Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion

Link to header

type the page name?

In the "Create a discussion page" #2 instructions, it says "Type the page name and the reason you are requesting deletion in the right places." I filled in the reason but don't see a place to type the page name. Did I miss it, or is that part no longer necessary? Toliar (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Archival Templates

I think that it would be more organized to place the archive wraps on a...

that will give a visual clue, that the discussion is indeed closed.

Also, I think the closing summary should be up top... bottom line up front. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree to both. Exert 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely better. I think it needs to be done. hmwithτ 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

New system

Now that we have done it for a few days (new section, bottom line up front, and archival templates) is there any feedback? Like dislike? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we keep this system, the template should be fixed, that the new rfds have no outcome section and so on. Barras (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How...

How do I request for deletion? Can I do it even if I'm not an admin? How do I put it inside requests for deletion? ??? Please answer me! Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply came in before you posted this. Please check your talk page. Pmlineditor ∞ 06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

High Schools/Schools/Colleges notability discussion

Here's how I feel about it:

1. Most colleges and universities are notable enough to have an article here
2. Most high schools are not notable enough to have an article here, even if they have an article on EN-Wiki (Remember, we're not supposed to have articles on everything EN has)

That's my two cents Purplebackpack89 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to, but it's a useful indicator. I'm not sure why you would claim that "most high schools are not notable here" when the indicator we should be relying on is the number of sources available. Making sweeping generalisations is not helpful here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that we won't have every article that en has is long outdated. If a subject is notable, its notable and we should have it. Are all highschools notable, I am not sure. I would bet I could find multiple newspaper articles on almost any highschool. If that is true, then yes highschools are notable and they should be added. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Its true almost every high school has a number of articles and webpages..etc etc. Should we make a difference between american high schools which are often more mentioned in media then lets say a latvian high school. Every high school isnt notable but IF threy are in a specific case then ofcourse they shouldnt be deleted. But we should not make a general assumption that all high schools colleges etc etc are notable,.--Sinbad (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To DJ:I can think of numerous policies that would suggest that we shouldn't have an article on everything EN does, most of them falling under the "not English wikipedia" banner (especially the part about "only having the basics"). If you believe that to be outdated, perhaps we should discuss. And just because something is notable doesn't necessarily mean it needs to have an article here. My high school is fairly notable, has an article on EN, but most likely won't have an article here anytime soon Purplebackpack89 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually what WP:NOT just says we will have the most common topics. Some people interpret that to mean we won't have everything english wikipedia does, but really thats just simple english for saying we only have notable topics. As for we are not english wikipedia, that pertains to just copying articles over word for word. And as for discussing, that topic has been discussed at length may times to basically come to the conclusion I have mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Restart

This discussion could use a reset, things have changed since the above was said and this is something that needs to be discussed. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that if there are enough content to warrant their own article with WP:RS then I believe there shouldn't really be an issue about WP:N here. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by my general belief that high schools probably don't need articles here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Most high schools should not have separate articles. However, high schools which have independent, non-local press coverage can have a separate article. For example, Bronx High School of Science, New Trier High School, University of Chicago Lab School, Choate Academy, etc. deserve separate articles. Other high schools can be covered in the article about their school district or system. Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether a school (or other subject) "should" be here or "needs to" be here is different from whether they get mentioned in the press. Just because we can satisfy our official requirements for notability doesn't mean we really need the article; it depends on what the mention is. If a local newspaper publishes a list of area high schools, to me that doesn't establish notability. Neither does a movie being listed in newspapers along with all the other movies that happen to be showing at a given time. Neither does having TV series episodes included on web sites that list episodes of everything. If our goal is to give people with lower English skills a place to learn, what good does it do to have articles about high schools or other things that aren't noteworthy? If our goal is to document all of human knowledge, then we might need to rethink. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I saw we just continue to follow WP:N. If a subject can be presumed notable, I don't see why we can't have an article.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tools

Can one of our high speed coders build for us a RFD closure button that automagically applies the archival templates and changes the status :) I love you all. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrote up this quick script: User:Grunny/ajaxquickrfdclose.js, and I tested it here. Let me know if it's what you want from it :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets awesome, I can already tell this is going to save time, yes. Is there anyway to code in a "other" also? Thank you for your time. Yours, Jon@talk:~$ 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. How did you want the other option to work? It currently uses {{kept}} or {{deleted}} with optional reasoning, and those templates then categorise it into one of the two categories. So, how would you want the Other field to work in terms of the template used (if any) and categorising it based on what you enter? Cheers, Grunny (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see there's a {{RfDresult}} template. I'll use that and the Other option shortly. Cheers, Grunny (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I created {{RfDresult}} a month ago for "merge" and "redirect" results. It categorizes the RfD under Category:Requests for deletion that did not succeed because technically the content is not deleted—it is merely merged and is preserved in the history.
Also, could an admin modify {{kept}} and {{deleted}} so that no default period is placed after the result? Sometimes it's easier when something is speedily deleted or when something is merged to tag "per WP:QD" OR "per WP:MERGE" after the result. Goodvac (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've added an Other option. Let me know if there are any problems with it :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing requests

Question 1: Is it appropriate for an admin to close an RfD that he or she voted in? (I know it isn't if the admin initiated the RfD.)

Question 2: Is two votes enough for consensus (both votes being the same, of course)?

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just based on my experience:

1. Not usually. In cases that require no judgement – where the consensus is overwhelmingly obvious or where the request itself was just a formality – then nobody really cares. I think I've done it a few times, but it's not a good habit to get into.
2. Yes, that's perfectly fine, if the rationale is soundly based in policy. Although you can choose to extend the nomination or just leave it for a few days if you see potential for it going the other way. If somebody later objects, what I would do (though I've never seen it done) is to treat it similar to en:WP:SOFTDELETE.

That's just my process. Trust your judgement. Osiris (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are my answers: If a request only gets two votes, this usually means one of the following:

1. No one cares
2. The outcome of the request can be directly derived from some policy or guideline.

Even if they may appear odd in the archives, there is no problem of closing such a request, if the two votes are the same; if they aren't, it is obviously a judgment call, and rooting it in some policy or guideline may help. As to the initiating/voting admin closing: The admin who closes the request will "look for consensus" or he will try to find a policy or guideline to base the decision on. This is pretty independent of how he voted. On the other hand, this wiki has many admins, so finding an uninvolved admin is usually not difficult. Bureaucrats have more experience in this, a bureaucrat may be better able to judge the consensus (Even if he feels strongly one way or another). In the case, where is a ürpblem, this can always be handled at the Requests for undeletion page. --Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Unless its blatantly obvious then you shouldn't close something you commented in. Even then we have enough admins that you can probably just let someone else do it.
2. Even with no one commenting it can be closed as delete. Our Rfd functions as both the Afd and Prod process at en so you as an admin have the option of leaving it open for further comment as Osiris mentions or you can close it as delete.

-DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Close obvious ones more quickly?

The page is getting over-long, cluttered with items that are obviously going one way or the other. IMO obvious decisions should be closed more quickly (SNOW), and closed items need archiving more regularly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The instructions say that items can be closed early at the discretion of an admin. There are some I would have closed early, but I either proposed them myself or commented on them. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Really there is no need to rush things faster than the 7 days. Our list of items up for delete is really quite small. We generate less in a month than en does in a day. So it is hardly unmanageable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Request: Studio B Productions

Reason: Not notable, no sources, some parts inaccurate, simply bad and it simply doesn't need to be on here. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:98D0:7346:5BA8:86E3 (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deketed, then do a proper deletion request. Leaving a message on this page is not a valid way of asking for a page to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notifying the user

I happened to come across an (former?) editor who started 13 articles here but seven of those articles have been deleted (two of which have since been recreated). This editor’s talk page has only one notice of an RfD nomination.

Should it not be mandatory to notify editors when their work is proposed for deletion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is my edit not showing up in thehistory of this page?

I have added a {{fact}} template with An edit summarynexplaining it, but i cannot see it in the view history of this page. just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

_Update my edit is showing up now. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Have delete, keep, and comments sections just like rfas

the lack of this has caused confusion for myself and others Computer Fizz (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

On RfD's? I don't think that would work well. There's many more options than simply delete and keep, and it also isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Separating the votes wouldn't result in as beneficial a discussion imo. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: rfa's aren't a vote either, although i do understand that rfd's are not usually binary. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I oppose separate sections as well. Like Vermont mentioned, some outcomes are merge, redirect, etc. so wouldn't fit into the standard categories. Also we don't have a tremendous amount of discussion on RfDs so I think keeping it all together isn't too bad. Desertborn (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need that. It would, however, be helpful if people would remember to highlight their preferred action, such as with bolding or using one of the voting templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Wait, so if it's like

Delete reason

Keep reason

Delete reason

then that's wrong? Computer Fizz (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that would be fine. My comment was because I've seen people post on RFDs without being clear what their viewpoint was. If they highlight (such as with bolding as in your example, or in some other way) delete, keep, merge, redirect, comment, or whatever the gist of their comment is, that's very helpful. I don't think we can enforce it, but it would be helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Close obvious ones more quickly!

• Once again I say it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to do it more quickly. The whole point is to give a week for people to see it that might only connect to the wiki once a week. -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is already allowed. The text says "This request is due to close [...] seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.", indicating that this is the latest date it should be closed, not earlist, which would mean it is already possible to close them more quickly. However it seems this is not usually exercised, possibly due to some not having any discussion and due to the entire process moving very slow. I am not entirely sure though, so take with a grain of salt Naleksuh (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the above interpretation; there's a difference between saying that (1) T+7 is the latest date an RfD should be closed and (2) an RfD may be closed before T+7. By saying that "this is the latest date it should be closed", the statement becomes prescriptive (unlike interpretation 2, which should be seen as an optional matter) and implies that administrators should ensure that RfDs do not overrun the 7th day, which I find incorrect. It is also worth noting that there have been RfDs which have been extended due to a "no consensus" situation on the 7th day (I am narrowly referring to the "no consensus" cases which still have a vote of 1/1 on day 7, not RfDs that ended with "keep (no consensus)"). Chenzw  Talk  07:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes snow closes can happen, but we rarely have enough votes in an Rfd to ensure its a true snow rather than just a regular consensus -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Results of RfD on Enlish WP

• If a biog has been deleted on English WP for lacking notability, we should not accept the biog unless we are quite satisfied that they are wrong. That will be rare.
• If a biog has been accepted there, we have to make sure the evidence for notability on our page is as good as theirs. No slacking!
• Biogs are really the cutting edge because they are often or usually driven by paid PR agents and act as advertisements to make money for the person and his/her agents. Or, to make a case for the person being promoted to a higher position. The commercial promotion of products is easy to spot; but the promotion of people to get themselves more "air space" is becoming a real problem. We are so lucky that in some areas we have landmarks which can be used to judge notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not ready for Wikipedia. QD or RfD?

• Maria Popova.
  The entry is not ready for Wikipedia, I think. (Also, I would rate the subject (a blogger) as Class C, low importance.) Please make that entry go away. Even if it were a good-faith entry, it is a disaster area, I think. 89.8.155.66 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the place to make this request. If you think the page qualifies for one of our quick deletion options, put a quick deletion request on the article. Otherwise, put an RFD on the article. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

UTC

I use BST, why does this use UTC instead 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That's the standard time WMF uses for its projects fr33kman 17:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have an account, you can change the settings to display your local time. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

New wrapping template redirects

Just to save time, I've created {{at}} & {{ab}} as shortcuts to the archive wrappers fr33kman 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Before C

Section C is in dire need of a sanity check.

1. 1 is meaningless. The biggest issue is, what is "normal editing?" It could be said that, given their frequency, a normal edit here is pure vandalism.. Even being giving, too often the need for a full rewrite of the article, deleting everything and starting from scratch is need for the article to have any hope. Is this to be called "normal"? Many articles where this is used as justification rely on someone (else) completely redoing the article. And this is supported by the word "can". Yes, it can be done. No, there is no reason to believe is will ever happen. Just because it is possible does not mean we should consider that it would ever happen.
2. 2: This one is actually valid but the most least followed. AGF and give people a chance to finish the job.
3. 3: Don't RfD it. Just tag it as a hoax or advert... that's an option?? Not Tag it as QD for hoax or advert, just tag it and move on?
4. 4: while merge or redirect are possible outcomes of RfD, (they are listed right there on every RfD) do not try this. Just delete all the content yourself and redirect it. Be bold on steroids. While sometimes this is valid, should it really be a listed option.

Pure Evil (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to auto-salt RfDs

WITHDRAWN:

Obvious opposes so I am withdrawing this. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 09:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

I am proposing that the admin who deletes an article, salt it automatically for at least maybe 3 months. I find we get a lot of pages that get re-created and it takes up time for us to have to QD it and an admin’s time to have to redelete it. I think this should be done for some QDs as well (mainly non-notable) but that would be longer because someone won’t meet the criteria 5 minutes or even 3-4 months down the road or ever. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 17:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

In my eyes, SALTing is quite the nuclear action, we should be pretty careful to not use administrative actions as a sledgehammer. I'm happy for SALTing if an article/redirect is created lots of times, or at least once after a deletion, but do we really have that much vandalism of recreating deleted redirects to warrant this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski On here with some articles we most certainly do. Even more so on QDs. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 23:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think most deleted articles get recreated with content that doesn't meet requirements. I think it would be more work on the part of the admins to do all that salting, compared to the amount we do of re-deleting things. Also, if someone wanted to recreate a page with appropriate content, there would be more work to do to un-salt. I don't know about other admins, but I will usually salt if I see a page being deleted for the third time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Salting should really be seen as a last resort towards repeated bad page recreations.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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.