Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFD)
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.


The page "Access to nonpublic personal data policy-summary/" has moved to the Foundation website, and we have all these unattached translations that people still are editing, which is valueless. Probably time for a cleanout, unless someone can think of a reason not to do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See list


This page is outdated and is no longer relevant. We are moving all content which is under the WMF Research Team to MediaWiki (WMF Research) and leaving anything that is community-led here on Meta. --KGordon (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Statement on Palestine[edit]

Discussion open until at least 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Beyond the fact that it is not the place of Wikimedians to take sides in armed conflicts, this open letter identifies with the Palestinian cause regarding matters within Israel. This partisanship is devisive slacktivism and should not be present within Wikimedia's servers. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep There have been several open letters written by members of the Wikimedia Movement, pertaining to the Movement, hosted on Meta in the past. This statement does talk about specific actions that members of our Movement would like to see from the Foundation and is not trying to request or mandate things of organisations outside the Movement (for example, it is not asking any actions of any government or NGO). If the Foundation feels this matter is ultra vires for Meta, then they can take Office actions to remove the page and they can contact the editors there to discuss it further. I don't think this is a matter that needs to be addressed by the community on RfD — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It's important to have space for open letters from members within the Wikimedia Movement. --Kiraface (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Deleting such a document goes against the democratic spirit of the Wikimedia community. Free knowledge is an agenda in the fight for democracy and it is even expected that organizations and movements with a social impact like ours take a stand on global issues like these. XenoF (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep A request for deletion of a statement of this kind shouldn't take place in a democratic movement. If you disagree you can discuss the topic, but to just plainly ask that these words do not exist on our servers is against the spirit and values of this movement.Señoritaleona (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep This open letter not only makes demands of our community and the Foundation, it serves as an opportunity for Wikimedians with shared values to connect and further strategize; it's unifying rather than divisive and is more aligned with the positive connotations of "slacktivism" than it is with the negative ones. Nyeboah (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia in general has taken a position on the Russo-Ukrainian war in favor of Ukraine countless times. So, Wikimedians can take sides in armed conflicts. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Wikimedia has always shown direct support for Ukraine and Israel and recently had issues regarding how to brand what Israel was doing to palestinian people on enwiki and commons which actually disgusted me (refusal to call the Al-Rashid massacre just that but instead pushing for it to be called an "incident" was downright insulting to over 118+ lives lost that day). We are no longer a neutral site cause even today i saw people from Israel wiki (hebrew wiki) push their propaganda on commons and enwiki, if we can no longer be neutral, atleast we should act like we are.--Stemoc 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep Keep. It is what Wikipedia is for after all, an open source of unbiased information. -Filipinayzd (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep one has the right not to agree with this statement (and personally, I don't fully agree with some of its sentences) but I see no reason to delete this statement. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 16:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove While I agree with the content, Wikipedia should not engage in political advocacy, it undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove I don't want Wikimedia to become another forum or social network. Wikimedia should not become a a battleground or a forum to promote our own political or religious ideas, or any kind of advocacy or propaganda of any kind that does not strictly relate to our objectives. I sympathize with many causes, but I don't express my ideas on Wikimedia pages; rather, I use social media or spaces for social or political activism that are meant for that purpose. The goal of Wikimedia is to advocate for free knowledge, to collect and develop educational content under free licenses or public domain, and to effectively disseminate it globally, not to express our opinions on any conflict. We should only express opinions when our projects are at stake, for example, when Wikipedia is censored in some regions.--Jalu (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Since when has Wikipedia politalized? Lilijuros (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not at liberty to vote on this RFD, but I have updated my candidate page here -- Sleyece (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove This statement completely violates Wikimedia Foundation charter and NPOV policy. Moreover, it is one-sided, completely ignoring Hamas' massacre of October 7th 2023 and the kidnapping of innocent people to Gaza, and depicts a distorted version of reality. MathKnight (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Whatever the precedents elsewhere, Wikipedia should not be pulled left or right, pro or contra. I find this kind of thing - an attempt to identify an encyclopedia with a political statement - deeply disturbing, indeed somewhat shocking. And I state that even more firmly as an editor closely associated with working in the I/P area, basically curating Palestinian perspectives. Our remit here is to master the history and scholarship, and ensure that articles are written NPOV to that end. Political statements are facile: actually doing something to achieve informative coverage on a conflict is hard work. That is where editors must commit themselves, not to flagwaving. Horrible. I'm not neutral, but wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs (as opposed to giving detailed information about the history enabling readers to form their own opinions regarding the merits or otherwise of those perceived wrongs and the preceived 'justice' of those who claim that they are not wrongs, for example)(User:Nishidani) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Please re-read the quote contained in the statement: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". When 30,000+ innocent people are killed, neutrality becomes complicity. Silence becomes harm. Speaking up becomes a duty. This statement will not be censored. Mushroom (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About one-third to half of those 30,000 Palestinians killed were members of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other militia/terror-groups and NOT innocent civilians. This is why the statement is factually false and distorted. MathKnight (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to believe that it's moral and justified to indiscriminately bomb and murder innocent civilians because (supposedly) some bad people are hiding among them, feel free to do so. I am equally free to express my disagreement. Mushroom (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't preach about morality when you deny and refuse to condemn Hamas atrocities. On October 7th Hamas massacred 1000 innocent people, raped women, burned babies in front of their mothers, and kidnapped civilians into the Gaza Strip. This one-sided statement fails to condemn it and implicitly supports Hamas ' atrocities. This one-sided distorted and factually false statement should be speedily deleted. Wikimedia Foundation should not endorse hatred. MathKnight (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, in any way, endorse Hamas. But I guess everyone in Gaza’s a terrorist in Israel’s eyes. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we believe this ‘math’ from MathKnight, that still means that a qualified majority (more than two thirds) of the deaths were civilians. I don’t see how the presence of an alleged ‘one third’ justifies the mass killings of the two thirds. stjn[ru] 13:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia existed during WWII, would it have stayed silent when the Holocaust was being perpetrated?! Being an encyclopedia does not mean staying neutral when atrocities are being committed. Keep Keep! عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia existed during WWII, this statement is the equivalent of denouncing The Allies for bombing Germany while refusing to denounce Nazi Germany. MathKnight (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’d be like saying “we condemn the US government’s violent policies against Indians” in the 19th century, and then US settlers said “but why don’t you condemn the massacres of Americans by the Indians?” The answer is of course that Native Americans did commit what would be considered war crimes by modern standards, but in retrospective analysis has since put that in a framework of complete genocide by the United States. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep there is no neutrality when it comes to human values. I don't think this will be brought up against the situation in Ukraine, or older conflicts in Europe. Besides this doesn't apply to what is considered Not acceptable--باسم (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I don't know how the page violates wikimedia policies. I trust no one can prove that. I've said before in a discussion: "the solidarity with human rights in safe life and other rights mentioned in UDHR isn't a violation of the neutral point of view" and I still hold this conviction. Ahmed Naji Talk 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove -- calling the crisis "Israel-created" as opposed to "Hamas-created" is disinformation; it's telling that not a single word could be spared to condemn the 10/7 attack by Hamas that threatened the lives of Israeli Wikimedians; nor is there any mention of the hostages still being held. Everyone involved with the publication of this should be ashamed of themselves. SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate form will be Hamas-created Israel-intensified, so I see the current iteration as purely political statement that tries to shift blame on one party - i.e. the intention seems not to address the situation but to assign blame on the initial victim.
But yeah this is still technically in scope, so it should be kept. 1233 T / C 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One need not qualify a statement against genocide with condemnations of the perpetrator's adversaries. AP295 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep If you disagree with this you are welcome to not sign it, or start your own competing open letter. Meta-Wiki is not censored. * Pppery * it has begun 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Since we are a global movement with a core principle based on community, free knowledge, participation and the recognition the value of all the individuals in the world, I think the correct answer is peace. Although not everyone is on the same page, the majority of people in the movement are against the occupation, the massacre and the destruction of a culture (including universities, temples and all kinds of culture heritage). --Luisalvaz (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I can't understand why some insist on deleting this statemen.. Do they want to wait for killing more innocent Palestinians while the world turns a blind eye? Freedom's Falcon (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep This page falls within the scope of Meta Wiki. The rationale behind the deletion nomination is that the page does not adhere to the principle of Neutral point of view. As outlined in Meta:What Meta is not, '"Meta is not written from a neutral point of view. It concerns the entire Wikimedia community, and often contains the opinions of specific users,'" thereby invalidating the sole basis for the proposed deletion. Additionally, Meta:What Meta is not states, "Meta is not an encyclopedia, and does not collect encyclopedic information." Thus, referencing Wikipedia and its NPOV policy in the deletion discussion of a page on Meta Wiki is not relevant. Moreover, I observe a potential case of canvassing; although I do not understand the language, Google Translate outputs led me to this suspicion. -- BIDROHI Hello.. 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep The page does not pretend to be an encyclopedia article but presents itself as the position of a group of Wikimedia organisations and Wikimedians. Over the history of the Wikimedia movement, the movement as a whole or groups within it have taken political positions; this is compatible with neutrality of project content and in some cases it is demanded by our cause of free and open knowledge. This wiki is not a content project and is a suitable venue for users to express opinions about the effect of events such as wars on our mission. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Wikipedia should not engage in political advocacy, it undermines Wikipedia's neutrality. שמיה רבה (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is meta.wikimedia; it's not Wikipedia -- Sleyece (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Per OwenBlacker, and we are a democratic community, and it's important to have space for open letters.--Faisal talk 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Although I agree with much of the sentiment in the letter, and can respect the wishes of components of the Wikimedia empire to express opinions on political or social issues, it is not the purpose of Wikimedia as a whole. Zero0000 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you voted remove while making an argument for keep. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Even when most of us can agree with the fact that what's happening in Gaza is horrifying, speaking about it in terms of "oppressor/oppressed" is an oversimplification of the issue and lacks the rigor Wikipedia should have. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foránea (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia, and thousands of people massacred is not an oversimplification. Luisalvaz (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is running an apartheid state and is now committing genocide. This is "oppressor/oppressed", plain and simple. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. This concerns Wikimedia communities and editors, some of whom have already been killed by this siege. Wikimedia has a responsibility to at least ensure the safety of volunteers. Why would anyone oppose this? -—M@sssly 04:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, wikipedia must stand for against any kind of injustice always. Bengali editor (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikimedia, not wikipedia. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Many objections to the page's existence seem to think we're on Wikipedia right now. Not to mention that the desire to delete the page on the grounds of it being unnecessarily political is as inherently political as its creation. Battleofalma (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep justice! Why would anyone oppose this? 🌴Zulf talk 11:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep there is no hard rule that says Wikimedians cannot publish political statements. English Wikipedia doesn’t rule Wikimedia; in fact it’s closer to the opposite. I don’t like to wade too much into the political meta-argument over this deletion but this coming on the heels of an unsubtle attempt to prevent ArWiki from condemning the war in Gaza sure seems like an attempt to enforce the West’s anti-Palestinian taboo on Wikimedia. Should Wikimedia not allow advocacy? Maybe, maybe not. But as long as there’s a lopsided focus on censoring pro-Palestinian advocacy I’ll vote against every one of these campaigns. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Extremely one-sided statement which completely ignores atrocities which has been done by the other side and, above all, violates any NPOV policy that was determined by the foundation. TheStriker (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are there any special rules? 🌴Zulf talk 15:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is not on behalf of the foundation, but the community (which is independent). There are not NPOV policies that limits our freedom of speech as volunteers and affiliates. Luisalvaz (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep petrohs (gracias) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Remove Remove Partisan and unobjective. SigTif (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep and move to Joint statement by Wikimedia organizations and individuals regarding the ongoing situation in Palestine, 7 April 2024. It is about the Wikimedia project, after all, but the page title is somewhat misleading. --魔琴 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep أمين (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Celinea33 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Absolutely bogus to believe this page is "one-sided". There is nothing "one-sided" about advocating for an ethnic group currently being starved to death and unjustly massacred. Lastly, there is no mention or support for Hamas anywhere on the page. This isn't a case of politics, this is a case of humanity. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's a matter of humanity and I agree with your points, but it is also a matter of politics. There's no reason one should avoid political discourse in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:NPOV only states that wikipedia articles must be objective and fair. Do not confuse objectivity with political or moral quietism/apathy. If anything, healthy political discourse might have prevented this sad state of affairs. AP295 (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Meta is not written from a neutral point of view. It is not an encyclopedia or other educational resource, and hence, has no need for NPOV. Wikimedians should be free to express their opinions on Meta, unless those opinions are pure vandalism or spam. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It is a political message that has nothing to do with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Leaving the message makes Wikimedia a political entity. דוד שי (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Estyxxxx (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove This is not twitter.
Ex ex (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove RemoveIt has nothing to do with Wikimedia Foundation. שמש מרפא (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove This statement has been replaced by Talk:Joint_Statement_on_Palestine#What_WMF_should_do? which is being deseminated on the mailing list and asking people to come here and sign. 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Mystrixo (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Utterly one-sided in favor of the aggressor, failing to acknowledge their responsibility for executing the deadliest single-day attack in the history of this conflict.
While the diversity of perspectives in Wikimedia is valued, the inclusion of such a statement could risk politicizing this platform and alienating individuals who hold differing viewpoints. Wikimedia's primary focus should remain on providing neutral and reliable information, and endorsing one side of a complex geopolitical issue may compromise its reputation for impartiality. YedidyaPopper (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove העיתונאי המנטר (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove דגן דיגן (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It is a political message that has nothing to do with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia is not Twitter. בן עדריאל (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove It is a political message which should not be mentioned in Wikimedia. ykantor 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Editors and communities on Wikimedia are affected by this, as some have already perished as a result of the siege. At the very least, it is the duty of Wikipedia to protect its volunteers. Why would someone be against this?. SIR SUCCESS (NAA JAHINFO) (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep دعما لمن لا علاقة له بالحرب. أبو هشام (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep - MartinPoulter sums up my thoughts well. There is no evidence the user groups are speaking on behalf of Wikimedia. However, I think the title could be adjusted to make this clear. Leaderboard (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove אייל (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove - clearly political and subjective. I would expect it to call on Hamas to release the kidnapped and surrender, not de-facto blame Israel, but that's my political opinion and it too should not appear in a joint statement. DGtal (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove Not our scope. --Krd 08:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment an outsize number of “delete” voters are clearly Israeli, either explicitly or implicitly (no other country speaks Hebrew). Many of those same users have barely or never used Meta before. It’s entirely possible there’s nationalistically-motivated canvassing going on here. Dronebogus (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly canvassing going on on both sides here (or at least those who have been shown to the page see the deletion discussion link at the top). Comments from Meta-Wiki regulars, and those commenting as to how the page fits or does not fit in the Meta:Inclusion policy will be more heavily weighted than the others. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Except on one side, there is an overt call to members of the Hebrew Wikipedia from someone who had never edited on that Wikipedia to urgently come and comment on this RfD. The eyesore of a banner on top (which won't be missed when it's gone) is an invitation to all, and can hardly be equated with canvassing. I agree that "on both sides" there are people who are for/against the statement itself, which is not what this RfD is about, and I trust the closing admin will be able to judge which of the arguments have merit and which are mere "voting" on the statement. In fact if this were a popular vote, I would argue that all the individuals who've signed the statement should count towards "keep". In any case, it would set a dangerous precedent if a page on Meta is deleted because someone doesn't like or agree with its content. Fjmustak (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies.--Dr-Taher (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I don't find a reason on how the page does not fit under our scope. Its name does appear problematic as noted by 魔琴 and a rename to a suitable new title should work, for instance, Collective Letter from Wikimedia movement groups and individuals about ongoing situation in Palestine concerning Palestinian Wikimedia community, date perhaps?. Neutral point of view is not an issue here because Meta is not an encyclopedia nor is this an encyclopedic article. It hasn't been portrayed as a statement by anyone else not signing it. If someone doesn't agree, a simple solution would be not to sign it. Getting it deleting for mere disagreement is not a policy-centered idea. None of the delete voters have so far provided an argument on how this page fails the scope and inclusion policy of Meta-Wiki. I'd be glad to change my vote if there comes a policy-centered argument about how exacly the page fails and why explictly it should be deleted. I mean not just: "I don't like it", "Out of scope", "fails this policy". Exactly how and why? Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove per above. Neriah - 💬 - 22:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It's for a good cause. Some parts are rather non-specific and should probably be made clearer, but I get the gist of it. As others have pointed out, NPOV only applies to wikipedia articles. To say that everyone must remain apolitical at all times on any wikimedia site is nonsense, and would essentially amount to political censorship. The word "neutral" is being applied as euphemism to conflate objectivity and political quietism. AP295 (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep It doesn't violate wikimedia policies. Batoul84 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. A statement of solidarity with peaceful civilians, including Wikipedians who have died in the conflict, does not violate any Meta rules or Wikimedia-wide policies. stjn[ru] 13:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Remove There is essay WP:Nothere which sums up why this should not be here and should be removed. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays aren't policy. AP295 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case[edit]

Doesn't seem to be within Meta's scope. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yeah, not the place.
🌴Zulf talk 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this thing? An incredibly boring essay some IP apparently moved from enwiki during WM’s absolute infancy, and it’s still kicking around 20 years later? Who actually reads this thing, let alone finds it helpful? I’d look at page statistics but it’s not even worth the effort. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English Wikipedia related old stuff which doesn't have any relevance there as well. Unsure about how it is in-scope here? ─ Aafī (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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.


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.