Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives Edit

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/2019/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  1. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

Quick deletionEdit

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

  • 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

NOW EntertainmentEdit

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: American record label, originally listed for quick deletion (A4 - notability). The article features almost 20 refrences, and isn't written in a promotional tone. Since record labels are not my world, I'd prefer to go through a regular RfD, rather than do a quick deletion. What does the community think? Eptalon (talk) 08:33, 23 January 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: None of the current soruces establish notability and most of them are not even reliable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Jonathan FoleyEdit

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

Brantmeierz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Looks like a standard self-promotion article. Very hard to find any results indicating notability when searching (this article itself is one of the top results) and the page being essentially a list of mentions (and a personal website) seems to be scraping up every possible online reference for recognition Brantmeierz (talk) 23:00, 21 January 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 promotional. It's already been deleted on enwiki for the same reason. Desertborn (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Delete Self-promotion devoid of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Has actually been speedy deleted three times on enwiki, as Jonathan Foley [1], as Jonathan David Foley [2], and as Draft:Jonathan Foley [3]. The creators of those pages were all blocked for sockpuppetry [4] [5] [6] and are linked to two very large paid-editing sock farms. Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


GranvilleEdit

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

Brantmeierz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Single sitcom character, probably not significant enough to warrant a wiki page itself Brantmeierz (talk) 19:15, 21 January 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 19:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Paola SantanaEdit

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

Beaneater00 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: this person has no enwiki page or in any other language, could not find many sources from duckduckgo search but linkedin, lots of sources do not concern her but instead her drone company or things related to drones, many sources from obscure sites, user who created page (Special:Contributions/Shenilyy) has done nothing other than make this page Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 07:01, 20 January 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 nom. Desertborn (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold. First of all, having no enwp or other language pages aren't a reason to delete pages. Someone who done nothing but to create this page is a SPA (Single Purpose Account) but that doesn't mean we delete all SPA articles. Since the nom find lots of sources according to her company, please allow time to evaluate the sources. Unless this is a UPE/COI case (which can be), there is no grounds to delete the article as it is relatively well sourced. If I have the time I will do sources review but the nom rationale isn't that sound. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Seems not that complicated overall, source 1 is from CNET and give an in depth interview coverage of the subject, source 2 is from Business Insider which mentioned her well, this way pass the independent, multiple, in depth coverage of WP:GNG. I don't see any major self promotion. I still think this can be a sophisicated UPE piece, but having no edvidence otherwise, I am compelled by AGF to   Keep--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


A1ZZ6 CipherEdit

A1ZZ6 Cipher (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unremarkable cipher, also see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/ARBZCXDSET Cipher Chenzw  Talk  04:49, 19 January 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 This is about a fictional device in a children's television show, and there are only two sentences. There is no formatting or wikicode. In general, a bad article that is not notable. Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 07:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  Delete I'd be okay with having it mentioned in Gravity Falls, but it's not notable enough for its own article. I also can't figure out for the life of me what "the number of how many letters in the alphabet you went ahead." is supposed to mean. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  Delete Another substitution cipher. If really wanted, should be a section in the Gravity Falls article. --Eptalon (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


This request is due to close on 04:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Battle passEdit

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

Beaneater00 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, bad writing, no formatting, images, interwiki links or other article links, no references, generally very bad article. Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 15:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 15:27, 16 January 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 15:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Template:ScienceNewsEdit

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

Djsasso has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not appropriate for article space. Was deleted on en.wiki for basically the same reason... Essentially essay like material. DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Also:

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

  • I'd be okay with moving this into the author's userspace if he wants, but I don't see why this is a template, so   Delete at this time. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah I should note I am ok with that as well. That was the solution over on en.wiki too I think for all 3. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: In that case, you may want to tag the original pages with G7. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: - Thanks for your comment - not sure re G7 (newbie w/ some of this) - tag pages w/ => {{sd}} - or something else? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Yes, just go and add {{qd|g7}} to the top of all of the template pages. Does this answer your question? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I noticed you denied the page sole creator G7. There is a consensus here that this can be G7. Can you just allow the author wishes? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If no one has said keep in the rfd and he is the sole contributor then it can G7 but since I nominated it I won't take action. -DJSasso (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Part of the G7 criterion is "created by mistake". This was created five months ago: page creators usually know sooner if it was a mistake, and if it was a mistake they don't update it so many times after creation. The better option might be to close this RFD early if people are anxious to get the page deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but a mistake doesn't really have a time limit for when they realized it was a mistake. Generally if a user is the only author of a page they can have it speedied. Time or number of edits never really comes into it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Mike Mort (animator)Edit

Mike Mort (animator) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I suspect this is a hoax, but am not sure. The article was created by the same person who inserted the subject's name into articles about various TV shows. Auntof6 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 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 tried to verify his year of birth, pulled the information from this simple english wikipedia article. no other sources seemed to mention him at all (only other people named mike mort). Computer Fizz (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Colonization Commemoration Day (Nepal)Edit

Colonization Commemoration Day (Nepal) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Macdonald-ross has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Claims notability but that is challenged. The challenge reads: "Non-significant-This is a disingenuous article related to a group in Nepal that hold inflammatory and extremist views. This article fails on the significance of the day, as it is not observed at all apart from the few in the group that hold this though". Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:39, 13 January 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. This article is the opposite of popular belief and is not significant. The writer of this page has created many POV articles and this is one of those IMO.--BRP ever 11:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 10:39 22:46, 20 23 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

  Administrator note: reset days to 7 days from day I moved it into the RfD list -- Enfcer (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


Vita KinEdit

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

Computer Fizz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: many sources seem to be passing mentions, promotional writing with the biography being a list of achievements, probable paid editing by the ips in the same range, draft was also denied on enwiki for the same reasons and showed up here 3 days later Computer Fizz (talk) 21:28, 15 January 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 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


User:Tiger Gang/SandboxEdit

User:Tiger Gang/Sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: WikiProject page not edited in several years, not since the owner was indeffed. No apparent contributions from the project -- things that might otherwise look like progress are redlinked. Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 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

  • What is the benefit of holding RfD's for every not-currently-used userspace project page rather than slapping a historical tag on it? Seems to me that the only result is a waste of a bit of time. Vermont (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Depends on the page itself. Sometimes its to prevent things from showing up in searches. Other times it prevents them from showing up in automated listings of pages. Remember our Afd also acts as prod and as Mfd would on en.wiki. No one has to actually comment on the deletion discussion and it will just get deleted so it doesn't even have to waste any time. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Also to my knowledge on EN we never mark peoples sandboxes as historical so IMHO I don't see why we'd need to do that here. Delete as per nom and DJSasso. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Owner being indeffed and the page not being edited doesn't mean that deleting this would help the wiki, procedural   Keep. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically it could because its categorized as a wikiproject which could lead users to believe it is a wikiproject. -DJSasso (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Usually would be against removing userpage/subpage content, but given the user's status and page's status as a dead WikiProject proposal deletion is appropriate cleanup. Brantmeierz (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:49, 22 January 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) 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Newa Autonomous StateEdit

Newa Autonomous State (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

BRPever has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. Article was deleted on enwiki too and I agree with the reasoning there, The debate over autonomy and provinces in Nepal is already over and there is no such state, this article is misleading. BRP ever 11:56, 13 January 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

  • First hit on Google is SEWP. Yay, we're notable. :) Facebook, and other social media sites. Anyway: delete as non-notable--Eptalon (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - might find a place as a section in another article (perhaps about civil disobedience/independence movements in that country), but not as a standalone article. Chenzw  Talk  13:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 11:56, 20 January 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. --BRP ever 10:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

PointdexterEdit

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Contested quick deletion; looks like a band that has done two albums, and a number of singles, in about 10 years of existence. Doing a google search brings up SEWP before the band name, so the band likely isn't quite that notable yet. Also going through regular RfD to provide time to add reliable (third-party) sources to the article; dear community: is it worthwhile spending time on this article, to make it keepable? Eptalon (talk) 23:23, 14 January 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. Purely local band (Sacramento, California and adjacent counties). All recordings are self-published. The "references" are either self-published, on sites which solicit artist listings, or simple event announcements at non-notable venues, i.e. a rural county fair and a free lunchtime concert at a student club. The only remotely independent coverage I could find was this from 2008, a piece in the student newspaper of California State University, Sacramento. It would comprehensively fail the notability criteria for bands on English Wikipedia. An editor there with the same name as the band's founder repeatedly tried to turn a redirect into an article about the band until they were threatened with a block in 2018 [7]. This version on Simple is pretty clearly the work of one or more paid editors (uploaded in one edit and fully formatted including references and tables [8]). The text is fluent and grammatical, despite the poor English used in the creator's edit summaries on English WP: [9], [10]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:23, 21 January 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. --BRP ever 10:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

Pollito TropicalEdit

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

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Youtube personality, from Cuba. Notability is doubtful; there is a FRWP article, which has a status of "admisibililty to verify" for at least half a year. Google search reveals a number of social media sites, but nothing substantial. Therefore: Person probably not-notable in an encyclopedic sense, propose deletion. Eptalon (talk) 19:41, 6 January 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

  • Admin note: Extending the close date because there have been no comments. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete as not notable. Social media likes don't count, and the biog does not have any reliable sources to support his notability. Like all the communist countries, Cuba has a range of internal awards, which are notably lacking in this case. There is simply no case for notability, and this could well have been QD'd. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete. Notablity I am unsure, as 1 million sub youtubers typically get some sort of notablity. A good list of enwp AFD to refer to will be en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#AfD_discussions. I see anything below 1 million typically will be deleted, any conceivable chance of survival will be at above 1 million, where like 10 million is almost notable. (Referring to the AFDs themselves, not this page as it's not policy / guideline). So most likely shouldn't be QD as A4. I will say sources are mostly primary / promotional. It seems promotional in tone too. So Delete. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:41, 13 January 2020 20 January 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   DeleteChenzw  Talk  04:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

AstronismEdit

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

Brantmeierz has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The only sources I have found for the subject are its official site (where all references in the page currently link) and various wiki/public postings by the individual who created it. It does not seem to have any actual following or third parties reporting on it in any way. Brantmeierz (talk) 02:48, 12 January 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 was already discussed in a previous RFD: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Astronism, which ended as delete. I don't think much has change however in terms of it's significance. Zaxxon0 (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns regarding the subject's notability, but it is a new religious movement nonetheless and it does have a reported membership. The scale of the following of its proprietor's social media network and other publication channels also demonstrates certain level of adherence, even if this does not equate to the size of other new religious movements. Nonetheless, it is a new religious movement which is indisputable hence why it has been categorised as such. I was sure to limit the article's content only to information verified on the religion's official sites to ensure accuracy. Whatever the outcome of this page is, it might be harsh to presume that no changes have been made to the religious movement's significance since the page's previous deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.143.114 (talkcontribs)
  •   Delete as not notable. Way not notable! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete It has no sources to attest to the notoriety. Article uses only primary sources. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 02:48, 19 January 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. Wikipedia shouldn't be the playground of feuding reddit users; also notability issues.--Eptalon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

WyvernkeeperEdit

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

Beaneater00 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: this article is the name of a specific reddit user who the creator of this article does not like, earlier the creator created an article here saying "Wyvernkeeper is a liar, similar to Donald Trump and Boris Johnson" which is very much not NPOV; an individual user of reddit is not the same as the website itself, there is no way this could be a misspelling, and i do not see any other reason for there to exist a redirect here - see also JustARandommer Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 05:55, 18 January 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: Redirects can be between related things, not just misspellings or alternate spellings. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I've still seen R3 used for things besides typos. I see no reason why Wyvernkeeper should redirect to Reddit in this situation, he's not notable enough in his own article and there shouldn't be an article at this title at all even if that's a redirect. For all the good pages that are getting QDed, this RfD concerns me. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
R3 clearly doesn't apply here, since this title isn't anything like the name of the redirect target. Also, when a subject isn't notable enough for its own article, that is often a very good reason to have a redirect instead. However, I'm not saying that's a reason to keep this specific page. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - The user is neither famous nor infamous on reddit; only 2 of the top comments broke the 1,000 comment karma mark, while even the most controversial comment was a mere -3 karma. Looking at the contribution history of this /48 IPv6 range leads me to believe that this is more indicative of a personal attack on an otherwise unremarkable redditor. Chenzw  Talk  06:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chenzw: I've been discouraged from using numbers as a sign of notability before, but if there's no explanation on how he is notable, then it should be assumed not so. I also agree with you that it's intended as a personal attack. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment (as I have already nominated this article for deletion): It is true that this article is tangentially related to Reddit, as this is an article about one of 330 million (2018 statistic from) Reddit users. However, the user who created this article clearly does not like Wyvernkeeper, as evidenced by its original text: " #REDIRECT Reddit". I also could not find any references outside of Reddit, or on any other Wikipedia, to this Wyvernkeeper, so there is no reason that this redirect had ought to exist. Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 06:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  Delete per my comments above Computer Fizz (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete in agreeance with Chenzw's comments Brantmeierz (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Some sort of disruptive activity going on these days, see recent RFDs/QDs, some are clearly created by a user with personal vendetta against some reddit user. This should be speedy close. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as an attack page. Zaxxon0 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • speedy delete this is absolutely absurd. It's a blatant attack page and should be deleted immediately. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and @Auntof6: could you explain why you've failed to revdel the edit summary and initial page revision which contains an attack on a third party ? Nick (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:55, 25 January 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. Firstly, Wikipedia is not for feuds of reddit users, and secondly, neither of the two is notable.--Eptalon (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

JustARandommerEdit

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

Beaneater00 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: redirect is the name of a specific user of reddit that the editor who made this article seems to have great problems with, has nothing to do with reddit - it is like creating an article to redirect the name of some ordinary englishman with whom you have a mild quarrel to the United Kingdom article after already having tried to diss and complain about him in the said article Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 05:50, 18 January 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 nom. Chenzw  Talk  05:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Speedy close please. Some sort of personal vendetta which do not need to proliferate any further. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • speedy delete why is this even being discussed? It's total nonsensical garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as an attack page. Zaxxon0 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Quickly Delete Why is this an rfd? Computer Fizz (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:50, 25 January 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