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/2018/(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

Jessie Sims

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

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: non-notable YouTube personality. References are either not reliable or are only an image of the subject doing some "internet challenge." Operator873^talkconnect 20:00, 9 December 2018 (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

• Youtubew personality, with some followers: Pouring some liquid over one's body may be fun on the beach during summer, or it may arouse some in the context of a wet-t-shrt context or similar. Given the article, I don't see anything that would make this lady notable (Like with a wet t-shird context, models are interchangabe). It looks like I would really become notable if I filmed myself spilling my drink.... In short: pretty clear case delete--Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete. Clearly lacks notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete. Lacks notability for WP. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Hamza Hamry

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

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Subject has claim of notability (championships) but doesn't appear that the subject meets criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. No supporting references on the article and no sources found with searches. Operator873^talkconnect 16:36, 8 December 2018 (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 not meeting standard for notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete Subject is a beginning national-level competitor in two martial arts with a number of wins - this is not encyclopedic notability. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Dhruv Rathee

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

Hiàn has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: YouTube personality with no apparent notability. Not enough references to justify an article here and few third-party sources on the Internet. Fails WP:GNG. Hiàn (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2018 (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

• Thanks for protecting the article that i created, but can i know why it's now marked for deletion. Iamskylord (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I moved Iamskylord's comment to the appropriate place. Operator873^talkconnect 16:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete Another non-notable YouTube personality. The draft on EnWiki was also declined for lack of notability. It should be mentioned that quantity of references does not indicate notability. Many passing mentions in the news do not build up to passing WP:GNG and YouTube is not an acceptable reference. It should also be noted that followers and subscriptions do not indicate notability. Operator873^talkconnect 17:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete --Gotanda (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete no claim of notability, addtionally Iamskylord blocked for sockpuppetry on enwiki, I am sure there's is some undisclosed paid editing going on here. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete as not notable. Could be a paid edit; 4K+ content copy/pasted in one go. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Category:Universities

Category:Universities (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This category should be deleted and the content merged back into Category:Colleges and universities. I don't think categorizing universities separately is helpful (which is possibly why many other wikis -- as well as Commons -- don't separate them from colleges). If we separate universities from other things in that category, we should separate colleges as well; that would be a problem because the terms college and university don't mean the same thing everywhere. Better to keep them together, as is the standard practice. Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2018 (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

• Yes, I agree. Merge. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Merge. (Probably better to leave behind a redirect at the end than to delete outright.) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Merge for nominator's reasons. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment At the very least a cat redirect is needed. In the country I am from, the two are very different things which is the same country as the creator so I can see why they created it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with having this as a redirect. We could also create a redirect for colleges. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah should probably have redirects for both. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Common misconceptions

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

Diadophis has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This page seems to have been copied over from English Wikipedia, and is quite complex. On EN, misconceptions included in this list must be listed in the articles that the list links to. We don't seem to have any such requirement, meaning that we have content on this list that is not in our articles. Diadophis (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2018 (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

• Keep. I think some parts have been simplified, and some have not. This page is quite interesting, and I remember from several years ago that it has regular readership. I have checked many of the sections related to science, and simplified some. Looked at as a whole it may seem complex, but nobody sets out to read it as a whole, just to look at a section or two that interests them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Athanasio Celia

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: It's hard to tell because the language is so jumbled, but I don't see the notability of this artist. The article seems to be a direct, rough translation from the French article. For what it's worth, the corresponding article on enwiki was deleted (see the deletion discussion). Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2018 (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 mentioned deletion, on 2007-03-01, was before Athanasio Celia became worldwide famous... all the very important references 5 - 13 (which are mentioned in the current "simple-english" article) occurred after the deletion date 11 years ago, and for that reason they couldn't be mentioned in the article that was deleted. Therefore the article must NOT be deleted (for the sake of the "Wikipedia credibility"). But if the language seems "jumbled" (I apologize for that, because I'm the editor), please help me to fix that matter. -- User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Person with great influence in internationally very important art cases. -- User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete. Reason for deletion on En wiki: "The artist Athanasio Celia does not appear to be notable, due to the absence of multiple, non trivial references, published by reliable sources". In addition, this version is almost unreadable, and for us that is critical. Also, be aware that a small group of supporters has come here as a result of the En decision. My basic reason for rejecting is the lack of qualified independent supporting sources showing lasting notability. The added sources mentioned above do not address the issue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The en decision was 11 years ago, and we cannot delete an article because the content isn't up to par. (Deletion is not cleanup) Vermont (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the added sources do not address the issue, which is why the previous decision is relevant.Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

After a more thorough search, I agree with you. The sources added are not sufficient to constitute notability. Vermont (talk)

The sources added are of the highest credibility and of the highest international acceptance and refer to a "Greek artist and art expert" or "Parisian painter and art historian". They do not separate the person to just only an artist, or to just only an art expert. And as you read they refer firstly to the "artist" and the "painter".User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep. I admit not to be a expert for art. However, Celia has written several books and his paintings are shown by mayor art galleries such as Saatchi Art[1]. More importantly, being the founder of a "painting style", if that's the correct term, i.e. verticalismus, makes him clearly relevant for wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, there is no assessment by a leading art critic. Saachi bought thousands of paintings from every conceivable living artist, so that alone is not sufficient. I'm quite prepared to believe the artist is notable, but it requires proof (and that is what was lacking in the first place). Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The proof are the auction-houses (in Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc.) which auction off his artwork (go to artprice, artnet etc.)... don't forget that Athanasio Celia is a leading art expert himself... his accreditation and acceptance as one of the leading art experts worldwide came foremost from his brilliant career as an artist... (audio-visual material covering some of his historical personal exhibitions -- for instance in the museum of modern art in Munich in 1991 -- you can find easily in the internet)... and if museums and auction-houses accept his artwork, he don't need any further critics from anybody else...User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It is for sure not the personal fame of the artist and not the quantity that makes the difference in arts, but foremost the quality and uniqueness of the given art which is decisive (for instance the great Jewish painter Amadeo Modigliani - who is my favorite artist - had painted only a few paintings in his short life and was a "no name"). As mentioned, Athanasio Celia created something totally new ("Verticalismus") in the world of arts (which is very-very difficult, if we consider how many artists existed on earth). Here a brief explanation https://www.artprice.com/store/VERTICALISMUS--Athanasio-Celia#!?page=1&order_by=sort_dt&order=desc#%3Fpage=1&order_by=sort_dt&order=desc User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The subject seems to be an expert on certain art forms, but such experience does not constitute notability. Thus, delete. Vermont (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can't divide his personality and judge only one aspect, for the reason that he became an internationally accepted "art expert" because he was also "a well renowned artist" (as "Reuters" - ref.8 - and "The Guardian" - ref.12 - mentioned)... otherwise he would be one of the thousands of ordinary experts, but he would never be allowed to judge over Vincent Van Gogh or ancient treasures. User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Before a decision is made, I've to give the following information to you.

Verticalismus artwork of Athanasio Celia exists in the depots of the following institutions:

• The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) - since 11 Oct 1999 --
• Smith College Museum of Art - since 02 June 1999 --
• Longview Museum of Fine Arts, Longview Texas - since 03 June 1999 --
• The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts - since 11 June 1999 --
• Edwin Ulrich Museum of Art - since 08 June 1998 --
• AVAM (Museums) - since 12 May 1998 --
• The Luton Museum - since 08 June 1997 --
• The Kent Museum - since 03 April 1997

The documentation of that information is not via internet available (it is from the predigital era), but I can provide it through scanned documentation ( per Email if needed). User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• With the greatest respect for all of you and your contributions on wikipedia, I think that the fact that makes Celia notable is, that he is also the author of really very important publications (he delivered the scientific proof that God exists - here you can download that study for free https://twitter.com/AthanasioCelia - and of course also his publication mentioned in ref.11, which for the world of arts is of immense importance). I think that the mixture of all of his three identities makes him notable. Further, the fact that we can not have many of his activities as a painter today documented online (as his philanthropic contributions in France 1990, Germany 1991 and USA 1993, where he donated many of his artwork) is a great pity (but they were documented on newspapers at that time and I think Kyriaki Verrou can provide for that also documentation if needed) - I hope we can keep him. User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Here further information about the scientific study which delivers the proof of God https://godsletters.com -- User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

OPEN LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR (the purpose of the letter is only to share my honest thoughts with you and not to offend anybody).

• First of all I want to explain why I wrote the present article. It is mainly for the reason that I’ve read Athanasio Celia’s book and I’m convinced that he is a scientifically proven administrator of the Almighty (that I’m not crazy or deluded can everybody verify by simply reading his scientific study which proves the New Revelation of God – https://godsletters.com/tac-read-welcome/). But I also know very well that Ath. Celia don’t allows that kind of titles for himself, and therefore I never mentioned in the article information about his book. I chose “simple-wiki” for to reach as much as possible readers, I mean, even them who have only basic English knowledge.

• Now to my thoughts. I think that maybe the idea to delete Athanasio Celia came from a third party within the Wikipedia. Strong indication for that, is according to my logic, that the admin (whose record of contributions is very fair and honest) in the first place contributed six times since 3 December 2017‎ for the improvement of the article and then suddenly, on 2 December 2018, he‎ discovered that the language of the article is not proper. A further indication, according to my logic, is, that a wise and well respected user as Vermont is, changed very abruptly his first decision (which was for sure the right decision) and then voted against the article (this is a very unusual behavior for that user). So, if my thoughts are right, I mean if a third party within Wikipedia wants to delete Celia, then I can understand that, because they have really good reasons to do that, given the fact that since October 2018 Celia started a huge campaign to spread God’s Word worldwide. And of course he has very powerful enemies who want to block and diminish his endeavors (Celia personally, speaks about them in the following documentation https://godsletters.com/documentary/).

In conclusion, if my thoughts are right, really nobody can prevent the deletion of the article (even if we all change our opinions and want to keep it). But if my thoughts are wrong, then I apologize, and the third part of my letter becomes much more relevant.

• You have to include in your decision the fact that you are going to delete the author of “God’s letters” ( https://godsletters.com/reviews/ ), so the author of the scientific proof for the existence of God. Because given the new information, even only that publication alone makes him notable for every conceivable Wikipedia. User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete. Between the unreferenced Wikidata entry and the rather skimpy content and references on all WP projects, notability is not supported. Not as an art critic or art historian - where is a body of publications, what education, training, or teaching, what makes him an expert? A painter giving a name to his own style doesn't constitute a "theory" - if not merely self-promotional, by which known art critics and institutions is this recognized? The artist has been working for several decades: where is evidence of his impact? What was the outcome of his expert claim regarding the purported Van Gogh sketchbook (in 2008!)? Note that the mention in Reuters and the Guardian are anecdotal only and not articles about Celia. If there's something substantial to his reputation, it belongs on the page right away, with citations. e.g. catalogues of the museums (mentioned here, above, by @Kyriaki Verrou:) holding (but displaying?) his works. The contributing editors can contact any of us to help with WP format. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Deborahjay, with all the respect, I really wonder which the reaction of the people in Israel - where you are living - would be, if they will get the information which I mentioned in my open letter... I'm wondering, because although my mother was half Greek and half Jewish (and I grew up with idols like the Jewish painter Amadeo Modigliani, whom I mentioned as my favorite), after I read the book "God's letters" by Athanasio Celia, I became a Christian... And as your pseudonym indicates [Deborah (Hebrew: דְּבוֹרָה‬, Devora, "Bee") was a prophetess of Yahweh the God of the Israelite], I'm sure that you're wondering also the same thing ... User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In discussions, please focus on content, not editors. Otherwise there is a possibility they may be construed as personal attacks. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Information about the education and reputation of Athanasio Celia is published many years now on his Saatchi profile https://www.saatchiart.com/account/profile/92876 User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• • • Dear editors, please take into consideration that today I added new information and seven more references into the article of Athanasio Celia. User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And please consider further, that because of the publication of "God's letters", Athanasio Celia received many anonymous death threats in the last months... and that was for us another more reason for not to publish anything about the book on Wikipedia until now... User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I just added also more content and references to the article. User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

LAST CONTRIBUTION

• My dear editors, this is my last contribution. But I feel the need, without wanting to judge anybody - this will happen so or so, for all of us, from the Almighty - to say goodbye. I want give to all of you a very warm mental hug, regardless if you are pro or contra the article. Because I believe that we all are family having the same Father. I became now a little sentimental, because tomorrow I’ll have a very severe surgery-operation. I hope to be as "lucky" as my pseudonym.

• I saw today the template (Unreliable Sources) and I removed the Reuters-reference, because I couldn’t connect it with the primary source. But I connected the BBC reference. Now I think all the references in the article are reliable.

I think Athanasio Celia is very unlucky on that matter, because many-many more references which existed on newspapers, books, catalogues, or as audio-visual archives (from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s) are not digital, or even if they are digital they are not connectable with the primary source (like the Reuters-reference for instance). In the last two days I counted 109 references of that kind…

• I’m sure that you already felt and understood the magnitude of the importance of that case, and that you will fall the right decision. I wish you really all the best. Goodbye. User:Lucky Billy 1999 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject is not notable. Several references contain a passing mention and there are several primary references, but notability has not been established with in-depth, significant coverage by independent sources. After reading the entire discussion here, I suggest editors remember it is our burden to prove notability while creating the article. Operator873^talkconnect 12:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear editors, I have to remind you, that you are witnessing the "intellectual killing attempt" of a person who is foremost - scientifically proven - an Administrator of God (as user "Lucky Billy 1999" has mentioned in his open letter above). And further, that even just only the passive observing of that case, makes you also co-responsible for the outcome of that attempt... User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of if the subject “scientifically” proved the existence of G-d, they are not covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. We're not here to debate religion; we're here to discuss whether the subject is notable. Vermont (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In honor to my beloved Jewish colleague "Lucky Billy 1999" who died today, I have to defend his article with the following:

a) "Lucky Billy 1999" gave us, in his open letter, the source where Athanasio Celia personally explains "why the media remain silent about the greatest event in the human history" ( https://godsletters.com/documentary/ )

b) But I think, that in this regard, is much more important what the theologians think and not the journalists. Therefore I added in the article all the references ( 30 - 37) about the "New Revelation of God in 2001".

c) If we should not discuss the "greatest event of the history" on that platform, and if the author of that scientific study, which proves the New Revelation of God ( https://godsletters.com/tac-read-welcome/ ), is not notable for this platform, then I refer to the very first sentences of the today deceased "Lucky Billy 1999" in this discussion, where he was worrying for the "Wikipedia credibility". User:Kyriaki Verrou (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The very idea that that event indicates notability is preposterous. Give us actual sources that indicate that this made a real lasting impact on Christianity - a few people saying it was "the greatest event of history" means absolutely nothing. Hiàn (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per above. Little evidence to indicate notability. Hiàn (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: Kyriaki Verrou and Lucky Billy 1999 are CU confirmed to each other as well as two other accounts. Vermont (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 00:19, 9 December 2018 (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. Operator873^talkconnect 13:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Gravity Bridge game

Gravity Bridge game (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Vermont has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not meet GNG. Vermont (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2018 (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. It's clear that the sources do not meet general notability guidance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 18:10, 10 December 2018 (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 13:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Bs-table

Template:Bs-table (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused template. For what it's worth, the enwiki one has a note asking people to use a different template instead, Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2018 (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 not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:44, 10 December 2018 (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 13:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011

Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused 5-year-old external link template. For what it's worth, the enwiki one was deleted in 2015 because the generated links no longer worked. Auntof6 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2018 (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 not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:39, 10 December 2018 (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 13:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Catalan solids

Template:Catalan solids (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused navigational template with only one "live" link. Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2018 (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 not useful. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I just wrote the article/stub on Catalan solids. It looks like there are 13 of them, much like there are 13 Archimedean solids. What the template does is presumably list them all. I don't feel I am qualified to write an article for each of the thirteen, so we might as well delete the template. --Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'd delete, but @Eptalon, don't you think it would make sense to incorporate the graphics into the stub first? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:27, 10 December 2018 (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 13:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Contents pages (header bar)

Template:Contents pages (header bar) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused 2-year-old template. QD was declined right after creation to give time to create the nonexistent module, but the template is still not used. Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2018 (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 not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:25, 10 December 2018 (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 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Enginote

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused, 11-year-old template. Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2018 (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 not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:22, 10 December 2018 (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 13:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Emporis complex

Template:Emporis complex (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused, six-year-old template. Auntof6 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2018 (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 not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete not needed however could be redirected or merged into Template:Emporis. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:21, 10 December 2018 (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 13:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Template:Charlotte Church

Template:Charlotte Church (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused navigational template. Only one link in the body is live, and that one is a redirect to the main article linked in the heading. I checked to see if updating from the enwiki version would gain any blue links, but it didn't. Auntof6 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2018 (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 not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:16, 10 December 2018 (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.  --Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Lukian Wang

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

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable model/actress. No significant coverage found for subject. The awards in the "Career" subsection are not true and unsupported. Operator873^talkconnect 16:35, 30 November 2018 (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 not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:35, 7 December 2018 (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