Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Tfm/dated

Template:Tfm/dated (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Pppery has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This template should never have been imported, because the Simple English Wikipedia uses a different process for deletions. Pppery (talk) 02:36, 22 February 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

• Yeah it is normally nulled out so it doesn't get imported. Sometimes it does and doesn't get caught. Like this time. Has been reverted back to the nulled version. I have no problem with it being deleted, which is what I used to do when it would get pulled over, but it is generally better to leave it as the nulled out version so it doesn't repeatedly get pulled over and subsequently deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Leaving it nulled out is fine with me. Pppery (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Boris Christov, writer

Boris Christov, writer (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unable to locate any references about the author. Plentiful sources exist for the opera singer by the same name, but not an author. Badly formatted page tantamount to self-promotion from a COI account at best. Operator873^talkconnect 17:27, 21 February 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

Links to Boris Christov, writer

The American Bibliography of Slavic and East European Studies for 1994

https://books.google.bg/books?id=9wrx2g1wqOoC&pg=PA581&lpg=PA581&dq=Boris+Christov+poems+in+Ebglish&source=bl&ots=RosXhhPi1A&sig=ACfU3U3u8hrq3rkA6NfJnlwUbIXOD7e_GQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji7qe7nM_gAhXnwIsKHVZyC-sQ6AEwC3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=Boris%20Christov%20poems%20in%20Ebglish&f=false

Riva Publishers’ page for Boris Christov (Boris Hristov)

https://www.rivapublishers.com/authors.php?author_id=421&lang=en

Worldcat info – Boris Christov translates as Boris Khristov

http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n91-041622/

Rolan Flint’s translation of Boris Christov

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/flint-roland-henry

An article in The Washington Post mentioning Boris Christov, a writer and poet from Bulgaria

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1991/04/07/where-the-beat-goes-on/3b1ed1d0-1de9-4312-8cc8-0fd2d37e1264/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d85d200769a7

WikiVisually - info for Boris Christov, writer

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Bulgarian_literature

A poem by Boris Christov (Boris Hristov)

https://poetrytranslated.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/horsie-dear-of-mine/

*Boris Christov, a writer and a poet, is one of the most prominent Bulgarian writers nowadays. Unfortunately most of the information about him could be found only in Bulgarian language, although his bilingual books (Bulgarian/English) The Wings of the Messenger, Words on Words, Words and Graphite could be found in the US Library of the Congress! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Borisdari (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References in other languages are allowed. Being in the Library of Congress doesn't show notability because copies of all books are sent to the LOC. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Russell Surasky

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

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Lacks evidence of notability. This well-written page by a PR agent shows the subject to be qualified and competent, but not clearly notable. He is a DO: an unusual qualification, meaning doctor of othrthopaedics. He has specialities in neurology and psychiatry. The real defect from our point of view is that he lacks the kind of awards which would mark him out as notable. Remember, doing a competent job is what is expected of a person with a professional qualification. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:30, 21 February 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

•  Delete I'd argue for a medical professional to be notable, they should be in a major news story or have made some pioneering discovery. Agree with OP; being good at their job is an expectation. PrimordialTaco ✉ 10:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Has anyone actually looked this guy up? He seems to be out there on the front lines saving lives with the opiate epidemic. Patient review sites are not high levels or proof but there are hundreds of 5/5 reviews from patients online about him. His also is the only physician who is board certified in neurology and addiction medicine. That certainly seems notable to me. Also the pharmaceutical company thats mentioned (Alkermes). They make an injectable medication called Vivitrol. This is a new once monthly injectable medication which completely blocks opiates from entering the brain. He is a national speaker for this company. I have definitely seen articles on here with way less notable/interesting people. EARTHSCIENCETEACH ✉ 4:15, 21 February 2019 (EST)
•  Keep Doing a search for Dr. Russell Surasky nets many results including numerous news sources. I think EARTHSCIENCETEACH is probably correct in that having multiple board certifications is very rare, although I don’t know if that alone would make him notable. True, his competency is not enough to support notability, though looking at his ratings he is no doubt that. The three areas which most likely grant notability are his consultations, his role in a high-profile lawsuit, and his social media following. It looks like he is regularly consulted for news reports because of his medial expertise. The 22.5 million dollar lawsuit against CVRJ seems noteworthy all on its own. And he has almost 100,000 followers on Instagram, which is practically minor celebrity status. --PhobosIkaros ✉ 03:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Albert Eugene Payson

Albert Eugene Payson (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. Many references to YouTube and other passing mentions, at best. Operator873^talkconnect 07:09, 20 February 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

• The man can play Super Mario on the Xylophone, that's instant notability! But seriously, his early life and service is honorable but not particularly notable. It looks like his "claim to fame" is probably his work with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and musical inventions. Is being nominated for a Grammy enough? Probably not, considering he was only one member of an orchestra, but it does contribute.
• Delete as not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

0737290632t2x273n has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Out of date by almost ten years, list of longest combined reigns is empty, list is not sorted by length. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 22:45, 16 February 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

• Redirect I have decided that it may be best if this article instead be redirected to a separate article titled "List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions".0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Redirect but someone would have to put in the time to improve if they feel knowledgeable about it. Current title seems silly anyway ("By length...?") PrimordialTaco ✉ 10:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Rfd isn't for cleanup. If its out of date put an out of date tag on it. That being said I just fixed all the issues. It is still up to date. The title means by length of the reign which is something that is commonly talked about for such championships. It is a notable topic. And as I said it is now up to date with a few minute fix. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Keep This is a useful article and appears to have been updated recently. The article has been in existence for over 9 years and has nearly 80 references supporting the information included. There is clearly no need to delete this article.

Administrator note: Updating time since this was not transcluded correctly to give it a full 1 week listing. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This request is due to close on 22:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 20:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Elements of music

Elements of music (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Vermont has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: It is one person/entity’s list of musical elements. I checked the enwiki article to see how they wrote it, and it is much more vague, focused on different people’s writings about elements of music, as there is no universally agreed upon set rule of elements (hence why I support deletion rather than rewrite). I had thought to transform this into a list of musical elements, although there is no single list that all/most reliable sources agree upon. Vermont (talk) 14:36, 19 February 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

•  Delete per nom - while this can be a worthwhile topic unfortunately there is far to much to cover. Hiàn (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete - as Hian says, this can be notable but it is so broad it would probably have to be split. At the moment, it reads like an essay and appears to be mainly original research. SITH (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. This is unsourced OR. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

David Frederick Hepburn

David Frederick Hepburn (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: A person doing the job he was educated for, getting awards that are hard to assess. Given the blurb of the article, I do not see why this person is notable. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 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

• Delete. I also think the statement "used to write the columns in the names of Patch Adams and Dave Barry" sounds untrue. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Comments above about lack of notability ,and professionals expected to do a good job are appropriate here as well. This does not show notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Benjamin Sapozhnikov

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

StraussInTheHouse has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be notable. SITH (talk) 13:46, 16 February 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

•  Delete as non notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete. In fact I would quick delete this as an obvious hoax. Look at the Google results: Only 17 found. The first two are to Simple WP (the article and this deletion request). All the remaining are to an 11-year-old school boy at Mountview middle school in Massachusetts. The company he supposedly founded (Chill.me) does not exist. Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete same reasoning as Voceditenore --Eihel (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not only is this a spoof, but the editor has created other spoof bios, none of which are genuine as far as I can see. He should be G-locked and all his pages nuked. I hold off the ones on QD because this one is still under consideration, but we should speed up here if we can. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete Agreed. This article has no references and should have been quick delete . --PhobosIkaros (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

MGM Studios Home Entertainemnt

MGM Studios Home Entertainemnt (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

IanDBeacon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article already exists. IanDBeacon (talk) 18:18, 14 February 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

•  Question: @IanDBeacon:, you write: "Article already exists". Could you give the link of the article so that we can get an idea? Thank you in advance. --Eihel (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Eihel: Here. --IanDBeacon (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Move to simpler title. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge into MGM Home Entertainment as they are similar entities (sub-companies of MGM to do with home entertainment distribution). If this is the outcome of the deletion discussion, ping me and I'll be more than happy to action it myself. SITH (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Merge idem StraussInTheHouse. --Eihel (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Italian Mogadiscio

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

Enfcer has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Originally requested as a QD for non QD Reasons: Vituzzu Said "contents by three sockpuppets of the same LTA/pov pusher/hoaxster, brunodam -- Enfcer (talk) 18:09, 13 February 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

• Comment Hoax is A6. So could have been a valid QD. Haven't looked into it yet to say either way. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Fortunately, the article has not been deleted. How can we? In English, this page exists. In French, this city is still called "Mogadiscio". To have uniformity, perhaps it would be necessary  Merge. Simply. Regards. --Eihel (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• As much as Eihel has a point, the actual Italian rule of Mogadishu can prove a valid topic and enwiki already has a fairly good article covering the topic. Leaning towards keep and cleanup but I can't attest to the quality of the content of the current page. Hiàn (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  If enwiki has an article, it's another chapter. Just like enwiki is not going to look if Simple has an article to approve or not the elaboration of an article. Is this what you wanted to write, Hiàn, or I did not understand? --Eihel (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm unsure as to what you mean. Can you rephrase or elaborate? Hiàn (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  You write "and enwiki already has a fairly good article covering the topic". Wikipedia Simple English can have an article on the same subject. --Eihel (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Unfortunately you misinterpreted my comment, I'm afraid. I am by no means implying that because the English Wikipedia already has an article covering the topic the Simple English Wikipedia shouldn't have an article covering the same topic but instead implying that the English Wikipedia article has information and images that we can incorporate into our local article. Please stop misinterpreting good faith comments - I voted keep, no? Hiàn (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• In my book, this is a clear keep. Somalia (as well as Eritrea) was under Italian rule, pretty until the 20th century. The article we are looking at has neithewr been vandalized, nor is it a blatant hoax. Fot those not familiar, look at en:Italian Somaliland, en:Italian Eritrea; the (probably non-recognized) country Somaliland is close to to en:British Somaliland; it was occupied by Italy, in 1941 or 42, and administered from (Italian) Somalia. TO get back to the subject: this article is a 'clear keep. There is room for improvement, but there are no reasons for deletion.--Eptalon (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• The bulk of this page was a copy/paste from the original editor, and its text is too complex. However, the previous history makes the older name notable. I suggest the page is reduced to a link to Mogadishu, but adding a subsection to explain its older names. It's the same place, not two different places! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Recently closed deletion discussions

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) 21:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Amin Abbasov

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

Praxidicae has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: complete fabrication of notability, down to the "mtv" link which is user submitted. No actual coverage and fails any sort of inclusion requirements. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 14 February 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

• Author of the article: Dear author hi article is not spam. Ayselonline (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Ayselonline: What is being debated here is the Notability. The reason is visible on the article page and above. To change this, visit the previous link and also these links: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The opinions expressed go in the same direction: the sources must follow this guideline ("Always use of high quality references"). If you find them, add them in the article and propose to keep the article here. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete "complete fabrication of notability", all is said. WP:RS is missing, even with a search. --Eihel (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as lacking notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as non notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning  Delete as topic has some notability in Azerbaijan but this does not seem to warrant an English article. It appears the Scots language page was already deleted. --PhobosIkaros (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:43, 21 February 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) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:The Three Headed Knight/NHL check

User:The Three Headed Knight/NHL check (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Sandbox type page of a user who hasn't edited in 8 years. Can be deleted at this point. Easily undeleted on the very unlikely chance they come back and want it. DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 15 February 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

• Userpage/subpage of a user who last edited in 2011. Should be deleted--Eptalon (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Can be restored if the user edits again.--BRP ^ever 05:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:48, 22 February 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. Nice essay, unencyclopedic....--Eptalon (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Pre big bang

Pre big bang (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Praxidicae has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nothing more than an essay likely copied and pasted from elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 13:58, 15 February 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

•  Delete: Not science, based on no data. No sound knowledge exists on this topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete: this falls under the first deletion criterion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Discussed deletion because Wikipedia is not for original research and essays.

SITH (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete as is not an encyclopedia article: out of project scope. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete 10% "pre" Big-Bang and 90% after the Big-Bang: inadequate title. Original writings: where are the references? --Eihel (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 13:58, 22 February 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. Operator873^talkconnect 07:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan

Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Hiàn has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable person. Can't say I think the references in the article are verifiable - they mostly consist of fishy links. Fails WP:GNG. Please also see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan. Hiàn (talk) 21:34, 12 February 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

• With the article as is:  Delete I found links profusely on Google, but it does not look ok (source of scale?). Sorry for contributors-publishers --Eihel (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as lacks coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:34, 19 February 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.  -- Enfcer (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yash shah

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

Hiàn has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable person. I find it difficult to believe that being a contortionist is sufficient grounds for notability - I have yet to find any reliable sources that describe the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Hiàn (talk) 19:23, 12 February 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

•  Delete In seeking more, there will not be much different source. --Eihel (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)  Keep According to the article, this person should deserve a page, but what is missing is perhaps a few more references. Hiàn, a contortionist deserves to have a page, like another artist. I just added a major secondary reference for notability. The {{BLP sources}} template may be replacing this request. --Eihel (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Eihel, we have deleted articles on the similar grounds before. What remains standing is that there is no extensive coverage that would remotely make this subject notable. Beyond the one source you found (and another with debatable reliability) there are no reliable sources (unless you count Facebook and other spam links as reliable) available. Please also do not suggest that I believe being a contortionist alone isn't notable - as with any other artist when there is lacklustre coverage I have no reason to consider said artist notable.

  Even looking at the actual contents of the article the other references I'm afraid I cannot remotely consider reliable. Furthermore the subject has not broken any records on a scale similar to that of the Guinness World Records and the only real claim to notability I'm seeing is one appearance on a reality television show (with no evidence that the subject had progressed particularly far on said show). Hiàn (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for your quick reply. I would never have seen it otherwise, Hiàn. Ping me next time --Eihel (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  This is only a matter of preference and under normal circumstances editors are not obliged to ping if they feel it's not necessary. That said, I will ping you in the future. Hiàn (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete "His aim is to get a place in the Guinness world records and Limca book of records with the title India’s most flexible human being by breaking the record made by Jaspreet Singh, a 17 year old boy from Ludhiana as the ‘Most Flexible Indian’. He also wish to be world famous one day." If he does achieve these, he may be notable. Presently, no. Vermont (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  If he can not get ahead of Jaspreet Singh, I do not see where the problem is, Vermont: look at the nickname of w:en:Raymond Poulidor. --Eihel (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what that has to do with this; my reasoning has nothing to do with his nickname. Vermont (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Vermont: I do not speak nickname, but notoriety. The nickname of Raymond Poulidor is "The eternal second". Even if Yash Shah is not Jaspreet Singh's level, it is possible that he has his place in WP. The reputation of someone, it is precisely that he is not in the first place. I can give you other names: Michael Edwards or Éric Moussambani who are far from the best, but have pages in several WPs. His difference with Jaspreet Singh does not mean that he is unknown, and therefore he has a notoriety. --Eihel (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes; those people are well known. Someone contending for "Most flexible person in India" with limited sources (save for a clickbait article) isn't notable. Vermont (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

   (change conflict)  Eihel, I don't know how clear this has to be made but both subjects you mentioned have been covered extensively. You have yet to prove that Shah has been covered extensively and as I said already other than two links there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Hiàn (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete the article asserts that he hopes to be notable. Come back when he is. SITH (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as not notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as not notable as I tagged it for QD in May of last year. --Gotanda (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:23, 19 February 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) 20:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Boaz Bagbag

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem notable, a bit like an advert. The author removed the QD a few days ago and "started from scratch". Doesn't seem neutral at all. IWI (chat) 22:59, 11 February 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

• Delete: notability is not established by sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete idem Macdonald-ross. or the sources are not of quality --Eihel (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as appears non notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 22:59, 18 February 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.  -- Enfcer (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrimo

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

Cohaf has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested G11/G12 by Rahulkumarsingh73690. G12 is clear, however the history can be RDed easily. For the article, it seems promotional but not quite so by G11 standards and since it is contested, we cannot go by G11. I will argue that it is non-notable, fails en:WP:NCORP as there are no sustained, in depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources, seems a run off the mill company to me. I didn't do an A4 is " Launched his own private publisher for Andrimo in November 2018" seems to be a claim. The enwp version en:Draft:Andrimo is speedy as a G5. For community discussion. Clear article to delete. Cohaf (talk) 19:03, 10 February 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

• Delete: as nominated. --Gotanda (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete just for A4 criteria (notability). --Eihel (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete as non-notable. Just for the record the article has been deleted on more than one occasion prior to this request. Hiàn (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete and salt: this has already been deleted three times in the past fortnight, clearly not notable and the person submitting these articles doesn't seem to grasp that we're not an advert agency. SITH (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Delete and salt as appears non notable, repeatedly recreated. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:03, 17 February 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.  -- Enfcer (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Timotej Lampe Ignjić

Timotej Lampe Ignjić (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Professional Skateboarder, who participated & won in some competions; as to notability: it is probably a borderline case, there are few reliable third-party sourrces; as I don't know how reputable the association is, so I am putting thiss up for a community discussion. Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 10 February 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

•  Delete Let's be pragmatic. First of all, I am not aficionado of the sports practiced by this person, in article. I speak here only of general notability. I will not go back to the points of the guideline. To be publicly recognized, it is necessary that the field of predilection reaches a wide public, like football. Some media will not publish something that reaches only a limited number of people, but a person (artist, athlete, performer, etc.) still has the right to be on WP under certain conditions, imho. The point, in my opinion, who can promote this person for an article is his palmares (we'll talk more easily about the 1st WTA than the 200th WTA, for example). He can be recognized by his peers in this field. However, it seems to me that it is "down the rank", that's why I lean towards the deletion of the article. With a penchant to  Merge with a more general article, Skateboarding for example. --Eihel (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:54, 17 February 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

• All archives before July 2008 - implementation of new system made archives redundant
• Category:Requests for deletion that did not succeed
• Category:Requests for deletion that succeeded
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy
• Wikipedia:Quick deletion
• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Category:Deletion requests
• Category:Quick deletion requests