Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Meta:Deletion requests)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Requests for deletion Archives (current)→
This page hosts local (i.e., Meta-Wiki) requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will close and 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 no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. {{Deletion requests}} can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.


Submit your page deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Delete Page on Urdu Wiki[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Not deleted, not a Meta page. Requests for pages on other projects have to be done at SRM.--Syum90 (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Delete This Page. This was created by IP and no admin is active now. It shows on Urdu wiki main page. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

All IP talk pages older than 1 year[edit]

Some time ago MZMcBride did cleanup old IP talk pages. I guess we should do the same once more. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's ok for me, we can keep several of them if needed.--Syum90 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Why they should be removed? The old discussion from 2009 is here btw: Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-01#Old_IP_talk_pages. Stryn (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't see the value in doing it. So unless there is a good argument put forward, not in favour.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
To me, the value in doing it—always assuming that the pages are quiet for a year—is that IP talk pages almost always reflect warnings of one sort or another, but not warnings that necessarily apply to a new IP coming to the project. Why start someone off with a negative perception? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleting IP talk pages never made sense to me, they could serve as warnings and might indicate if an IP is abusive in the same manner as before, if their would be consensus to delete I would move the IP talk pages to an archive and don't leave a redirect. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I would suggest that archiving (not deleting) any IP talk pages (not currently blocked) with messages more than six months old, leaving a sharedIP notice and a note linking to the block log if there are any past blocks. That would balance the need to present a more friendly talkpage for innocent new users and the need to keep track of previous warnings and blocks. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I support Green Giant's suggestion as a more reasonable alternative to deletion. Archiving without redirect is effectively the same as deletion as it just buries it from sight. --mikeu talk 16:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
By 'archive' here I hope we mean 'archive to history' , not creating actual /archive subpages. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Sorry, I didn’t see your comment but yes leaving it in file history, not subpages. Green Giant (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Old IP talk pages typically aren't needed and they add unnecessary clutter to the live wiki and to database dumps. The idea that you'd need to reference a warning to an IP address from 2009 is pretty silly. And without any means of knowing whether the same individual is associated with the IP address, it's almost entirely meaningless whether the user was warned so long ago. Even if we could know it's the same person now as it was ten years ago, such an old warning would usually be stale and inapplicable so much later. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: I agree. Do you keep by chance the script you used to do that in the past? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some IP talk pages that contain actual discussion other than warnings. For example, see User talk: Sure, these are probably a small minority, but it would be a shame if these were deleted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group/affiliates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, opt-out lists are not okay, opt-in lists are okay  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As Template:Ping/twug below. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • oppose keep it though blank it. People should be welcome to add themselves to a group. They should not be added by a third party. If that is not able to be managed by self-control then we can write an abuse filter, or have a different perspective of abuse.
  • Oppose Oppose, this is a list of people that subscribed to the group, everybody is free to join or leave the group. If anyone among […] don't want to be notified about TWUG information, please remove your user name from the list Wiktionary/Tremendous Wiktionary User Group/affiliates. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to understand what was the problem with this template. It is a useful tool for our group. If there are better way to obtain a similar result without entering in conflict with whatever the reason was for its deletion, please tell us. Thank you in advance to notify me about anything pertaining to the TWUG Face-smile.svg --Psychoslave (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at the deletion request and you will see that one of the recipients was a requestor of the deletion. So it would not appear as useful maybe you considered it to be.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

People are abusing both Template:Ping/twug and this list for spamming. Look at the formatting: What's the point of concatenating names in such an unreadable way if not to be copy-pasted to a ping template? That's the only purpose of this list. Administrators, please put a clear stop sign at such behavior. PS: I just realized the page is not linked from anywhere. In contrast to the claim above people can't opt-out because they don't know why they get spammed. (Seriously, tell me how I should opt-out from this or this?) The actual opt-in list is here. The page I ask you to delete was created by a single user, not by the people on the list. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone on the list has been pinged by this discussion. They should be able to remove themselves if they wish. If they don't know how, just leave a message here, and someone will do it for you. Rich Farmbrough 06:53 17 May 2018 (GMT).

Comment Comment It must be considered ridiculous that a meta admin has to be required to deal with this issue. A person complains about being on an opt-out list, and some people appear too principled to remove them from that list, expecting them to remove themself. So we come to a meta admin needing to make a decision about a deletion or not. In the end, giving that choice, I am closing as delete on the principle that opt-out lists are not considered appropriate; whereas if people add themselves to such a list on an opt-in, or give approval on a clear understanding they are being added to a pingable list.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Submit your template deletion request at the bottom of this section.


Submit your category deletion request at the bottom of this section.


Submit your image deletion request at the bottom of this section.

File:Newlogo2.png, File:Newlogo2a.png, File:Newlogo2b.png[edit]

They are used at Logo_suggestions#2,_3,_4 and marked "from Magnus Manske" that I have also left a message, but their sources and licenses are not so clear. I list them here while a little reluctant to speedily delete proposed logos with uncertain sources and licenses.--Jusjih (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.


The following discussion is closed: X mark.svg Not done Opt-in lists seem to be reasonable by this discussion. Opt-out lists are not considered desirable, and easily avoidable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This template was created to ease people life when they want to notify the TWUG. Yes, it is still possible to ping every member of the TWUG with […], but it less conveninent to use, and if everybody copy/paste it all the time then the list of pinged people won't change according to the changes made on the TWUG members. That is, the reason invoked to delete the template is the exact reason why it should be kept: with this template people can easily unregister themselves from the notifications about TWUG information, and TWUG user can use it to notify anyone currently interested to get this information. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I support this request for undeletion. Amqui (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The same. Pamputt (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment The template was abused, and went through a deletion request. So please address in your undeletion request how abuse will be avoided.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    If […] does not want to be part of this list anymore, he can remove his name from the list. I do not see how this template could be a problem. Pamputt (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Pamputt, I believe that is the wrong approach. People obviously free to add their name, I think that it is unreasonable for people need to remove their names.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, I am not sure to understand. This template is exactly the same as pinging manually all people that are part of the user group. If they are not interested anymore by the user group so they should remove their name otherwise this misunderstanding may occur. Other people cannot guess that some people do not want to be warned about some news that may interested some affiliates of the user group. Pamputt (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe people are repeating the same ping-abuse in the undeletion request for a template that was deleted because of ping-abuse. To the administrators watching this page: Please make sure these people stop spamming any large amount of people. Thank you very much. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thiemo Kreuz. I understand that you do not want to be pingged anymore. Don't act. You only have to say us otherwise we cannot guess it. It is the same with the ping template. If you do not want to be pingged anymore you just need to remove your name. BTW, talking about ping-abuse is a bit abusive; I did not count but I think this global ping template has been used about once a week, so I do not think we can talk about "massive pinging". Pamputt (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
See my comment above. Rich Farmbrough 06:57 17 May 2018 (GMT).

Did you get a prior consent for being pinged en masse? If not, that definitely sounds like a spam. Signing up for a user group does not mean they grant you (or anyone else) unlimited permission to ping them. Our MassMessage works in an opt-in functionality, I see no reason why this (de facto MessMessage) ping must be opt-out. Starting a clean ping list, with being opt-in is fine IMO, just undeleting it is not. — regards, Revi 11:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)