Meta:Requests for deletion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:02, 12 February 2007

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.) To request undeletion, see Meta:Requests for undeletion. See Delete: this page does not belong on meta for general discussion about what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

Participate:

Articles

Add new listings at the end of this section.

Marxist Wikipedians

This new page was immediately renamed by it's creator, this is an orphaned unlikely redirect. xaosflux ^Talk 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. xaosflux ^Talk 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikimedians is probably assumed on meta. —Xyrael / 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete -- MichaelFrey 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Majorly 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; --Slade ♠ 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jusjih 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although the redirect target might be deserving of its own RFD, as it only has one member on it and absolutely nothing else. --Coredesat (en.wp) 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In fact, why not speedy? and the redirect target may well be deletable as well, but with proper nomming... ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Forum

I don't think that this belongs on meta - we have mailing lists for this sort of thing. Additionally, the page is long inactive. —Xyrael / 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) There are two pages linked from this page under pseudo-namespace "Forum". They would be also deletion candidates. --Aphaia 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's empty, apart from two link. Pretty worthless, yes. --Majorly 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; --Slade ♠ 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Jusjih 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Forum:semantic search and Forum:semantic attributes. No discussion going on, never had much anyway. -- Steel ^en:Steel 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, discussions can go on takl pages if needed. xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per other comments. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Lexicon

This page isn't particularly coherent, and is clearly very out of date - I'm not sure it's a lot of use. —Xyrael / 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not been edited since 2004, and only twice. --Majorly 13:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; --Slade ♠ 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Jusjih 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure what this is, exactly, but it's linked from Syndication feeds with the note "is this relevant?". Doesn't appear to be. --Coredesat (en.wp) 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ancient, unused. xaosflux ^Talk 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text in MediaWiki

Old, and not a lot of use anymore, so I propose we delete this. —Xyrael / 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is its point? --Majorly 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; --Slade ♠ 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These are some texts copied from MediaWiki namespace. Only admins may edit these pages, but others may view.--Jusjih 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Majorly. Doesn't appear to have much of a point anymore. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly been abandoned/forgotten about. Original intention was "Suggesting changes", any changes to Mediawikispace are best suggested on the corresponding talk page. -- Steel ^en:Steel 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV warrior

This page has one sentence of a definition only. If not to delete page history, how about merge to Neutral point of view?--Jusjih 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging might be beneficial. --Majorly 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Neutral point of view. --Coredesat (en.wp) 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Cbrown1023 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, do not leave a redirect. xaosflux ^Talk 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal version to use PyWikipediaBot

Not maintained anymore. The list was most probably never used. --Head 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jusjih 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Majorly 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressionism

Speedy deletion contested, given reason was: "Neologism, attempt to prove a point at en:". Cbrown1023 talk 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like POINT to me. Irrelevant to Meta, regardless. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat. Could do as a Wikipedia essay perhaps, but not here. --Majorly 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creator, I created the article to address what I see as opposition to my transwikian editing philosophy. I agree with Keynes and Hayek who identified information as the key determinant in human affairs, so I edit to expand access to what I understand as the truth. Suppressionist editing is the destruction of information so that the truth cannot disturb real-life affairs... but it might be a lot more appropriate for me to write an article characterizing myself instead of those who oppose transwikian editing. In any case, it would be very nice of you to vote keep. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Image:Monopoly.JPG

The following discussion is closed: deleted by consensus, image exists at commons (even thought someone pointed may not be free) drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part question, part RfD - this is an image that is used in a foundation quarterly news item and also exists on Commons. I have doubts that it can be considered GFDL given that its content is of a monopoly board, which is presumably under copyright - it probably is a derivative work of that, and should probably be removed both here and on commons, if I interpret things correctly. I noticed this while doing some meta cleanup and preparing to delete the local copy so as not to be redundant to commons. --Improv 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this image is not free. It should be replaced in the quarterly reports; I'm sure there are some free images representing money and so forth. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete --User:Dario vet/Sign 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Per above. Also what is the point in even having it here? Even if it was free I probably would vote to delete it. --Sir James Paul 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --.anaconda 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it isn't a free image. --Majorly 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pathos. Nishkid64 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Jusjih 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Somitho 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly copyrighted. —Xyrael / 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dubious licensing, already on commons. Delete on here, list at commons for deletion if desired. xaosflux ^Talk 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bookshelf logos

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The result was kept due to lack of consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons; I don't see any reason to have them on Meta instead. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one carries "This image is used on the http://www.wikipedia.org home page through direct linking, and should not be deleted."... anyone know why this is that way, and why it can't be moved to commons? I was about to move these and protect them when I saw that and paused. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the www.wikipedia.org template; it'd be easy to update. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on meta to do that though, it's (wisely) protected... let me know if I should perhaps first create the images on commons and then have you make the change? someone who is admin in both places might be best suited to fix this. I plan on standing for admin here soon enough so if it could wait? ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be moved to Commons because the portal templates are located on this wiki, and sysop who edits these pages should be able to update images, too. Meta must not depend on Commons. MaxSem 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is the repository for all images, project wide, unless there is some strong reason to have an image locally (like, they are copyrighted and used as fair use, for example). Do these images (often? ever?) need updating (rather than replacing with different images outright?)? Presumably they would, if uploaded to Commons, subsequently be protected by a commons admin (which I was offering to do if needful). Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already had problems with Commons, when they deleted an image for being a resized duplicate. No more problems, everythig should be under control of local admins. MaxSem 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific image in mind that was deleted? I think there are good reasons for keeping duplicates around and would support undeletion of such images if warranted. I also think that there are enough folk who are going to be dual admins here and on commons that this won't, long term, be a problem. I think it's better to use Commons for what it is intended for if at all possible. I'm not sure how to proceed further, I certainly can create these images on Commons if desired, and protect them. I just can't tell what the desire is here yet. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MaxSem.

To Lar, I have seen they deleted logos which were used on other our websites and they claimed they had made checks. Consequently we found sometimes red links on foundationwiki and others. I think they are trying to improve the project on a good faith, but at the same time their work isn't reliable enough trust all images we need locally. --Aphaia 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin on Commons and if you (or anyone!) can point to specific images that were deleted incorrectly I will be happy to undelete them for review and start a discussion on why they may or may not have been deleted incorrectly. Let's discuss and correct the matter! Further, I sympathise if incorrect deletion impacted things but am not totally convinced that an incorrect deletion of one image is a reason not to host a different image in the "right place". ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you seem not to know the fact I pointed out makes me stick to my standpoint. It happened again and again around several logos on several wikis. And there are something we cannot face the risk of turning into redlinks ...... Please see Commons VfD logs since 2005 summer. Forgotten past events could easily happen I am afraid. --Aphaia 14:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF you or anyone can point to a specific image that this happened to, I'll go undelete it myself and start the discussion again. But pointing to deletion logs without a specific example doesn't seem like efficiency, I don't remember, you do. I wasn't a commons admin in the summer of 2005, things have changed there since then. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer, but no thank you for undeletions; we have found substitutions and there is no need to bother you. The point of mine is not that I would like to undelete something but I think we cannot allow Commons admins to make redlinks on certain pages we offer to the external people as something important like official public relation pages from the Foundation or global portal pages. I don't argue the past incidents here but future risk we cannot take. Oncd failed, they promised improvement but the similar happened again - not once but multiple times. So I claim it is generally too risky to have Commons host our crucial materials. They do not care if the image they are going to delete is really not used. If they check Wikipedia and not used it is just okay for them. I am fed up with such their excuses. I think therefore we cannot take the further risk specially after our project becomes larger than those incidents happened, and our mistakes can take attention from the external people. --Aphaia 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Comment. Both images are derived from Image:Booksshelf.gif without copyright tag.--Jusjih 16:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Meta:Copyrights does not specify image policy. I would like to have an answer.--Jusjih 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused images

The following files are unused, orphaned, and with no incoming links. Files that are useful should be categorized and linked to; please don't claim vague usefulness unless you can suggest where it is useful. (To keep discussion neat, please place comments under the appropriate header, general discussion just under this paragraph, and comments about a specific image under that image's bullet. Thanks.) —{admin} Pathoschild 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete when they are not useful, but have their uploaders been notified?--Jusjih 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Data (graphs, et cetera)

Logos

Photographs

Screenshots

Miscellaneous

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Help:Turkish characters

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: no real consensus, weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information on this page is now outdated and irrelevant. (I guess this page must be deleted on meta before it can be deleted/redirected on en:) —Ruud 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really shouldn't be at the Help: namespace. As a technical info, it might be good idea to MediaWiki site. --Dbl2010 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's of much use there either. This page has been useless since MediaWiki 1.5 was introduced. —Ruud 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some worth in keeping it, for people still using old versions of MW (I'm sure there are some...). If kept then it should be moved to MW.org (tag it with template:MoveToMediaWiki. --HappyDog 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus? --Slade ♠ 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand Turkish, so I can only lean toward weak keep.--Jusjih 15:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 *'''Delete''', looks like [[POINT]] to me. Irrelevant to Meta, regardless. --[[User:Coredesat|Coredesat]] <small>([[en:User:Coredesat|en.wp]])</small> 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per Coredesat. Could do as a Wikipedia essay perhaps, but not here. --[[User:Majorly|Majorly]] 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' as the creator, I created the article to address what I see as opposition to my transwikian editing philosophy.  I agree with Keynes and Hayek who identified information as the key determinant in human affairs, so I edit to expand access to what I understand as the truth.  [[Suppressionism|Suppressionist]] editing is the destruction of information so that the truth cannot disturb real-life affairs... but it might be a lot more appropriate for me to write an article characterizing myself instead of those who oppose transwikian editing.  In any case, it would be very nice of you to vote keep.  Thanks!  [[User:JPatrickBedell|JPatrickBedell]] 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 ===Templates===

Meta:Requests for deletion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:02, 12 February 2007

Articles

Marxist Wikipedians

Discussion Forum

Worldwide Lexicon

Text in MediaWiki

POV warrior

Minimal version to use PyWikipediaBot

Suppressionism

Templates

Categories

Category:Top level

Category:Ak-Kvarim

Images

Image:Monopoly.JPG

Bookshelf logos

Unused images

Data (graphs, et cetera)

Logos

Photographs

Screenshots

Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous

Help:Turkish characters