Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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.) Files 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 ({{Deletion requests}}) can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.


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


Orphan help page. Meta is not a mathematical calculator. * Pppery * it has begun 21:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Maybe Redirect to Help:Mod, round, floor, ceil, trunc? If that page gets deleted too then this can be deleted as a broken redirect, agree the page is useless as it stands. 00:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fine with that. I'm personally not convinced of the usefulness of the target page either, but can't really jusify doing anything other than adding it to the big pile at User:Pppery/help#No equivalent for someone braver than me to tackle if they feel inclined. * Pppery * it has begun 01:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pppery I agree that the redirect target is not that useful, that's why I brought up it being deleted too. Most of that page's contents is just lists of poorly explained, questionably useful examples. e.g. about 2/3rds of the page is a list of examples using numbers up to 64 bits long to show that 32 bit errors don't exist anymore, that whole list is just unnecessary and could be nuked. IMO the best result here would be that anything useful from these pages is added to the relevant section at Help:Calculation. 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I removed that section. Ideally we would go further and redirect all 3 pages to mw:Help:ParserFunctions#expr, which is the maintained version of the documentation, but unfortunately mw:Project:PD help has left Meta's help space in a perpetual limbo. * Pppery * it has begun 01:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False vanishing[edit]

POINTy essay. This essay is originally created in zhwiki, and after one AfD and one deletion review, the zhwiki community still stands to reject having such essay in the Project namespace, see zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/04/06#Template:假隱退, zh:Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求/存檔/2022年6月#Template:假隱退 and zh:User talk:Jusjih/假隱退. As community members continue to oppose having such essay, the author decides to "move it to meta so it also governs zhwiki", which smells POINT for me.

Apart from POINTy behaviour, while their point that "harassment after proclaimed retiring" is a problem that I acknowledge, there are still multiple issues standing out that would not disproves the validity of this essay as I have pointed out in zh:User talk:Jusjih/假隱退, of which the author simply neglects and proceeds to move the entire thing to Meta.

  1. Example given is the author themselves !voting to delete, then proceeds to delete it himself with a proposal that is brought out by him that hasn't reached community consensus.
  2. Example given is an example of false retiring, not vanishing.
  3. The topic of the essay is harassment while retiring and not false vanishing. False vanishing or false retirement itself does not have a direct correlation to "harassment" to me and other zhwiki community members who participated in the deletion discussions. Such "harassment" behaviour is unrelated to retirement or vanishing, and none of it needs retirement claims or vanishing to make sense.
  4. Giant logic jumps that makes no sense from "false retiring is dishonest" to "disadvantage to the condemned party", meatpuppetry and harassment. There is no description at all as to why there is disadvantage and what different does false retiring actually do to meatpuppetry and harassment considerations.
  5. Cherry specific points from local policies (which don't govern Meta for starters) and ignoring others. I assume the author translated the essay and used a enwiki link for a zhwiki policy since the enwiki policy doesn't have the part that they quoted. While the zhwiki user page policy disallows "campaigning with strong words", but allows "short one-sentence claims for each stance" and "no limitations if related to Wikipedia editing".

The entire essay is purely created to make their point and to work around zhwiki consensus, with major logic flaws and cherry picking policies. --LuciferianThomas 01:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep Keep. The nominator is stalking from w:zh:Special:diff/76709612in a POINTy way. I cannot find any separate essay This is Meta, not Chinese Wikipedia, so "to work around zhwiki consensus" is not valid here. Whatever zhwiki consensus might apply there does not automatically apply here. Respect our community here.--Jusjih (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Laughable stalk claim. In zh:Special:Diff/76690516/76708823 you specified a link to the RfC discussion, where in Special:Diff/24829253 you left a link to the essay page. So you tell me to go somewhere, and then cause you are also there you say I'm stalking?
Also in the zhwiki diff I provided, you said "因此,不同意本站作站務論述,移入多語文且中文不能自動轉換的元維基也行" (therefore if [the community] doesn't agree to have this essay in the Project namespace [of zhwiki], it's also possible to import it to Meta wiki). You as a Meta sysop clearly understands that Meta affects global operations, and therefore you can enforce your point onto zhwiki even that the community doesn't agree. No one says zhwiki consensus applies here, but your actions are POINT against zhwiki. LuciferianThomas 01:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You disagree just means you disagree, there are elsewhere users to agree it. Don't expect all users to agree pages like don't be a jerk, AFD is evil, ... etc. or otherwise why they should be essays instead of policies and/or guidelines? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Keep Such pages are just like other WP-related essays, just remember the texts of {{essay}}:

Otherwise we need to also delete e.g. Don't be a jerk , AFD is evil , ... etc. right?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not about opinion but it being unrelated to it's title. If this essay is "harassment while false retiring", it would not have been as bad; yet it still won't solve the problem of the lack of correlation between points and claims. LuciferianThomas 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"being unrelated to it's title", so either feel free to modify contents to match it, or feel free to rename the title to match the actual contents. Every wikis allow you to feel free to edit, as I said twice here: AFD is evil (yes, I can expect you disagree this page too, but I agree it, that's enough for an essay sanctioned by a user who accounted that idea. They won't be policies and/or guidelines unless one day it's modified to reflect every wiki editors' benefits, but how they aren't useful at all?) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have said in zhwiki, this essay needs to be renamed + rewritten. The author asked where it is unsuitable to be a project essay, I gave him the above points, and the author simply ignored it and moved it. I'm rewriting the essay in a completely different approach which will describe things in a more logical approach; yet the current version is simply too unacceptable and even dubious. LuciferianThomas 02:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, needs to be renamed + rewritten, so feel free, and be bold to do so. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not rewriting under the same article, so a delete is still requested. No point in keeping an essay that barely describes anything in logical order, and with possibly over-interpretation of terms. LuciferianThomas 02:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as I said above, feel free to move, instead of delete, as I said again and again, AFD is evil Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be failing to get the my point on over-interpretation and misleading points in the essay, as per ATannedBurger below. Moving the essay in its form doesn't help anything, and neither does screaming AFD is evil at me. LuciferianThomas 06:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] people can't criticize about how the Wikimedia Movement/Projects operates, at least that's what I'm seeing from this essay. I don't think violating freedom of speech is a good idea, despite those people who are criticizing the movement may originally be Wikimedia editors. Certainly, internet hate speech shouldn't be tolerated, but I think that's a different case (and a much more extreme one). Providing inputs about what the movement or projects should improve are beneficial, in my opinion. Delete or remove phrase "and anything else" and make adjustments based on the removal of that phrase. (edit: executed by author)--) 04:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226 and ATannedBurger: How about this compromise? If someone retires or vanishes forever, any criticism thereof should better be transferred to any active users who are willing to accept the responsibility, rather than kept in dormant users' pages. Criticizing about how the Wikimedia Movement/Projects operates requires caution on how to, neither unlimited freedom nor total ban. I prefer speedily keeping the essay in the content page from deletion, so anyone may make faithful edits, but renaming public essays started by others better be discussed first as good courtesy. I do consider renaming within the content page. --Jusjih (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally would prefer changes before closing the discussion. Some of the wording in this essay are definitely misleading, which I can see why LuciferianThomas is hoping for the page to be deleted. --) 05:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: author modified the content of the article. Despite still waiting for renaming, I would consider keep. Most essays, afterall, represent a small group of editors' (or a single editor's) opinion and don't necessarily reflect the policies that individual communities are willing to enforce. However, it is important to point out the obvious wrongs to ensure universal values were not just valued in the real world but on the internet as well. --) 07:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as courtesy goes, saying that I am stalking (as above) simply because I know how to follow links that you provided
and am RFDing your essay and assuming bad faith in calling a local community consensus to delete as "sabotage" in Special:Diff/24829253 sounds nothing like courtesy to me. Also speedy keep isn't really a thing in Meta AFAIK. --LuciferianThomas 06:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page seems to be related to Requests for comment/Global policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone by the same author. --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rewritten the essay, to remove phrase "and anything else" per ATannedBurger, and to also talk about "harassment while false retiring" per LuciferianThomas. Please note a quote from Jimbo Wales commenting about making libels in userpages. This is why I make the essay to support his speech. To "move it to meta so it also governs zhwiki" is not even true, so I consider trying to press zhwiki consensus here sounds nothing like courtesy to any essay writer here. Meta essays do not automatically govern any wiki. Special:Diff/24829253 has been reverted, so please don't remind others of past misdeeds. Renaming requires closing this talk as keep first, including any nominator's willingness to withdraw.--Jusjih (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest version further supports my stance for delete.
  1. The author does not address the misleading parts that I have listed in my OP (point 4) regarding unacceptable logic leaps, quoting Harassment while false retiring or false vanishing makes the criticized and condemned parties in a clearly unfair disadvantage trying to answer and defend themselves.
  2. The new example further shows the lack of need for an individual essay for the issue. False retirement (in general) needs an essay, a combination of two concepts (i.e. false retirement plus harassment) doesn't.
    Everything that can be said for harassment while false retiring can also be said for harassment in general cases, making this a totally redundant essay. Do we need individual essays for "using AFD to make a point" etc. while we already have individual pages talking about AFD and POINT? All of the points that makes any sense are already fully covered by harassment policies, why is there a need for an individual essay?
Regarding your other points:
  1. Meta essays doesn't automatically govern over zhwiki: the Inclusion policy states the use of Meta:
    • Documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects (see some current discussions).
    • Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects.
    • Multilingual cooperation of Wikimedia projects.
    • Relevant essays or advocacy (see some essays).
    • Primary research regarding the development of wiki projects.
    Every single point of inclusion are regarding Wikimedia projects. So is zhwiki not a Wikimedia project? As a global essay, is it counteractable and disagreeable by local community consensus?
  2. You have only retracted the inappropriate comment after I commented, so it was NOT a past misdeed at the time of writing; and now I am commenting on your current misdeed of making a false claim that it is a past misdeed. You have outright lied twice in this AFD already, of me stalking you and reminding a past misdeed.
One final note: stop telling me to retract my request so you can continue to make your point without even trying to face the problems I pointed out. zh:User:Ghren pointed out in zhwiki about the lack of direct correlation between false retirement and harassment, which you practically ignored; when I first opposed to your move request on zhwiki, you asked me to point out the issues in the essay, so I pointed out the five issues twice, once on zhwiki and once here, and you are still ignoring my main point. You are getting very close to w:WP:ICANTHEARYOU. LuciferianThomas 05:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Didn't contribute to zhwp for long time but I do think such pages aren't that acceptable in zhwp in the last I had been there. But this is meta so I hope we can focus on meta arguments. I think this is barely in scope for meta as we allow all sort of complains about whatsoever / whosoever etc, the scope here is much more lax. The problem is the namespace, this ideally should be a personal essay in userspace, so I will think a Keep and move to userspace will suffice. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Camouflaged Mirage: I do not like moving it to userspace, so which portions of the essay might not fit in the main namespace? I am considering downsizing the essay to focus on Jimbo Wales commenting about making libels in userpages, which may happen whether a user retires, vanishes, or not, in the interest of mediating everyone's dividing opinions here. To any administrator: When closing this talk to keep the essay from being deleted, I would like to advise referring to Meta:Proposed page moves to discuss how to rename.--Jusjih (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will say that this essay seems to be related to a particular situation and not that widespread in scope for a mainspace essay. I am not saying the name is problematic too but just the namespace this belongs to. Hope this clarifies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Simplified the essay to focus on Jimbo Wales commenting about making libels in userpages. Please do not say that this simple text still has to go to user subpage, but consider how much I am conceding. Hopefully the text stays in the main namespace, to be expanded only after settling a suitable title.--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jusjih: I agree, this can be Kept. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Before, it was telling some wrong "theories". But now, the 2 paragraphs are not organically connected, nor there is any original logical points made. So I'm afraid it cannot be technically called an essay. Move to userspace is fair enough. Zhxy 519 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are something mentioned about official positions from Jimbo, move to userspace isn't really fair at any kinds of galances. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Camouflaged Mirage: I disagree Zhxy 519 for several likely hounding and stalking harassments from Chinese Wikisource:
  1. That user has a controversial talk at Chinese Wikisource to retaliate and evade the fourth attempt of deadminship [1] against him plus one other admin.
  2. That user's Special:Diff/24853934 would excessively inhibit the freedom to update the essay.
  3. That user even filed not only one but two abusive RfCs.
  • Thus how may I request an interacting ban from Zhxy 519 to me?--Jusjih (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jusjih You are a sysop here so I think you know how to request, I guess RFH post can be one. I will rescue as always related to zh projects and given I participated here I can't act anyway. Why not we give a little excess of AGF here as RFD is an open venue where all can see, but I don't oppose any interaction ban anyway if it's 2 way and both parties agree on. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Camouflaged Mirage, Liuxinyu970226, and ATannedBurger: Hoping that the "essay-to-be" will be kept, will "Jimbo Wales against attacks on userpages" be a good new name? Thanks so much for your useful comments.--Jusjih (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Google plus one (2012-2013).svg as those texts are not originally from yourself, and as self-promotion texts are all removed, I totally don't know why such texts are still not suitable for keeping here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No comments w.r.t naming, that's another issue which can be done on talk after the close. I don't mind the current name. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Möller's Law[edit]

This "law" has not gained any meaningful traction even within Wikimedia (note no inbound links even on Meta), let alone beyond it. As the person it's attributed to based on a single mailing list post from nearly two decades ago, I prefer not to be associated with it. I think it can be safely deleted with nothing of value being lost.--Eloquence (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Deleted --MF-W 19:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Philippines/Projects[edit]

Redirect to a wiki that no longer exists (and itself redirects to the parent page). * Pppery * it has begun 13:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chattogram Wikipedia Community[edit]

As we have discussed previously (internal mailing list) keep all the related pages on our Wikimedia site ( with translation. So no need to keep the same things twice. Keeping all pages in Meta is creating confusion. ~Moheen (keep talking) 14:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moheen, is there any reason to prefer deletion over keeping it as an interwiki redirect? Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. The main page Wikimedia Bangladesh/Chattogram Wikipedia Community has already been redirected, so there is no reason to keep the other related pages here. Also, we will never update those pages in future. We keep all the information on our interwiki. ~Moheen (keep talking) 18:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not a translation. --LR0725 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Deleted by 1234qwer1234qwer4. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not a translation. --LR0725 (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Deleted by Hoo man. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:İsayev Xəyal X[edit]

Yes check.svg Deleted by Tulsi. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go links[edit]

Outside of Meta:Inclusion policy: spammy and barely/tangentially wiki-related at best. I removed some more recent spam, see the history for that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep as author; nothing spammy about the concept though I see one recent company tried to trademark the generic concept, confusing matters. An approach to disambiguation that is related to how we manage the authority file for names + redirects (esp. w/ some styles of namespace use in MW) –SJ talk  13:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Transwiki @Sj: this reads like a definition or reference article to me and seems like it would be better on a content project; it doesn't seem to be about wikimedia projects. — xaosflux Talk 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Template:Ph:ĀāĆćĎďĒēĜĝĤĥĨĩĴĵĹĺŃń and PAGENAMEE[edit]

I don't think we need a template to call a template to make an edit link? Seems used on a single page as well so the need of a template doesn't seem justified. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Unused, similar to {{edi}} and now a built-in MW feature via Special:EditPage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake here when listing it. It is used, but I think we can achieve the same using {{edit}} without yet another "give me an edit link" template. Feel free to discuss a merge and/or replacement with any existing template. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ph:Wanted page[edit]

Probably no longer required. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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


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


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

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.