Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

Policy 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 Edit

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 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 deletionEdit

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|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.
  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/2020/(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 deletionEdit

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 userEdit

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.

DiscussionsEdit

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 discussionsEdit

Corresponding monthsEdit

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

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I mean, we have en:Determination_of_the_day_of_the_week#Corresponding_months which might be related to this. However, the notable concept here is determination of the day of the week and corresponding month is just one of the ways to determine this, corresponding month alone isn't notable per a BEFORE search. I will also note the enwp version is much neater than this version (for the section), and this version here isn't coherent and some of the contents seems original research. I think delete this? There isn't any value of merging with month as it doesn't really fit and is a sub-section of another different page determination of the day of the week. I think delete might be the way for this. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

Delete per above. ShadowBallX (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Robert MimsEdit

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

ShadowBallX has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not meet GNG. ShadowBallX (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete spam, part of a cross-wiki attempt at spamming the subject of the article. See the contribs of the creator on enwiki for more info. JavaHurricane (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per others. Only enwiki admins can see the creator's contributions there, but I confirm that it is as JavaHurricane says (and they are now blocked there for spamming). If this article gets deleted, please ping me so I can handle their commons upload. DMacks (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Abhishek Agrawal (model)Edit

Abhishek Agrawal (model) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Indian influencer/model, in his early 20s. As he likely is nono-notable, I propose deleting the article. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Sources are tinged with PR (or outright PR), and so are not proper evidence of notability. Too little evidence, so delete. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject has decent coverage in local news as the references show. I think it also is in compliance with WP:THREE 117.20.17.178 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It has a decent amount of relevance in India, and has a fairly decent amount of information.


This request is due to close on 10:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Garima PariharEdit

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

82.46.44.65 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Check notability to see whether the person in the article merits her own article. Roles appear to be minor roles and double checked with English Wikipedia and it looks like deleted/redirected her page. 82.46.44.65 (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 12:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


List of UEFA European Championship finalsEdit

List of UEFA European Championship finals (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ShadowBallX has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Info is already on UEFA European Championship. No need for this page. ShadowBallX (Talk) 00:03, 29 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Keep - oh come on, this is a FL in en, and so many other languages. The topic of finals itself is notable for sure. What the page needed is expansion but deletion isn't cleanup. The duplication of info on the main page is due to the fact that someone most likely don't know there;s this sub-page, I will say we can remove those in the main page (it's so cluttered with the infomation of finals where the whole competition isn't that well covered), and put a related page section including this page. There is no reason whatsoever to delete. At the bare minimum, this can be merged /redirected if needed outside a RFD if we think the version here is still very duplicative. I see no reason whatsoever for a delete, where there are alternatives to deletion and a keep is not a far fetch given the FL status on many many wikis. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Camouflaged Mirage. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 00:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


User:TsugaruEdit

User:Tsugaru (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested QD. Tagged by me with rationale, "User:Tsugaru and User:つがる isn't related, no reason to redirect". Creator disagree, and appendix in the below is a short conversation I had with the creator. Note that if this is a valid alternate doppelganger account I will not object, neither will I object if this is a usurpable account (this account have 53 global edits, under current global rename rules, such accounts cannot be ursuped). I will also not object if this is a bad faith account blocked impersonating an established user. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

appendix
Hello, are you sure the user is the right user for redirecting? I don't see confirmation it is they who create the account, care to elaborate? Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Camouflaged Mirage. I created this redirect because this is the romanized version of their username. They have stated this on their user page and Google Translate also has that translation as well. I hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the user isn't this user, there is an user by the roman name. So I don't think it will be good for the redirect as the roman name and the japanese name isn't the same user as far as I can see. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I will ping @つがる: to see if this redirect is OK with them. They should have the final say on what to do with it. Interstellarity (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean that Special:CentralAuth/Tsugaru =/= Special:CentralAuth/つがる and the 1st account isn't related to the 2nd account, why do we redirect the 1st account to the 2nd account? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Here is an example on enwiki: Jimmy Wales redirects to Jimmy's user page even though that account is unrelated to Jimmy's account. Do you think that redirect should be deleted or should it be kept? Interstellarity (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is the difference: Notice that the Jimmy Wales account is an impersonator of Jimbo Wales, and is blocked as such. However, this tsugaru account is a good faith contributor in enwp and jawp which had just left the project. Who are we to create their userpage? Which policy allows us to create userpages for good faith contributors? Let alone a redirect to a completely unrelated account. In addition, tsugaru is a relatively unknown person, unlike Jimbo. So that redirect is perfectly fine as a doppelganger account and it's Jimbo, here it's just a normal user which clearly doesn't warrant this. In additon, I find it puzzling about the googling, let me now say that there is a user with a chinese account name which google translate is Interstellarity, and then I put a redirect on your userpage to that user? Is this acceptable? Since you linked this conversation as a wait statement, this is sort of a deletion issue, your arguments seems like WHYOTHERSTUFFEXIST while quoting Jimmy Wales. Hope you understand where I am coming from. Since this had been contested, I will convert the QD to RFD. Regards, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need to create redirects like this (or any user pages at all, for that matter) for other users, even if they are valid. As for pinging a user to see if the redirect is OK, the user pinged should be the one whose user page has the redirect, not the one the page redirects to. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Chenzw  Talk  13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete While I understand that Interstellarity was being Bold with the redirect, This is going to cause mass confusion, I'm not related to that user, and My username is not meant to impersonate. I will add a "not to be confused with User:Tsugaru" tag on my userpage if needed --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Leah GoodkindEdit

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

82.46.44.65 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:Subject does not appear to be notable. Did not see any reliable stories about the subject. --82.46.44.65 (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC) I support the deletion request. There is zero notability about the subject

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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete - meets neither GNG nor ENT. Chenzw  Talk  13:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete- roles in shows aren't major enough to warrant to meet ENT. No sign of notablity after a google search.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Souhardya DeEdit

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

82.46.44.65 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Please review the notability of the subject in the article. The sources and claims do not seem to meet the general notability guidelines. Please discuss. --82.46.44.65 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 82.46.44.65 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

The subject, as searched up on Google, returns notably to be an Indian author and columnist. It seems like the person asking deletion is in the UK. With regards to notability of the subject, the subject has been covered in top media agencies like India Today, Times of India, NewsX, Associated Press and has author links to India’s largest publication Juggernaut Books. Also, the subject seems to be a podcaster with Apple, Google, Gaana and JioSaavn (under the wing of reliance entertainment). I strongly feel that the subject is notable and that this is simply a lack of Indian notability features on the part of the nominator. Thanks.

comment Other editors may want to note that all the claims about the supposed awards are either added in the subject's bio or self-published sources, and not really from third party reliable sources. --82.46.44.65 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
comment Dear 82.46.44.65, I understand your concern regarding the awards. For your information, I have mentioned only three awards for the author which include India Book of Records 2019, SOF Hall of Fame 2019 and Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society which is the most prestigious honour in South Asian Humanities and was once held by poet laureate Rabindranath Tagore (d. 1941). Also, when I googled up today (something that other editors might like to do too), I found that the subject is also the author of two books (which I had not noticed earlier). The books Scion of Suryavansh (2017) has 5.0/5.0 rating on Goodreads (3 reviews) and the second book The Chronicles of Suryavansh (2019) has 28000+ reviews from Bol.com, a book site from Netherlands. Also, I have provided press coverage and links for every detailed thing. So, Ill be adding these info too. Thanks for your concern.
comment Sorry for disturbing everyone again but the International Peace Prize for Children that the subject had been nominated for in 2020 is an international award hosted by KidsRights Foundation and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee each year. This award has earlier been won by Malala Yousafzai and Greta Thunberg. So, I feel this is a very notable achievement for the subject specified. Thanks
comment Hello all, I’m an Indian and I tried going through the page. I find detailed inline citations for every single statement made except for the FRAS title of the subject’s. But, in the citation provided, we are linked to a news article at Dailyhunt (Verse se Innovation) where it is mentioned that the subject ‘is the youngest ever FRAS). So, I do not find it to be unreliable although more citations for the FRAS title particularly are expected. I also undertook the job of searching up the date of birth and all other info specified. It is very easily accessible on Google which is why I feel that instead of deletion or keeping it in this form, it is necessary to work further on the article as we get to find more references. Hence, the article can be further, over period, modified to attain its best form. Best.

2409:4061:2D80:AA7A:68B9:4CE3:E74:B296 (talk)Keep

  • Not notable. This person is 16 years old, and the information is cooked. For example, the "Royal Asiatic Society of London" is in fact the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland [1]. Its paid-for members are all called "Fellows". So that's worthless. "Being nominated" for a prize is not notable in itself. And so on. This is an unabashed promo. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Notable. I agree that all paid members are called Fellows at the RAS but the subject is an elected honorary member at the Society. It is conferred upon people with exceptional knowledge of South Asian Arts. And paid members are not entitled to use ‘F.R.A.S.’ title. I find certain notability in the subject though not everything is notable. For example, having a podcast on Gaana and Artist profile is good enough to be considered notable. this cannot be an unabashed promo in its entirety. I know since the subject is 16, it already makes him too small for a wiki and administrators would love to have it removed anyways. Thanks.
  •   Delete Sorry, but a Google search does not satisfy my liking (little reliable results). Note that this article does exist within another language Wikipedia too. --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete I looked up for details on Google. Found a lot of reliable content that verify the information given here. But, I personally feel that subject is only 16 now. Going by his bio, it seems that he’s doing lots of multifaceted things like writing, singing, podcasting etc. and I think it is better to have the page removed now. It can be created later if subject exceeds the GNG some months or years after. So, it is better to delete it now. —User:Snehasis6577 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Going by both of the above opinions, it seems that subject is quite notable but not completely. So, why to delete it? I also find some important quotations at WikiQuote by the subject. He is also on another language Wikipedia too. So, it is better to keep the article and add a tag for verification of notability so that editors and we start improving it better. You just cannot delete it because he's 16!

This request is due to close on 13:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:Habesha peoplesEdit

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

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This template had a lot of links to places rather than peoples, so I updated it from the enwiki version, which had only links to things about peoples. However, after I did that, all the links were red. Therefore, I propose deleting the template because it currently serves no purpose here. It can easily be recreated if it's needed. Note: I have removed it from all the articles that linked to it, all of which were about places. Auntof6 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete as unused template. I deleted the article some days ago: What we had was basically an EnWP copy-paste. When I deleted it, the article was close to 60kb of unsimplified text. 3-4 editors kept adding stuff from EnWp, without simplifying. Without at lest a stub about the ethnic group (actually it isn't: several people have different ideas who is part of it), the template is unused, and can be deleted. --Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused template. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Sean Fay WolfeEdit

Sean Fay Wolfe (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

つがる has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am getting a few results from Google, but I'm not sure if this person is notable, so I bring this to RFD. つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:57, 27 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 01:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Lacey DuvalleEdit

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

Pathsw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: not notable, deleted in enwiki en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Duvalle and en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Duvalle (2nd nomination) Pathsw (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

Oh, give this another look. You think this is the basis for an encyclopaedia entry? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross I don't have a comment yet as I am still unable to find time to research, but my concerns is that we shouldn't base our deletion decisions on 2016 AFD from enwp, as things may have changed in the 5 years (almost). If it's a recent 2019/2020 AFD then it's most likely fine. I am just responding to the 2nd part of the nom rationale for delete. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Philosophy (view)Edit

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

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This was originally QD'd as a duplicate, subsequently disputed at DRV. In lieu of the discussion there, I have restored this and am sending this to RFD for discussion. Chenzw  Talk  15:27, 21 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment So I'll re-state the argument here: Look at Hedonism, and compare that with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or look at the Stanford Entry for Liberalism, and compare that to what we have (Liberalism). I currently don't see in what way the making a distinction between philosophy, and a certain school of thought (Liberalism, Hedonism) would help us. And yes, I know, our articles need a lot of work. --Eptalon (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What this aims at is the slack alternate use of "philosophy", namely the system a person forms for the conduct of life. I don't think we should go there, but if we do the corresponding page on En is Philosophy of life. I see this content as just an off-the-cuff spiel, and vote for deletion. I see there's also an En page on the Human condition. I don't think it achieves much. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I largely agree with Eptalon. It is very difficult to expand the article beyond a dictionary entry and I am already trying to improve other articles so that the use of the word "philosophy" becomes less of an issue. This is somewhat the same problem faced by en:School of thought. However, I mostly disagree with Macdonald-ross's assessment. As per my comments on the deletion review, some other solution should be decided upon before deciding to delete the page. I think it will mostly come down to how other articles are worded. Kindly, Oeqtte (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What we have here there isn't much difference between the 2, I will say per what I said at DRV, Redirect to Philosophy might be what is needed here. Whether a page is kept/delete isn't what the amount of content it is, but whether does it fulfill inclusion (such as fulfill GNG / not NOTNEWS etc). The obvious exceptions is that if it meets A1/G1 etc. What content we have here is okay but it's quite hard to tell from the content that this warrants a separate page or not.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.



Recently closed deletion discussionsEdit

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

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph KargboEdit

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

つがる has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't seem to be notable つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:08, 26 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete not notable. --IWI (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Typical attempt at promo. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • DElete a long since globally blocked loser creating hoaxes. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Certainly not notable. At best, is promotional; possible hoax --Technopat (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 01:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

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

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Alex TitusEdit

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

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2020/Titus_Ray, this seems similiar, one is the CEO of the company, this is the President of the company. Doesn't seem notable, QDed by ImprovedWikiImprovment for G11, removed by an anon, since the other is now at RFD, propose this to be discussed also. Promotional in tone too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit


This request is due to close on 18:22, 3 December 2020 (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) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Titus RayEdit

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

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The page is uncertain as to whether he is Ray Titus or Titus Ray, and either way it does not show why he is notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

Delete. While they have added why he might be notable, the company that they said is still not notable. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So I decided to look into more detail, and it turns out he is the founder of Signarama, which is an Advertising company based in Florida, and actually does have some notibility. Keep, but rename the page to Ray Titus. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite have an opinion on this yet, but @ShadowBallX2 might want to read NOTINHERITED (i.e. the company is notable, the founder might not). Anyway, even if the founder is not notable, I think a redirect to the company page should be okay. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue with that would be that the links to the company pages link to the English Wikipedia version of the page, as there is no page for the company here on simple english. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
We can well create a stub for the company, if it's a redirect I'll do a stub. @ShadowBallX2: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
On further consideration Delete - pure spam and not notable. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete not notable. --IWI (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 14:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

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

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. --Eptalon (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Diamond axe studios musicEdit

Diamond axe studios music (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

つがる has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Google doesn't return much besides the Youtube channel itself, Youtube channel doesn't seem to be notable. つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:47, 24 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete self-promotion of a non-notable YouTube channel. --IWI (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete YouTube channel is self-promotion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 21:47, 1 December 2020 (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. Chenzw  Talk  11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC).

Anka TsitsishviliEdit

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fashion designer from Georgia, in her early 30s. We get references, amongst others from Vogue (Russia) or Harper's Bazaar. Article was created by an IP editor, in one edit; external links go to IMDB and Instagram. I propose we delete this; what do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  • Delete Insufficient notability. As the nominator says, only in her early 30's and the mentions of her in the references are brief and/or PR puff pieces. The movie she "starred" in was an 18-minute short with several other "actresses". This article was nominated for deletion on English Wikipedia earlier this year [2], but was quick-deleted instead because it was created by a sockpuppet of the globally locked account Çelebicihan. Çelebicihan is an undisclosed paid editor who created many promotional articles on English Wikipedia for non-notable Russians or non-notable people with careers in Russia. To date he has over 40 sockpuppets Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The evidence for notability is so thin, and the benefits accrued from being on WP are considerable. We should wait for independent external verifications of worth. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 16:17, 29 November 2020 (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. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sociological imaginationEdit

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

Derpdart56 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page has been moved to wikitionary already, just doing some clean up Derpdart56 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2020 (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.

DiscussionEdit

  Comment I will also check the others in the "Pages requested to be moved to Wikitionary" category, and if they have been done, I'll add them to this list. This is just for clean up, like i said. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  •   Keep This is a not a single world dictionary entry. It is a well established concept in sociology. The very brief stub was not that good, but this is a principle worth inclusion in an encyclopedia. See the EnWP article. --Gotanda (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Pure dicdef in current state. No prejudice in keeping if an encyclopaedia article is created. --IWI (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      Keep changing to keep as it is now an encyclopedia article. --IWI (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
      Comment Right. It is now an article stub because I spent 2-3 minutes simplifying a few sentences from EnWP. Something anyone asking for deletion as clean up in this discussion could have done. The previous state of the article was not good, but if half the time on this deletion discussion had been spent on improvement we all would have saved time and had a better wikipedia. Far too fast and aggressive on deletion on some of these. --Gotanda (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Obviously it is a dicdef, and a poor one at that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The article/stub in its current form is not well-suited to be moved to Wiktionary. Yes, what we have is not the best of definitions, but if I understand the EnWP article, we are not looking at a simple word definition. This seems to be a concept from Sociology, and with a little digging, I am certain at least two, if not three positions regarding this can be found. So: yes, it is probably encyclopedic, and it probably deserves an article here. The problem I see though: Writing that article in simple language is probably not an easy task, even for a stub. I am in favor of keeping this, provided we get a 2-3 sentence stub explaining the concept. --Eptalon (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Eptalon. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I know deletion is not clean up, but this is pure dicdef. Will be leaning delete unless someone expands, then defaults to Keep as this is clearly notable topic. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep per above. The sociological imagination is an important concept that is discussed at any sociology undergraduate course, and deletion is not clean up. Chenzw  Talk  15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
But the scrap of a page says "The sociological imagination is seeing the relationship between individual experiences and society". Isn't that exactly what sociology does? It doesn't actually add anything. There's no real content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It could certainly use more work, but we have tens of thousands of articles here with this much "content". Start with a stub. --Gotanda (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 15:36, 26 November 2020 (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 pagesEdit

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=7198183"