Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Anthere (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 14 June 2005 (→‎Pages of questionable relevance). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

This is a list of pages nominated for removal from this Wiki. Pages are deleted by meta administrators. These are typically pages created by newbies, pages created by vandals, technical mistakes, administrative changes, personal pages, pages whose content was relevant to other projects (wikipedias or wikibooks likely) and moved there.

All deletion should follow Meta deletion policy. If you object to the removal of a page, please give reasons and add your signature or user-name. To challenge an already-removed page, see Meta:Requests for undeletion. The list of recently deleted files is at Meta:Deletion log.

To propose a page for deletion put a notice on the page listed for removal: {{rfd}} (this will insert the rfd template at that point in the page).

If a page listed here is kept, please remove the above notice from the page before removing the page name from the list below.

Speedy deletion

The following are usually deleted without delay:

  • Vandal pages
  • Meaningless pages (containing skfhsdjfkhdjkshfdk)
  • Offensive pages (containing insults, swear words)
  • Personal pages per request of the user himself

Check for Speedy deletion candidates

The delete system being slightly broken, if you can not delete a page, add the template {{Can'tDelete}}.

If you want to propose a page for speedy deletion, insert {{Delete|~~~~}} on top of the page.

Don't list speedy deletion candidates here, thanks.

Routine deletion

Other pages (in particular irrelevant pages, copyright issues or regular clean up) are usually listed for at least 15 days. The 15 days deadline is longer than on local wikipedias, since users do not come on meta as often as they do on local wikipedias. The user who listed a page should ideally not be the one to delete it. Pages created by banned users (after banning) are sometimes left alone, sometimes deleted on sight, sometimes restored by others (if they have been deleted). A user banned on one wikipedia is not necessarily automatically banned on all wikipedias, so a ban from one wikipedia does not imply automatic deletion on meta itself. However, no speedy deletion of a page created by a banned user will be considered sysop abuse (to protect sysop freedom to fight against banned users). Other users may choose to consider the interest and validity of the content of the page first, and to keep/restore the page in question. Pages created before a ban are not automatically candidates for deletion.

Language issues

Meta is multilingual! Pages can be written in any language. Pages in unusual languages are not automatically candidates for deletion. If the value of a page in an unusual language/character-set is not obvious, the page can be listed here, but should not be deleted until someone who knows the language has seen it and commented on it.

Use of meta

Meta deletion policy is not wikipedia deletion policy. It must be built by the community of meta editors, and take into account meta peculiarities. As a reminder, meta has the following roles 1. Discussion and formulation of the wikipedia project itself, and in particular policy discussion 2. A forum for personal essays that are not necessarily NPOV 3. A place to organise and prepare content, to discuss interlanguage co-ordination issues 4. A place to coordinate the development process

Respect of this policy
Lack of respect for this deletion policy may result in a sysop being listed on Meta:Requests for adminship#desysop. It is very important for meta sysops to be careful in handling deletion, for the following reasons:

  • Meta is multilingual and multicultural, which means people may not communicate so easily as on local wikipedias. Pages may be in languages that the deleting sysop does not understand, adding to confusion.
  • Meta rules in terms of content are not as clear as wikipedia rules, so it is less clear what is welcome and what is not.
  • Meta is small and quiet compared to the larger Wikipedias; meta sysops don't know each other as well as if they were working together everyday. As a result, the web of trust may not be so easy to establish, so following the rules is important to show good will and respect for the work and opinions of others.


Older listings, status unclear due to lack of clear consensus

Recently Kept

Kept article might be listed here for some months.

Current listings for deletion

Minipedia related

Meta is not an encyclopedia. They should be merged into Simple English or move to Wikicities or other free hosting wiki. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 10:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minipedia is an alternative to the List of articles all languages should have, see Talk:List of articles all languages should have for the history of their relation. For the List ..., Meta was more or less decided on as the place for its, as yet non-existent, articles (on that same talk page); the articles of Minipedia are placed there too, though in their own pseudo namespace. The reason for the location of these two projects is that they aim to generate content to be used by all Wikipedias.
Since Minipedia depends on the availability of a sufficient number of visitors, it's clear its current location has a drawback. To some extend this holds for the List ... as well. Had the initial reaction not been dampened by a set of delete tags, we could have determined whether it worked well enough to migrate it to a more populated Wiki. That's not the same suggestion as deleting it, though. Aliter 16:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know, I'm not even going to bother. I am willing to put a lot of time and effort in improving mechanisms that will benefit all of WIkipedia. If that means explaining something to people who are willing to listen, then I'm willing to spent a considerable amount of energy in explaining. But I'm not interested in determining the difference between stupidity and obstruction. I'll do the update I promised, then rewrite the project to be DIY. and let the Wiki-gods decide what or where its place should be. That doesn't mean I no longer feel Wikipedia should do more for the growth of small wikipedia's, but I won't put energy into a project that is blocked from yielding a return for the specific small Wikipedia I'm a member of. Aliter 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is related to "List of articles all languages should have" project. At least some of the Minipedia articles are such. But there is no official policy where those model articles should be kept. People have talked about Simple English Wikipedia. If it is the place, Brussels and Amsterdam could be moved there. There is much larger article about William Shakespare than the Minipedia one, so the Minipedia one should be deleted. Africa could be merged to the Simple English article.
Or is the Simple English article on William Shakespeare too long? Do you want the project to be outside any Wikipedia? Then it might be wise to keep the Minipedia articles. Everything is uncertain because the "List of articles all languages should have" project is such a mess. I have already complained it in its talk page. -Hapsiainen 19:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conserver / Keep Alvaro 15:08, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

WLF

Rants by a user banned on the English Wikipedia. Not useful to Meta. Angela 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meta is for "personal essays about the Wikimedia projects", and just because it isn't very useful, or was written by someone we don't like, doesn't mean it can just be censored. Trilobite 12:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this page an "essay about the Wikimedia projects"? "Those who use WikiPedia as a means to compensate for their very shallow lives are corrupt and dishonest" is just an insult, not an essay or anything which would ever be useful to anyone reading it. Angela 14:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's a fairly useless and insulting essay, but it is discussion of Wikimedia projects. Being highly critical and borderline abusive doesn't make it fit for deletion. I should add that I don't feel particularly strongly about the matter. Trilobite 16:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Un-useful, only one editor of the page, only one member of the group, no practical purpose. I someone wants to be an anti-Wikimedia insurgent, they can join the anti-Wikimedia clubs on Yahoo Groups. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete Meta is not a trashbox of Wikipedia. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 14:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supprimer / Delete Alvaro 15:15, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Image:Gummimetro.JPG

Presumably uploaded to the wrong wiki. Angela 08:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I confess I deleted some images uploaded by the same poster - photos of actress(es), unsourced. And no link from any article. I thought they were mischives. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 01:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

White party

Not relevant to meta. Probably not worth moving to en. Angela 06:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pikebridge.jpg

Presumably uploaded to the wrong wiki. Angela 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

!Queer Wikipedians

Obselete due to Queer Wikipedians. Useless page. Hedley 19:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not all queers declare here that they are queers. Also I don't want to get rid of surpising pages listing Wikipedians by sub-cultural affiliation. -Hapsiainen 17:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • The point is that Queer Wikipedians already exists. I'm assuming !Queer is the same, and two lists for the same thing isn't needed. Someone made it a redirect to Straight Wikipedians, which I can't see makes sense, as the LGBT colours are on the page. Hedley 20:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • !Queer is an opposite of a queer. "Several computer languages use "!" for a various meanings, most importantly, logical negation" (en:Exclamation mark). I wasn't aware of the straight Wikipedians page, but it has a better title, so I now support a redirect. -Hapsiainen 20:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Excitation, Process & Error

Not relevant to meta. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 21:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Canadian Forces

Unused images, unsourced: Image:Canadaforcesfull.jpg, Image:Canada forces full.jpg, perhaps uploaded to a wrong wiki. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red link

Bad title. Not relevant to meta. Angela 19:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - true, I don't like the article, but already five pages are linking to it! Datrio 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the original red link was deleted... I sadly have to vote for delete. Datrio 20:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete One link is mine to see if someone create it (and to delete it as soon as possible), one is created by you to notice an anon it should not have been created ... shortly it shouldn't exist as is. And the content is not relevant to meta. I moved it Meta:Sandbox/Red link. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alderaan.jpg

Wrong wiki and no licensing information. Angela 20:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pages of questionable relevance

The following were at Delete: pages of questionable relevance which itself is listed for deletion. The deletion of these should be decided here since that page now redirects here. Angela 20:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Tbc/Intellectual Elitism (Move to an en talk page?)
    • User sub page. Move somewhere.
      • Moved to user talk page. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Liars Probably just needs reworking.
    • Anti-CPOV. Not beneficial.
    • Keep. CPOV needs to be balanced, not enforced.
    • Delete. Unneeded rant. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, what is wrong with personal opinions ? Anthere 17:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiki Poetry Translation and Wikipoetry_example Move to wikiprojects?
    • These are proposals for a new wiki project, not part of Wikipedia, so are best staying here.
    • Merged with Wikipoetry, but perhaps that should be deleted. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Like this
    • Seems like this should have been in the sandbox
    • Delete. Useless. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Top cop
    • Pointless.
    • Delete. Useless. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedians who were born between 1990 and 1994
    • Such pages are community building and should be kept.
    • Keep or redirect. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Community building is great but Wikipedians by age already shows birth years, and so its not needed. Hedley 20:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Process -> en
    • Not relevant for Meta
    • Delete. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • List of Wikipedians by favorite ice cream flavor I'm interested in discussing what distinguishes this from other kinds of nonsense.
    • Such pages are community building and should be kept.
    • Keep. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • WikiNation and WikiNations
    • Not irrlevant, but equally not of much use.
    • Looks like a start on some form of community building. Seems reasonable enough, though it may not grow.
    • Delete. Causes confusion with wikinations.org. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, community building page. If there is confusion, add a cap at the top of the article.
  • New Wikipedia order
    • Shallow page. No use.
    • Delete. Been around two years so may of been something that was planned, but never hapened. Clearly the three edits since mid-2003 show its not of any use. Hedley 20:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 1776 parodies
    • This seems relevant and a good use for meta.
    • Keep. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Common words made into URLs
    • No relevance to meta. I can't see why it's here.
    • A playpen for some fun and joke sharing. Part of community building.
  • Darwikinism
    • Not relevant.
    • Interesting points. Keep.
    • Wiki philosphy, so it seems on topic here. Much more of this on Meatball would be useful here.
    • Keep. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • factionalism
    • Hightly against the CPOV. Suggests preparing for edit wars and claims there is no community.
    • Interesting points. Keep.
    • Wiki philosophy. On topic here.
    • Keep. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Link madness
    • Shallow page. No use.
    • Delete. Useless. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Downlist, Downlisted, Segment, Segmentation
    • Along with the previous link ("Link madness"), these appear to have come from someone "footnoting" their remarks on a Talk page.
    • Delete all. Not relevant. Angela 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Various

The following pages have an Rfd tag on them, but were either never listed here or removed from here without the tag being removed. Angela 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kingcrown.jpg

Wrong wiki. Angela 16:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How to deal with Poles

This page is listed as humor, but has been cited on en as evidence of long-standing anti-Polish sentiment on Wikipedia, and is evidently offensive to some members of some members of the Polish community. Wikipedia does not need the rhetorical equivalent of dumb blonde jokes. See: en:Wikipedia:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Black_Book and that page's associated VFD.

User Dragons flight from en. 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=142431"