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



The following discussion is closed.

This is a test draft proposal and is no longer needed. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Hi Alex. Please use {{delete|Reasons here}} next time. —MarcoAurelio 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi MarcoAurelio. Thanks for the tip!. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome :-) —MarcoAurelio 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

The same grant request was funded through the Inspire Campaign. This is a duplicate. Thanks, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. See above. —MarcoAurelio 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IdeaLab/participating of women in female page is antecedent to men....[edit]


Replaced by the Scribunto builtin mw.html. Nothing on Meta uses this module anymore. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)



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

None currently


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)
you shoukd leave the redirect.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I've recategorized the pages in Weekly IRC meetings to the Communication Projects Group - Meetings category but I don't think there's a need to leave the redirect. The title is too generic and Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Weekly_IRC_meetings has nothing except this page. IMO, we can just delete the category page. --Glaisher (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:User Ar[edit]

I notice there are a lot of empty language categories like Category:User Ar. Most were created by Babel AutoCreate around January 2014. The category is currently empty as are a lot of others. Do we need these? IMO we don't really need these categories unless someone is actually claiming that language. Reguyla (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused duplicate of Category:User ar. And I think all other old, unused language categories should be deleted, especially when the language code is capitalised (because it shouldn't be). PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    The #babel: extension is rather braindead since January, 2014, when it started to be case-insensitive, happily creating a mess on Commons out of BG (bitmaps graphics editor, a user ability) and bg (Bulgarian, a user language), and a few similar sets, forcing a revert to the old Template:Babel system for affected users.
    Meanwhile I created bitmap-1 + 2 for the BG-1 + 2 issue, but the #babel: extension output is still far too ugly, Meta is the only place where it actually works and looks nice. Sadly with a red link on global user pages on almost all other projects. Summary: Make sure that you actually kill the correct set of empty categories, otherwise this thingy automatically creates its own cruft again. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    Because of this 1.8.2 2014-01-05 Case insensitive, breaking some user templates. mw:Extension:Babel#Releases?--AldNonymousBicara? 00:18, 28 March 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)

Both, this discussion and the proposed EDP one are stagnated. Attempts to get this unlocked at RFH have been futile. How much time do we need to wait to get a decission over this, with things as clear as wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? - In claris, non fit interpretatio... No policy = no fair use. Sorry, but IMHO it's as simple as that. It's been clear that this community don't have any interest in developing and approving such a policy. Thanks. -- M\A 16:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Almost two years and still no agreement. It is sad to see that eight years since the WMF resolution, there are still numerous wikis like Meta that still don't have an EDP but do host hundreds of thousands of unfree files. For me the obvious solution is to move free, licensed images to Commons and unfree, useful images to a NonFreeWiki. The whole approach of hosting these unfree files locally has create a confused and confusing mess. Support NonFreeWiki and solve the problem. Green Giant (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The rule is that we must either get an EDP, or delete the content no later than 23 March 2008 (about seven years ago). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Merthyr Tydfil town centre granite bench.jpeg[edit]

This is an unlicensed and unused image that does not appear to fit into the scope of Meta. It can't be moved to Commons because it is unfree, and it can't be moved to a Wikipedia because it won't fit some non-free criteria. Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


This image was sourced from when it was uploaded in good faith but the link now goes straight to a Getty Images website, which has a very restrictive license. The last archived version does say there are "no usage restrictions" but there is no image so it is difficult to verify. The license at the time appeared to allow free re-use but does say images cannot be sold without written permission. The file is in use on Meta, but I'm not sure how strong a case could be made for keeping it. Green Giant (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.

The first useful map[edit]

Deleted The first useful map is AWOL on Maps and related files in Category:Wikimaps history, a set of 5…10 years old files about geocoding projects before OpenStreetMap took over. If an undamaged version can be undeleted, please do. Also see Special:WhatLinksHere/The first useful map to find the 2009 deletion debate, apparently the file was tagged as {{looks useless}} for months.
If the first useful map is decisively garbage please check The second useful map, maybe there was some file move vandalism. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)