Meta:Requests for deletion

Shortcut:
WM:RFD

This page hosts proposals for page deletion. Before using this page, see the Deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion. Place {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in the appropriate section below; any language may be used on this page. After at least two weeks, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Images with unknown sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see Meta:Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived.

Participate:

Articles

Add new listings at the end of this section.

Stefán H. Ófeigsson

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted on is.wiki, last activity there was on 15.2.2006 (later only reverting vandalism). Imho since this person has no article and biography on is.wiki, there should be also none on meta, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per request, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Spacebirdy said it right. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not exactly an article, but there seems to be no reason to keep this here. --Coredesat (en.wp) 12:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since I pointed this out to birdy as an unnecessary article..I believe it should be deleted... --Comet styles 12:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Image:WPLogoglow.png, Image:Wplogo5.png, Image:Vikio.png, Image:Wiki-pl.png, Image:Vikio.jpg, Image:Wiki-logo nl.png, Image:Vikireklamilo1.png, Image:Vikireklamilo2.png

The following discussion is closed: Kept as historical --user:Anonymous Dissident

All these date from October 2002 and are unused, lack any information about their source and any details of their licence. I'd like to say they serve some historical purpose but as so little information is known about them I'm afraid I doubt they are worth keeping. They were proposed for deletion earlier this year and the result was keep but nothing has changed, we're still in a position where we can't really do anything with these since we don't know anything about them. For these reasons I propose we simply delete them, if they do turn out to be of some historical significance they can always be undeleted but considering how nothing has happened since the last RfD several months ago I doubt this will happen, they're just clutter. Adambro 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for historical interest. --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What historical interest? We don't know anything about them. These images could be speedily deleted according to policy since they lack source and licence details. What is so important about them that we should ignore policy? Adambro 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the 2nd time: Meta is not Commons! Historical interest? Do you remember wikipedia in 2002?--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meta is not exempt from image policy. Potentially unfree images should not be kept, and as we have no idea with these unused images, they should be deleted. 82.31.11.207 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the meta inclusion policy: Documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects (see some current discussions). History is included--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the uploaders do not respond and they cannot be considered copyrighted by Wikimedia. We should uphold our copyright policy rather than keeping historical interest.--Jusjih 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frieda 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? 82.31.11.207 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per nick --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Adambro 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Nick1915..--Comet styles 10:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Adambro 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick e Frieda. Also I would add those images were submitted once to this page much earlier and kept just for the same reason - historical interest. --Aphaia 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, how should we tag them? GFDL presumed or copyright by Wikimedia?--Jusjih 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were the images modified from originals which were copyrighted by wikimedia? Hillgentleman 09:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are all dated on 10 October 2002 credited to (Automated conversion). This is why I wonder how they should be tagged while there was probably no Wikimedia Foundation.--Jusjih 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there could also be some sort of pride about what all this started from, and since WMF servers can store symbols of many natures and different importance, imho they can store these ones as well, which are important symbols to many users ;-) --Gianfranco 23:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please come to Metapub#Uncategorized_images_and_unused_files for a discussion.--Jusjih 04:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:'auto'-bumper-white.png

The following discussion is closed: Kept as uploader provided required details. Adambro 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No source or license. Uploader notified.--Jusjih 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after seven days if information is not supplied as per the speedy deletion policy. Images such as this do not need to be listed here, you can use {{no source}} which categorises it for deletion after seven days. Adambro 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for your hint, but that template does not have a simple code to notify uploaders, so I consider notifying them hard here, unlike Wikipedia and Commons where I am an admin there.--Jusjih 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The source is fairly obvious, since the user lays claim to creating them himself on his userpage. The license is a bit of a trickier issue, but I don't feel that it's a pressing enough need to warrant deletion (given their usage on the WM CafePress store, though I realize deletion here doesn't equate to removal from the CafePress system). Even if it's deleted, it can be restored at any time if the user provides a license for us to use (though really they should be pushed over to Commons). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've left a message on Tlogmer's en.wp user talk page; he appears to be more active there than here, and it's more likely to get a response from him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this image myself, and it solely uses wikipedia text, so I guess a GFDL license would be appropriate -- feel free to tag it however you like. On another note, cafepress doesn't support full-size images, so the only way prospective buyers can properly evaluate the image is by seeing it here. ~~68.42.74.83 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Oops, wasn't logged in. Tlogmer 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged the four bumper stickers (one of which had been deleted) with {{GFDL}}, and cited your above edit in my edit summary. I believe that this RfD can be closed, but I'll recuse myself, having participated in it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the full text of the GFDL and history log stickers? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-09t18:02z

Image:Wikinews-brevity.pdf

The uploader that I have notified licensed it as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, not compatible with GFDL.--Jusjih 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom. Adambro 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not explicitly dual licenced under GFDL as per meta's upload page. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-25t18:29z