic career, as have literally thousands of academics in the United States alone. But it is not one that qualifies as "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ephraim Mkhabela[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Questionable notability. Looks like a South African scoialite. Article was deleted from EnWP multiple times.Also, looking at who edited the page, there may be a conflict of interest/self-promotion involved. Since I don't know South African Media landscape, and its personalities, I propose we do a regular RfD. Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2019 (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]

  • Clear-case  Delete. Self-promotional with no notability whatsoever. No independent sources available online. Hiàn (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Self-promotional, not apparently notable at an encyclopedic level. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:59, 14 July 2019 (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. Notable company, by the number of its emloyees.--Eptalon (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: The article has been moved to Ashurst LLP, same as EnWP.--Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ashurst[change source]

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article about a British law firm with 2800 employees. Originally this was QD for A3 ("complex article from anther WP"). I think that the article is not overly long, and the few remaining complexities (mainly sentence sipmlification) are probably worth the effort, but as I am not from the UK I cannot tell how important the company really is, and if it is worth spending the effort of simplifying the article up for discussion. For this reason I propose we go through a regular RfD. Eptalon (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (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]

  • Well, it's just an advert for the firm, but the size of the firm makes it notable. I'd keep it, but cut the second para as advertising. Incidentally, there are many places called "Ashurst", so I would keep the title for a disambig, and move this one to "Ashurst (law firm)" or some such. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It appears to be the equivalent to en:Ashurst LLP on enwiki. It appears notable but I agree article needs work and a move. Desertborn (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually it appears to be either a copy of translation of the enwiki article I link above, but without attribution. Desertborn (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix, as above. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:14, 14 July 2019 (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]