Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, 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/Speedy deletions. 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


Draft PEG request[edit]


My own common.js and vector.js user subpages[edit]

Hi, I request deletion of my user subpages User:Syum90/common.js and User:Syum90/vector.js. Thanks.--Syum90 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Syum90: Done. In the future, it would be better if you use {{delete}} for speedy deletion requests and RfD for more substantial/controversial requests (although I doubt anyone really cares where you post obvious stuff like this). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: thanks. Does the template {{delete}} work in .js pages?--Syum90 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Syum90: Assuming the .js pages here work like those at the English Wikipedia, the template won't display, but if you look at the bottom of the page, the categorization will work properly and the admins will be able to find it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tested common.css here and elsewhere as /* {{speedy}} */ or similar, because one global.css is good enough for me, it always worked, and ECMAScript for common.js uses the same style of comments. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Philosopher: yes, the categorization works, I've tested it at MediaWiki with my common.js page.--Syum90 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


I found this while reviewing invalid user pages. There's no such user, and the page seems somewhat spammy. On the other hand it was created in 2006, when pseudo-user pages for anonymous users on Meta was still a thing (note an incoming link from a manual signature). Might be historical? Listing it here since I'm not sure. —Pathoschild 04:04, 03 March 2015 (UTC)

I would presume this is a misplaced user page creation by User:CSharp-Online.NET Editor who has a non-unified account on with a user page created about the same time. Suggest it is deleted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


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

Template:Steward requests/Page importation[edit]

Unused template. @Brackenheim: --Glaisher (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The page can be deleted. Perhaps it will be used again, when the SUL finalisation is over and there is a global import-right (similar to the global rename-right). Kind regards, --Brackenheim (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Weekly IRC meetings[edit]

In my opinion, the title is too vague, and this seems to be a duplicate of Category:Communication Projects Group - Meetings anyway. I propose to merge this category into the latter. Perhaps a redirect should be left? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

After seeing it's content, I think it's a duplicate, I think it's should be merged.--AldNonymousBicara? 07:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


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

All files in Category:Unfree Wikimania bid media files[edit]

The following discussion is on hold: until an EDP is discussed and set up Trijnsteltalk 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations. Meta-Wiki does not allow unfree content. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and the result of a previous request for deletion on fair use files. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't they just be speedily deleted per WM:CSD#G5 or WM:CSD#I1? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If not, just delete them. Files like this shouldn't be on Meta, as the project doesn't have an EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What's an EDP? Is it like an NDA or more like BBQ? Kaldari (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
An exemption doctrine policy QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) .
  • Please notify every uploader prior to any deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've come to discussion because one of the files I uploaded as part of WM2013's bid is being nominated for deletion. My first point would be that this deletion request is effectively trying to overturn a convention which has been on Meta for years - working documents of Wikimedia events, which don't fit Commons' licensing criteria, are uploaded to Meta locally. So it isn't a deletion discussion that we need - a policy decision at Meta:Babel must precede this deletion. My second point is that, what do we do with future Wikimedia events which require inline quotation of non-CC-BY-SA-compatible media for logistical reasons? Deryck C. 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of this discussion has been given to mail:wikimania-l [1] and chapters-l (private mailing list for Wikimedia chapters). Deryck C. 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that Meta needs an EDP; but I don't think that policy discussion should be used as reason to delete images in active use - it is simply a reason to set up an EDP as soon as there is an obvious need for one. As Nathan points out below, not being able to host documents that are used on other projects is contrary to the purpose of having Meta in the first place. As long as media posted here are acceptable on any of our projects they should be acceptable here in the same context; to enable coordination Meta should have the least restrictive of all wikimedia-project EDPs. SJ talk  04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There has been never a convention to host copyrighted files at Meta, simply a "couldn't care less" and lazy actitude about them on that area and many others. Per the bunch of discussions we already had on this topic in the past, no one is really interested in mantaining multimedia files as Stefan2 points out. Less talk and more actions, please. If you are really interested on setting a EDP for Meta that's fine; but I'd like to see a decent proposal. Because everyone that wants to keep this (currently) copyright violations hosted here simply opposes the deletion with groundless arguments but does nothing else, such as not proposing a draft EDP, for example. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer seems pretty straightforward; Meta is a site, not a project. It's a place for cross coordination between projects, not a project itself, and therefore isn't subject to the licensing resolution. The result that virtually all Wikimania or chapter related documents would be deleted is absurd on its face, so let's find a way to avoid that instead of speedy deleting files that are in current critical use. Nathan T 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Meta is a project as every other is. Meta is subject to the WMF resolutions unless there's an explicit exemption on the resolution itself. Those files are copyright violations and should be erased completly. Chapters should feel free to create their own sites (WMF provides wikis for them) to upload their documents if they want to, as some of them already do. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio, I find your use of the phrase "copyright violations" disturbing. That the files are not CC-BY-SA compatible (in violation of current Meta policy) doesn't mean they're violations of copyright. As far as I understand, all the files in the category are used with permission or fall within fair use (which is acceptable by law regardless of project policy). Deryck C. 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Home page of Meta: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia activities.
Like Nathan wrote, meta is not a wikimedia project, it's a coordination site, per definition file host on meta should be the one that do not belong to commons.--Charles Andrès (WMCH) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The words "project" and "site" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Wikipedia is a site, but it is also a project. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think what we're really trying to achieve with these discussions is very simply the tidying up of all media files hosted on Meta. Files that can be moved to Wikimedia Commons should be moved to Commons and then deleted from Meta (as is standard practice when you move a file to Commons). Any other files should either be properly licensed (now I see work has started on an exemption doctrine policy) and sourced, or deleted. Giving uploaders a reasonable time frame (30 days?) to provide source and licensing information once the EDP is in place, after which remaining files should be deleted seems reasonable to me. In the mean time we should work on getting an EDP for Meta and where possible start the transfer of CC-BY-SA and similar licensed images from Meta to Commons. Thoughts? Thehelpfulone 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there consensus for or against this yet? Any progress? Currently, we have all files in this category in the RfD category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If the files have been specifically created as a specific component of the bid for hosting Wikimania, then it would seem that they are provided to the Wikimania bid committee as records and such they should be retained as records for archival purposes. I would see that the letters have been provided in that context and should be retained, they clearly have valid historical perspective. If we have a policy/procedure that did not consider such record retention then it is clearly flawed and should be updated to allow this to occur. If the files are supplemental to the bid, eg. they are stock items and not part of record, then we should consider their deletion. I note that where the winning bids have a requirement for these images, they should consider moving them to the corresponding wikimania in line with the appropriate copyright restrictions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think, whenever and however possible, as many of these files should be kept as we can for historical purposes. Even a bid that did not win has historic value to people working on Wikimania. The visuals that go with those bids - like the letters and hotel layouts - can be valuable. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Comment I propose that this be closed as no consensus as an overarching proposal, and those who wish to propose individual files can do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Support closure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not possible: All projects are required to follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No discussion in the last few months. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How can we move forward? I don't see consensus to delete, but it might be required. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One way to move forward is to adopt an exemption doctrine policy and see if the files match that policy, but the discussion at Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy has been stale since August. Without an exemption doctrine policy, I don't see how we can keep the files. File:Entrepreneurship index 2010.gif is probably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tried taking a stab at establishing an official guideline myself, located at User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox. The notice at the top of the page Meta:Fair use says that in order to revive the proposal: " may use the talk page or start a discussion at Meta:Babel". However, the extant problems are that the talkpage for that proposed policy page is unwatched by many, thus the discussion there would simply become inactive again, and Meta:Babel has also become quite inactive recently, with not many people commenting there at all. If discussions would go stale so quickly like this, how can we come to a proper consensus conclusion about what to do with these images? Or how to properly implement a policy that is needed to satisfy Wikimedia's licensing resolutions, which are applicable to all Wikimedia wikis? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Naturally speaking, per the licensing resolution, discussions about the status of nonfree images default to delete rather than keep, contrary to what normally happens in discussions concerning other content. So please, do not close this discussion yet, we may still need these images. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This image for example looks like some sort of public theatre or auditorium. If it indeed was designed to be used as a public theatre, and not merely used only for the Wikimania conference in the Netherlands, it could qualify for moving to commons under Commons:Freedom of panorama#Netherlands. Only problem is deciding what license the original uploader Mwpnl releases the pictures under; unfortunately though he's been inactive since 2012. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The original uploader can only license the picture if he is the copyright holder. Image now tagged a "no source". Unfortunately, per the deletion policy, files with insufficient legal information can only be deleted if they are unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait @Stefan2: why'd you tag it as having no source? It's clearly indicated on the image description page as originating from Tuschinski theatre, and the license is marked "Copyrighted with all rights reserved". I'm not seeing the insufficient lack of legal information that you are talking about. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The text "auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre" only tells where the photograph was taken (auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre) but not by whom (a visitor? the uploader? an employee?). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Then it'd technically be lacking authorship information, but then can't we assume it's Mwpnl who uploaded the picture? In any case, without an EDP looks like most of these are going to have to go regardless anyway. It's too bad no one has tried to take their own gander at it, or look to see what could be improved from the current language at Meta:Fair use. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It currently doesn't say where he got it from. Maybe he took it himself, maybe he got it from the owner of the building.
Meta:Fair use does not seem to cover many of the files in this category. Meta:Exemption doctrine policy misses the condition in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which forbids replaceable content when it talks about "Reports, financial statements, letters, and other documents" as such documents are replaceable by a freely licensed summary of the documents written by someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? I understand we should accept an EDP such as this proposal or this draft. Maybe Peteforsyth could assist here? Trijnsteltalk 12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you would think of me, but I have not given this much consideration since it came up for discussion before. I have just given the two links you (@Trijnstel:) provided; I am generally impressed, they both do a good job of laying out the relevant issues. I'm not sure how I can best help. It seems that the people who produced those two files might want to put together an RFC or similar? If any of them would like some feedback before publishing a formal RFC I would be happy to take a closer look. Also, I'm not sure why there are two separate proposals; from my quick read, it seems that the substance of the two is pretty similar, just with different formatting. It might be worthwhile for them to either settle on a single draft to propose, or else make it very clear how the proposals differ, and what is at stake in choosing one over the other. I will keep an eye on this page in the near future, but feel free to ping me again if I miss a comment. -Pete F (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've outlined a very general approach toward putting these two draft policies up for community review and possible adoption, here: Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy#General support Any feedback? -Pete F (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This deletion request is over a year old; it's time to discuss the proposed EDP drafts. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree. I'm officially putting this request Time2wait.svg On hold until an EDP is discussed and set up. Plus, we shouldn't forget this. Trijnsteltalk 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)



File:Kit right arm cukrownikchybie.png[edit]

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.

Rule of diminishing replies[edit]

  • Rule of diminishing replies - deletion notice says it's on otrswiki, but it is not publicly visible there.[2] I saw a reference to it on en.wp and wonder what it says. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)
    • I tend to agree, this should be undeleted. The principles discussed on that page should have a place for discussion on Meta -- regardless of whether/how they are employed in the OTRS system. Thehelpfulone is there a reason for your deletion? -Pete F (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi Pete, thanks for the mention. I think I deleted a number of pages as part of an OTRS clean up, I checked the page on OTRS wiki and there don't seem to be many major changes to the page. I'd be happy to have this page undeleted and then cleaned up to be used for general purposes too. Thehelpfulone 00:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, it should be undeleted. For the record, here's an archived version: [3] PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool -- I've now restored. -Pete F (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)