Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives [change source]

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletion[change source]

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
  • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  1. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
  • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
  • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  1. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
  • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
  • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
List it here
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  1. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

Quick deletion[change source]

See also: Category:Deletion requests

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

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

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

Notifying the user[change source]

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

Discussions[change source]

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

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

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

Current deletion request discussions[change source]

2027 Cricket World Cup[change source]

2027 Cricket World Cup (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Very much WP:CRYSTALBALL. Way too far in advance if it is even true. DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

  • Delete per nom - its almost a decade away --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Peter Middlebrook[change source]

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

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This looks like a self promotion and advertisement. en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Middlebrook may be of interest. Zaxxon0 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  •  Delete - content seems (paid?) promotional rather than on an actually notable figure. See remarks relating to the cited sources in the EnWp discussion of AfD linked by User:Zaxxon0, above. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete - the external link at the bottom makes it pretty evident. -- Examknowtalk 16:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Stephen Paddock[change source]

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

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The 2017 Las Vegas shooting article could cover all of this, the separate article is unnecessary. IWI (chat) 23:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  • Keep Very clearly meets the notability criteria, almost to the point where it doesn't seem like good faith. Please ensure you follow WP:BEFORE when nominating an article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A clearly notable person. Doesn't fit into BLP1E as there are other notable events around him. The numerous sources in English version should justify. Article needs expansion but not deletion.--Cohaf (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. enwiki article has plenty to justify. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Giorgia Marin[change source]

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

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. Notability is not inherited, and anyway the titles are not current. Not notable as an actress and no other grounds for notability offered. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  • Delete - has been repeatedly deleted on enwiki. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    While I will agree with your !vote below, I'd note that the "repeated deletions" have been in part on grounds that it was a recreation of a page that failed an RfD. At some point, someone is allowed to try to re-establish notability. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If I believe the article, actress that is the descendent of a (well-known?) familly of Italian nobililty. As Macdonald-ross said, notabililty is not inherited, and looking at the article, I don't see a filmography that s overly impressive. Compare the case of en:Alessandra Mussolini: Mussolini is a descendant of Benito Mussolini; she is an Italian politician who heads (?) a right-wing Italian party. While we might argue that this makes Alessandra notable (even though her party has little influence in Italian politics), I do not see a comparable situation with Giorgia Marin. In short: delete--Eptalon (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, and probably salt (semi-protect). (If an autoconfirmed user wants to try to establish notability at some point in the future, that's fine.) StevenJ81 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete - The enwiki delete doesn’t look good and I have concerns about the notability --Examknowtalk 16:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Afreen Khundmiri[change source]

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

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: As of right now, it is being RfD'ed on enwiki. The sources are only blogs and primary sources, and not enough significant coverage. Zaxxon0 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  •  Delete. social media person without suitable sources attesting to her notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete Agree with Macdonald-ross on this.--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete Not Notable Examknowtalk 23:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 22:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Prem Kakar[change source]

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

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This small unwikified article has been around for a while. Article does not have sources at all to claim notability. Zaxxon0 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  • This is a person who would definitely be notable if his achievements were supported by sources, but there are no sources, and En wiki does not have a biog. The degrees which can be checked (eg FRSC) are not grounds for notability. Perhaps someone can search other wikis. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC) If no sources, then delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There appears to be a legitimate doctor who got the Padma Shri on that exact year.  — FR 03:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Curro Romero (snowboarder)[change source]

Curro Romero (snowboarder) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article has content that violates the NPOV rule, may not meet notability guidelines. Zaxxon0 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  • It concerns me that this looks like promotion: put up in one edit by one-time user, additions by another. Content is mainly promotional. Results only so-so, and notability borderline. I'd delete as advertising, and if not edit back to the bare bones. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete obvious advertising Examknowtalk 23:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it just me or is the infobox picture a poor attempt at photoshop? Vermont (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Haha I just looked at it again and it does kind of look like that Examknowtalk 00:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Categories for women by occupation[change source]

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reasons: Unlike English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia doesn't usually have separate categories for women/females by occupation unless there is a particular reason for it. An example of a reason is with female sports competitors, because females compete separately from males.

In most cases, women working in a given occupation aren't any different from men in the the same occupation, but having them in separate categories gives the impression that they are, especially when there is no corresponding category for men.

Having a separate category for women in a profession category removes them from the general list under, for example, Category:Composers; this makes people have to look in a separate place to see the females. Some people may not even notice that the females aren't included under the general category, resulting in a type of segregation or exclusion of the females in the occupation.

Pinging @Hikitsurisan, Macdonald-ross, Ottawahitech: because they created the categories covered in this request.

Note: if the categories named "Women <foo>" are kept, they should be renamed to "Female <foo>".

Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  • In regards to the note saying that the categories should be named female and not women:
In North America the term female when applied to a human, is considered offensive (try googling, say, “women vs females”).Ottawahitech (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Some may consider it offensive, but it's ambiguous. For example, if you call someone a "woman doctor", it's not clear whether the person is a doctor who treats women or a doctor who is a woman. Categories that include both women and girls can't be called "Women <foo>" because women are adults and girls are not. However, if people feel strongly about this, and the categories are kept, then the naming should be standardized. That can be decided when this RfD is closed. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Talking of ambiguity, the term female applies equally to humans, cows, flies, etc Ottawahitech (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
There aren't many animals who are lawyers, rappers, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
So does "men", but we refer to them as "male [whatever]" and not "men [whatever]". Also not really sure where you are in North America; it isnt commonly seem to be offensive here. Vermont (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech, Gotanda: This request is really about categories, not articles (even list articles). If we think lists of women by profession are a problem, that can be in a different discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, I understand they are different and the deletion discussion here is only about the Cats not list articles, but thanks for making sure, Auntof6. --Gotanda (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: Since I was mentioned and since I have some interest in this I'll offer a few thoughts.
1) If kept, we should be consistent and name all Women (Occupation)s as it is simpler. Sidenote: Using female as a noun in common speech or writing is offensive ("How many females were invited?") but is commonly used and inoffensive in some cases as a modifier ("How many female patients were admitted?").
1a) If kept, do we similarly rename a category of Men (Occupation)s?
1b) What do we then do with people who do not fit neatly in a binary system?
2) Regarding the list I created recently by borrowing from EnWP, I did that as a hook and list to start creating more articles about women in linguistics. Linguistics and language education are things i know about and have interest in, so it seemed a natural place for me to work on adding some diversity to the articles here.
3) Like the rest of Wikipedia we have a very poor record of representation of women and minorities here. For example, if I look at the Category:Linguists there are 44 pages of which 9 are about women. I'm pretty sure I created all nine or at least most of them. I'm not particularly proud of that fact. But just pointing out that unless we make a clear effort, this wiki like all the others will be overwhelmingly white and male. That isn't a very good encyclopedia. So, I agree with Auntof6 that "In most cases, women working in a given occupation aren't any different from men in the the same occupation, but having them in separate categories gives the impression that they are" and that that is a problem. At the same time I was using the list to try to highlight the issue and create red links to be filled in later by anyone.
So, yes, Delete but then we need to get our act together here regarding gender and racial diversity and do a better job of representing under-represented people. --Gotanda (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I strongly say keep: categories that focus on women and girls are needed. You know, we should include Female movie directors as a category. I'm a female myself and I advocate for women's rights. I think it's about time we include actresses under the category Actresses, American actresses, Female movie producers, etc. Angela Maureen (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, delete. I think we've been through all this before. There was a lengthy discussion of "actresses", which obviously is a separate word already in the language for the last few centuries. We decided to go for the term "actors" because many female actors preferred it. I thought we decided not to differentiate sexes in general, except in cases like sport, where the two sexes do not usually compete. In most cases (as with "doctor") there is no feminine form in the language, and there needs to be a good reason to make the distinction in categories. I've made the point before that it is ridiculous to have short articles with huge great apparatus surrounding the article. We decided to use a simpler version of categories than En, and we should stick with this idea. It suits our articles better. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: I knew that was the practice, but I didn't remember a specific discussion. If you could remember where it was exactly, I think it would be helpful to link to it here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In most cases, classifying people with an occupation by gender/sex is not meaningful: Example lawyers: Law can generally be studied by men and women alike; I don't see how a female lawyer is different from a male one. Also: Looking at student numbers, about half of them are female; this is not the case when you look at other branches, eg. physics or engineering. Same with doctors: except for perhaps a gynecologist/obstetrician, it makes no difference if the medical doctor is a man or a woman. For the composers catetgory: there are 97 pages, 11 subcategories (one of them women composers, another LGBT composers). Gendering is very nice, but I don't think it serves its purpose here. Oh: by the way: when do we start with the LGBT scientist category? - Alan Turing had problems during his lifetime because he showed signs of being gay...--Eptalon (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The exact naming of the categories is a separate issue from whether there should be separate categories for women. The point of this discussion is whether such categories should exist, regardless of what they are named. If they should exist and we keep these, then we can standardize the names. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I realize you believe these are separate issues. However to me this is putting the cart before the horse. I feel I cannot be party to a discussion that may entrench the use of a derogatory term in Simple. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Ottawahitech has created List of women lawyers to make up for content that would be lost if this was deleted - no comment on the need for either. RhinosF1 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We should definitely keep them. Sounds like people seem to feel that having two categories makes them lesser, but I think it makes them stand out more. Categories are about sorting and making things easier to find. In case of humans, the very first thing that can narrow down a field is obviously sex. To use the Rappers category as an example. We should have Category:Rappers as the parent and then Category:Male rappers and Category:Female rappers as subcategories. It is very likely that a reader might want to search out all the female rappers since they are somewhat of a minority in the rap world. By shoving them all into a singular category it makes them harder to find and does a disservice. The example of why we keep them separate in sports also applies just as much to entertainers, the wider world outside wikipedia separates Actors and Actresses and Male Singers and Female Singers. You just have to look at award shows to know that. We as a Wikipedia entity need to follow what society does, we don't try to affect change ourselves. We are not here to right great wrongs. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
It isn't having two categories that's the issue, it's having only one. Some of these categories have equivalent male ones, but some don't. And following what society does is kind of the reason for this request: women are seen as separate in some areas of life, but not others. As for entertainers, they are separated when it comes to awards, but not so much in daily life. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
And like anything else we do on Wikipedia, we follow what the sources do, if they write about them seperately (as they generally do for entertainers) then we categorize them separately. That being said, I am hard pressed to think of any profession where we don't specifically mention someone is a female whatever. We even do it in my rather non-unique profession. But if there are some out there that aren't often talked about in such a manner then we wouldn't. But in the case of the ones above, we certainly do, articles very regularly talk about female scientists, they certainly do about rappers and politicians. Composers I don't know well enough to say but I would bet when articles talk about a female composer they mention she is female. Remember categories are about things that are defining of a subject, one of the most defining features of any person is the sex they are or aren't. Now whether or not we should define by that, that is a whole can of worms, but it does reflect reality. -DJSasso (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having women based categories, such as American actresses, American female singers, Woman presidents (by country), Female criminals and Actresses by area would be an excellent idea. We should include these categories. Not including them is discriminatory and a bad idea. Angela Maureen (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tropical Storm Angela: Not having articles about females would certainly be discriminatory. Please explain how not having categories for them would be discriminatory. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that sometimes pointing out that someone is female is done to set them apart when there's no need to: it's an obvious trait that may have no importance related to why we care about the person. However, I have just reread en:WP:CATGENDER, which points out when it is valid to have these categories. After considering that, perhaps the following would be a better proposal:
  • Keep most of the categories listed above, all except the one for lawyers.
  • In cases where we have a category for females, either now or in the future, do one of the following, depending on what makes the most sense for the topic: either have a corresponding male category, or have the female category be a non-diffusing subcategory.
What say ye? --Auntof6 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to comment on the issue of grammar, which is important to an encyclopedia. "Female" and "women" are not equivalent words in usage. Female is an adjective, and women is a substantive noun in plural. That's not an opinion, it is a fact, and I have checked it with the Shorter OED. Proper usage is illustrated by this sentence: Susie is a female violinist because she is a woman. So if we keep separate categories for the two sexes, they should present themselves in proper form as "Female Xs" and "Male Xs". An encyclopedia gets used as a reference source, so it should try do do things accurately. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Also, if any of the categories are to include girls, we can't name them "women <whatever>". --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A google search will quickly establish that not everyone agrees that woman is not an adjective. For example I found this in one of the articles I read on this topic: I checked four different dictionaries, and two don't include woman as an adjective (1, 2), one does (3), and the fourth said that when woman is used in the adjective position it's actually an appositive noun and it’s in the process of becoming an adjective (4). So the dictionaries don't give us a clear, definitive answer. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's focus on the categories up for discussion:
  • In almost all parts of the world, politics is open to both sexes, so being a woman doing politics is not special. Even in countries with very strict religious laws do we find female politicians: there are in Iran, and there are in Saudi Arabia. So no to the category for female politricians.
  • Same with the lawyers: Gender/sex is not a defining aspect of being a lawyer. So no to the female lawyers.
  • Female scientists: this is a rather broad category, currently with 30-odd entries. I think splitting it would make sense (in those case where we end up with at least 4-5 people in the subcategory). Classifying the older ones (often "polymath doing ...") might be difficult.
  • Female composers: Most classical composers I know were male, so findig female ones is challenging (And if I were into music theory: In what way are their works different from that of male composers of the same era?). Anyway: imaginably keepable.
  • Female (performing) artists in general: If we find enough to make a category.
I hope this helps find a solution to this issue. --Eptalon (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, and I wouldn't normally say this about most things, but I am positive this has been argued about at en.wiki many times by large numbers of editors. I think this is a situation where we should follow their lead as it will give us a broader view to work from. If they have a category on it, we should have a category on it. And we should rename them to whatever they use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not quite sure where the threading is here. Why not just keep it simple in practice as well as language? A single category for each profession without gender-based categories seems very simple. That is one other reason why I think all should be deleted. Lists offer better visibility and greater flexibility if and whn needed. -- Gotanda (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To be honest that would likely end up in POV territory if we lumped them all together as in professions where women are less common they would be drowned out by the sheer number of men in the category. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive either. -DJSasso (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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


Recently closed deletion discussions[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy moved Delete discussion not required for a technical move. Just ask an admin to move the page over the redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Tarō Asō[change source]

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

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Article should be moved here to move the same page name with diacritics: Tarō Asō. Many wikis have the same title. Zaxxon0 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 00:03, 30 May 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. Complete speculation, consensus to delete. Vermont (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

Grand Theft Auto VI[change source]

Grand Theft Auto VI (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Zaxxon0 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Original research on a video game that is yet to be announced, may violate the crystal ball rule. Zaxxon0 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  •  Delete Sure does look like it --Examknow (lets chat!) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Vague crystal ball floating in the distance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 01:48, 19 May 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. QDd as not notable--BRP ever 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

Печкуров Олексій[change source]

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

Cohaf has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: QD by Jdx for self promotion for an LTA declined. Lacks notablity, google searches came out nothing. Links in pages are in foreign languages which seems promotional when translated, English links the same. With this, lack of notablity and hence delete. I didn't go for an A4 is a music writer may be a claim of notablity. Cohaf (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

This request is due to close on 11:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


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

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Withdrawn after template was put to use. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:1949–50 NBA Central standings[change source]

Template:1949–50 NBA Central standings (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused NBA template related to NBA season that we don't have any articles on. Auntof6 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

  •  Delete I would like to know why this template was even made???--Examknow (lets chat!) 16:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I am going to go ahead and change my vote to  Keep because as @Djsasso has said, it is now used in a few pages and if there are more that are going to be made, then we should probably keep it. --Examknowtalk 00:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I missed that it had been put to use. I'll withdraw and close the RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It is used on page. It was created to be used on a page (and other future pages) that was speedy deleted but has since been restored. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It is now used on three pages and will likely be added to a few more. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 03:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


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


Related pages[change source]