Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
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

Shortcut

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 lead.
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.
  3. 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|not 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.
  3. 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/2024/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  4. 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!

If this is too complicated for you, there are some gadgets like Twinkle that you can use. This allows you to do it faster.

Quick deletion

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Quick deletion

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) 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 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.
  • Requests for deletion is not a war zone. You can click here for more information, although the page is not in Simple English.

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

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) 07:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Eddine Saadouni

Salah Eddine Saadouni (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Lord Belbury has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable student, article repeatedly deleted at English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salah_Eddine_Saadouni) Lord Belbury (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 15:05, 16 June 2022 (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. We can work on definition, but since this is one of the BE850 terms, we cannot really delete the article, or redirect anywhere. I think the current definition is workable.--Eptalon (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damage

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

Rubbish computer has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Currently just a dictionary definition. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my User talk) 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is. The page should be kept, and not merged. To have explanations of words in our Simple basic vocabulary seems sensible. This one is pretty thin. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eptalon, I'm ok with it being kept now it has been improved, especially as it is one of the 850 basic English words. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my User talk) 15:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 14:21, 16 June 2022 (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. 

Hardliner

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

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not encyclopedic. Dictionary definition. Gotanda (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 04:07, 16 June 2022 (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) 07:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardline

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

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not encyclopedic. Dictionary definition. Gotanda (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


This request is due to close on 04:07, 16 June 2022 (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) 07:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Özlem Sarıkaya Yurt

Özlem Sarıkaya Yurt (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Claim of notability put forward: She won the Best Morning Generation Presenter award twice, thus not really qualifying for A4. However, it appears that most coverage of her appear after she had died. Otherwise, no significant coverage. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


This request is due to close on 22:14, 15 June 2022 (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) 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse by proxy

Abuse by proxy (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable psychology term without significant news coverage or academic research. Linked to already deleted flying monkeys. No reliable citations, just a blog. Gotanda (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Disagree I have to disagree with the nominator. This is a valid term and has many sources. It needs to be expanded. Domestic violence by any means in the United States is not tolerated and is a valid topic to be on here, simplified of course.--PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have many reputable sources for this, please bring them. Saying they exist is not enough. The cited Carla Coreli refs are not reliable. A news search for the phrase "Abuse by proxy" gets nothing reliable or relevant. Google Scholar gets mostly Munchausen by proxy. Gotanda (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 22:03, 14 June 2022 (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.  --Ferien (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tajdary (2nd nomination)

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Deleted before (see here). Claims to have better sourcing than before, so I propose going through an RFD, instead of quick-deleting. So: is this person notable, and worthy of inclusion in this wikipedia? Eptalon (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good morning, voting time has ended and three votes have been registered to save this article, please close the poll to keep the article on Wikipedia, thank youRazeasheghi (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 - First source appears to only be a press release about him winning a match, second source only mentions him briefly - not in depth, third source is not in depth either, neither is the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth sources. Tenth source looks like it may be significant, but it turns out to be an interview. Still not notable. Fehufanga (Talk) 22:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep-the article is credible and deserves to stay on wikipedia because it is about a person who is well known in wikipedia for acting, singing and sports.
wep actor :it is valid if a person has a private role in several prestigious films and series and has also won acting awards.he has starred in more than five prestigious iranian films and series and has also won three acting awards from france, russia and iran,
links :10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,20.
wep MMA:If a person has won three MMA competitions or has won the highest ranking in an MMA organization, he is well known according to Wikipedia.
He has won the highest title in (Budo martial arts) and (world Jaguar federation)
links:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,25.
wep singer:If a singer's songs have been used in various series and movies or given concerts in different cities, it is well known according to Wikipedia.his works have been used in (special love line) series, (bi ghanoon) film, (the butterfly) film and tv series (uncensored with ali tajdary)
links:16,23,24,25.
he is qualified to stay in wikipedia in three specialties, all sources are reputable iranian news sites, lets not forget that we are talking about an iranian and we should not expect his news to be in the newyork times.Razeasheghi (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep-The article is valuable and it is better to be in simple wikipedia,there are valid links from iranian and international news sites in this article.there is no good reason to delete this article--Mehdinasiri123 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep

according to the links in this article, he has significant qualifications in mma sports, acting and singing, and has acted in various films and series and won awards. also, links 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 25 in he has written a complete description of his artistic activities and winning awards. links 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 25 give a complete description of his competitions, which he has become the champion of two organizations in mma sports. the article is complete and should not be deleted.--5.209.173.156 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Obvious attempt at self-promotion. All the keep votes are mostly done by IP addresses or by users whose only contribution was to vote on this RfD. I cannot find anything remotely close to the subject outside of user-created content. If you notice at the top, the creator of the article thinks the discussion is closed and it is worth keeping, however, has not provided anything more than originally presented. I also request that the article be salted since this is the 2nd nomination to save the volunteers time.PotsdamLamb (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    more than eleven authoritative sources have been added to this article. meanwhile, this article has gone to ali tajdari in the google panel and the people who search for him enter this page and vote and are iranian because ali tajdari is an iranian. time for this poll it is over and according to the rules, your vote should not be counted.pay attention to the end time of this poll and then express your opinionRazeasheghi (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, an administrator can close or extend this discussion at anytime they feel it is necessary. PotsdamLamb (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note: Razeashegh, Mehdinasiri123 and both IPs have a total of 2 edits combined that are not dealing with this subject. While anyone can contribute to a discussion, the opinions of actual editors tend to carry more weight than those of random people who just come to voice an opinion on a single article when that article gets nominated for deletion. It is hard to not envision images of socks and canvassing when this happens. Even AGF has its limits. Pure Evil (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No amount of references will ever make this person notable. Until he actually does something that is notable, salt and quick delete any attempt to add under a variant name. Recreation should also be considered as disruptive editing and treated as such. Pure Evil (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the above users have only complained about iranian users and have not been able to find fault with the article, the article is valid. there are more than twenty valid links in this article and the importance of the article is quite clear.

it is better for iranian users to comment on this article because they can comment on it better. my vote is to preserve the article--5.113.193.252 (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC) This request is due to close on 16:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.[reply]

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.  --Ferien (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Taloni

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

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Previous deletion discussion ended with a QD G11. My previous rationale was: Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable sources. The claim that her YouTube channel is one of the most subscribed in Africa is also likely false. Draft was rejected on enwiki: en:Draft:Soufia Taloni. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 03:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • A search reveals a number of social media sites, and a frwp article that is also up for deletion. When I read the article, I don't see anything that would make the person notable. Being a dancer/artist ist a job like any other. Being transgender is no grounds for notability. Where are the achievements/awards, where is the independent coverage? - So, likely a delete, on grounds of notability--Eptalon (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there is enough coverage in reliable sources here. Also if we keep the article it needs to use the right pronouns, this article uses a bit of both. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my User talk) 11:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 03:07, 13 June 2022 (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) 17:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casetoo

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

Rubbish computer has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 18:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 18:45, 12 June 2022 (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) 17:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpuffsploitation

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

Rubbish computer has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear notable enough for a separate article Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 18:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 not even clear what Powerpuffsploitation is, and the page does not attempt to explain what it exactly is. I can't see how Teen Titans Go! would be a parody of The Powerpuff Girls in any way. This seems to be a neologism that's very much limited to a limited section of The Powerpuff Girls community centering around fan canon. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 18:36, 12 June 2022 (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. Or article had no sources, and there's an EnWP artile, which is also very short, and also has one source (en:Kodlamane). So I guess its best to delete it; if recreated please provide multiple, idelly independent sources for notability--Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kodlamane Shree Vishnumurthy Temple

Kodlamane Shree Vishnumurthy Temple (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Rubbish computer has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not seeing significant coverage from searching, not notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 18:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


This request is due to close on 18:26, 12 June 2022 (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) 15:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playtime All-Stars!

Playtime All-Stars! (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Lights and freedom has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Probably fake Lights and freedom (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 19:09, 10 June 2022 (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) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-chan (2nd nomination)

Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-chan (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Repeated re-creation of this. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Bludgeoning+Angel+Dokuro-chan Gotanda (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 00:40, 10 June 2022 (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.  --IWI (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-One-Reseed

Template:16TeamBracket-One-Reseed (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unused template created in 2017. For what it's worth, enwiki deleted theirs earlier this year due to being unused. We don't have to follow enwiki, but since nothing there uses it, nothing we bring over from there would need it, either. Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 23:34, 9 June 2022 (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. Unclear scope - I currently don't understand why an Establishments in ... or Disestablishments in ... cateogry shouldn't contain entries, and only subcategories. Also, the request should have been closed about a month ago; so closing this as a keep. If re-submitted, please do smaller requests, with more explanation--Eptalon (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disestablishments in Brazil

Category:Disestablishments in Brazil (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Category:Disestablishments in China (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Disestablishments in South Korea (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Belize (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Cambodia (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Croatia (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in El Salvador (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Guatemala (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Jamaica (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Morocco (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Myanmar (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Nepal (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in North Korea (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Syria (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in the United Arab Emirates (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:Establishments in Zambia (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I propose deleting the categories listed below. They are all establishment or disestablishment categories by country, and all contain only articles, not subcategories. Most of the articles in the categories are for organizations (companies, football clubs, etc.), settlements (cities, towns, etc.), or subdivisions (for example, provinces).

I assume many of the articles are there because there weren't enough entries to make a "by time" category, but I don't think it's helpful to put articles directly in these categories. If they are in any kind of establishment (or disestablishment) category, they should be in an "establishment by time" type of category. For example, if we're going to list settlements individually here with no dates, we might as well put entire settlement categories in them instead. If a settlement is in a country, it's usually the case that it was established there at some point, so we shouldn't need to put it under establishments without a date of some kind. The same is true for some of the other kinds of subjects covered by the articles in these categories. (Can a building or structure be said to have an establishment date? For what it's worth, enwiki doesn't categorize them that way -- not that we have to follow enwiki.)

Here is the list of categories being nominated, with a breakdown of the kinds of things that are in each. (Note: by "former incarnation," I mean a former incarnation of all or part of the country in question. For example, the Russian SSR would be a former incarnation of Russia.)

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

  • @Auntof6: I don't have any opinion but as I recall, almost all of the Cambodia establishments ones could fall into a singular 20th-century one which I thought would be a bizarre categorization. It may be able to create decade categories from there (I haven't looked at it in a long time) but I think it's better as placeholder categories than not having them to later see if enough pages exist for categorization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ricky81682: I guess we'll have to disagree on placeholder categories. I prefer to create categories when they're ready to be created, not to have a collection point for things that might go into some future category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 Except the future categories would probably exist already. It's just a need for categorization as I doubt we have only articles on like 10 establishments in those nations. Either way, I see your point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ricky81682: If the categories existed already for those being discussed here, wouldn't they be subcategories of the ones listed above? For example, the Zambian political party Patriotic Front was founded in 2001; wouldn't there be a category for 2001 establishments in Zambia if the category existed already? -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep,  Delete, and expand. With so many subjects, there is bound to be multiple feelings. For most cases, the creation or end of a subject needs to be tied to a time frame for it to be useful. Not all things need this connection. Things that are created can find a created category useful but not essential. When a building or monument first opened to the public or when a ship went into commission can be valid uses but they normally need a time frame. In some cases, organizations and such things can survive with just their point of origin if the full information is not available. This is especially true for international organizations and companies but these things are almost always tied to a geographic category so this one is redundant without a date most of the time. In most of these cases, though, the information is available and should be used. For example the category with a group of settlements. The founded dates for those places is known somewhere and they could be separated by time frame. Just being established in a country serves no purpose as it just duplicates another category. "when" is the important part there, not "Where" For many of these categories, there are more articles that could fill them out a bit but that would require a great deal of effort. There certainly are more than 3 articles on this wiki on subjects that were created or established in South Korea. While true for some, it is not true for all. There are likely many countries where there is a very small number of articles and a category of this type is not useful. It is highly unlikely that there is a need for something like Category:Establishments in Togo, for example. It all comes down to a question of if there are enough articles for it to be of use and if anyone is willing to put in the effort needed to handle it properly. Pure Evil (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that I'm not saying we should never have these categories. I'm just saying that in their current state they aren't useful. Yes, they could be expanded, but we currently don't have enough valid entries in some of them; in those cases, they can always be recreated if we delete them now. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to have a risk of being a train wreck. But maybe the train will arrive at the station. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 09:15, 2 June 2022 (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. I think there is enough consensus here to move forward with a deletion. Reviewing all of the pages, I'm not sure much of the information would be suitable for inclusion into the International Mathematical Olympiad article. However, if somebody would like to try and do some merging, I am definitely not opposed to restoring and moving to a sandbox for that work to be done. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albania at the International Mathematical Olympiad

Albania at the International Mathematical Olympiad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Algeria at the International Mathematical Olympiad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Angola at the International Mathematical Olympiad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
China at the International Mathematical Olympiad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Spain at the International Mathematical Olympiad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
United States at the International Mathematical Olympiad (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does every country participating in the IMO deserve an article about their participation? In the Albanian article most of the references are mere passing mentions of either <country>, or <country>'s participation in the IMO. In the other articles, there are news coverages and some papers cited, but can the coverage of each country's participation be significant and in-depth as other events such as the Olympics, and where it's worth covering each participating country? — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 07:50, 18 May 2022 (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. Closing this long-overdue RfD. Going through the issue: There may be territories, which are British, but not part of the UK (Falklands, Channel Islands, posibly Girbraltar,...), which can have nobiility. In this case, it make sense to keep them as British nobility, not UK nobility. In short: we are probably better of keeping this than deleting it.We might as well re-discuss. At the moment, this is a keep, though--Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British nobility

Category:British nobility (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Category:United Kingdom nobility (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: We have Category:United Kingdom nobility and Category:British nobility, both have similar categories in - for example UK has British Dukes, British has British Dukes and Duchesses. I can't seem to find a reason for having the category British nobility in the category United Kingdom nobility. I think it's appropriate to delete one of them and move all the contents to the other. --Ferien (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: I think the logic here is that United Kingdom nobility is for people who were in peerages of the United Kingdom specifically. British nobility could include that, but would also include people in peerages that existed before the United Kingdom (pre-UK England, pre-UK Scotland, etc.). I'm not saying the current setup is organized well, but we may need both. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With the pre-UK England peerages, they could go in English nobility and if we had more pages in these cats, the best solution here imo would be to split them by century like enwiki, as the century is quite important here in determining whether they got the peerage before the UK was formed or after. However, we don't have many pages right now in these cats so just a split by "country"/"principality" of the UK could do the job. --Ferien (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete British nobility, as it should be covered by the categories for each constituent country of the UK.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 15:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a few who are peers of both parts of Ireland (they have to choose which parliament they will attend when they accede to the peerage). We are lucky they didn't create peerages for the Channel Islands (which actually are not part of the UK) or the Isle of Man (which is, oh well, it's a dependency). These quite important islands have their own jurisdiction, and their relationship to the UK is a bit slippery. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the United Kingdom is the name of the state, so it's the most inclusive term and should be the top term in the category. It's open to question whether the category needs sub-categories. Perhaps it does. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ferien, Auntof6, Fehufanga, and Macdonald-ross: According to enwiki, the en:Peerages in the United Kingdom consist of the Peerage of England (before 1707), the Peerage of Scotland (before 1707), the Peerage of Great Britain (1707-1801), the Peerage of Ireland (before 1801), and the Peerage of the United Kingdom (after 1801). These are mostly based on when a monarch decided to make these titles, not where the person is from. Ex: Peers of the United Kingdom could be from any of the 4 parts of the UK. If these are kept, they should probably be moved to more specific titles. In particular, "British" is ambiguous; it could either mean "Peerage of Great Britain" or "any peerage on the island of Great Britain (as opposed to Ireland)" or "any peerage from the UK (including Northern Ireland, and the rest of Ireland which used to be part of the UK)". Lights and freedom (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, :en:Peerage of Ireland says that some of the titles relate to places now in the country of Ireland, instead of Northern Ireland. I don't know if those peers actually live in the country of Ireland, or not. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the last point, there's no requirement for peers to live anywhere in particular. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it makes sense to sort them by which peerage they are part of, instead of if they're English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. I don't think Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was a Scottish noble. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his wasn't an inherited peerage: it was created for him. The choice of named places has always been political on the part of sovereigns for hundreds of years. It meant "You are my man in this area". Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to go into this further, but: the word "Britain" usually means pertaining to England, Wales and Scotland (hence "British", the adjective). "United Kingdom" originally meant Britain plus Ireland. With the separation of Eire, it came to mean Britain plus Northern Ireland. There are also British Overseas Territories, and Crown Dependencies. These are generally not included in the term "Britain or "Great Britain". But they may be British all the same (e.g. Falkland Islands). Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However the terms are used in the "real world," Wikimedia projects use "British" as the adjective for the UK, just like they use "American" for the US. It has to be standardized so that people don't have to keep discussing what the terms mean.
Of course, that doesn't apply to projects that have phased out use of the adjectives altogether, which removes a lot of the confusion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: So first off, it is my understanding British Nobility is the immediate family and does not extend beyond that. However, does British fall under UK? Are there other noble people who report to the UK Nobility? To me they seem to be a mix of things, as I know it, UK and British are used interchangeably throughout articles when in the infobox it will say under British or UK rule. IMO, I think we should just use one version, which would be the highest level of UK and not British, only because UK encompasses all of the lands they own/run. Also, with the caveat that the immediate family should be the only ones in the British Nobility cat. Just my two cents or my 2p. :) PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: en:British nobility says "British nobility is made up of the peerage and the landed gentry." That includes people with certain titles, including duke/duchess, marquess/marchioness, earl/countess, viscount/viscountess, baron/baroness, and lord/lady, along with certain others. It also includes their immediate families. Some of those people are also royalty, but most are not.
As for the term British, that is the term that is generally used here as an adjective for things related to the United Kingdom. It gets more complicated when talking about things that predate the formation of the United Kingdom. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Why do they have to be so complicated? lol. So I guess with you clearing that up for me @Auntof6 I would say let us keep both CATs then and use them as intended. It is not the first time nor the last time people will be in identical cats. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: There are historical reasons for it. They may be less relevant today, but some people love their traditions. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Works for me. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 11:40, 15 May 2022 (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.

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  Keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Ynares

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

Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to fail w:WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG --Ferien (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Seems to probably meet en:WP:NPOL, depending on how it is read. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office ... This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.". She has been elected to the highest office of en:Rizal, which is a province in the Philippines. Apparently the Philippines is a unitary state, not a "federal system", but it might be considered a "similar system of government". Nevertheless, Rizal has over 3 million people, similar in population to Utah or Wales, so I consider it to be a notable position. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Lights and freedom's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my User talk 14:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 21:22, 8 June 2022 (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) 06:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dagar Tudu

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

MathXplore has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Actor BLP removed from EN per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dagar_Tudu, recently protected. The article says she got award but no explanation about her discography/filmography. Most of the web search results are wiki mirrors, YouTube videos, IMDB and social media etc. MathXplore (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 11:50, 8 June 2022 (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) 06:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garland Testa

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

Gordonrox24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I've declined an A4 QD for this article, and am instead going to an RfD. I believe writing for notable shows is at least a claim to notability. It does appear this writer has been nominated for awards, but has not won. Up to the community to decide. Gordonrox24 | Talk 05:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request is due to close on 05:20, 8 June 2022 (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.



Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=8270614"