Meta:Requests for deletion

Shortcut:
WM:RFD

This page hosts proposals for page deletion. Before using this page, see the Deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion. Place {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in the appropriate section below; any language may be used on this page. After at least two weeks, an administrator will 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 unknown 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.

Pages

Add new listings at the end of this section.

Wikidharma, Diamond, Zen guide, Assume nothing, The Zen of Wikipedia, Heart, Don't be a crybaby

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per author's request

A bunch of rambling personal essays on Wikipedia policy that seem irrelevant to Meta. Many of them seem to actually be copy-and-pasted from en.Wikipedia without even fulfilling the GFDL. Dmcdevit 11:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already wondered what stuff that is... But if they are essays copied from enwp one could easily import the history, right? Maybe they should rather be deleted on enwp and stored on Meta? --Thogo (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this user was recently banned on Wikipedia, which would explain him moving everything here. I don't really see anything valuable in them. It just looks like more clutter to me, and someone had way too much time on their hands and decided to write essays instead of contributing content to a project. Dmcdevit 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without giving any opinion on the whole set of pages, nor on the user, I think pages such as Zen guide belong to meta, or at least used to belong there (though maybe not in the main namespace). There is a lot of such (humorous) essays in Category:Essays, which now states "Meta-Wiki started out as a place where many people described their thoughts about Wikipedia and other topics. [...] As of 2006, there is some disagreement about whether new essays, particularly personal essays, should be added to Meta anywhere but in user space." guillom 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, I'd appreciate it if you could've brought your concerns to me directly. Also, I've been blocked for a week, not banned. You also may be interested to take a look at the diff used as an example of "trolling." [1]

I came here because I thought there was a bit more openness and intellectual freedom here, and a bit more tolerance for people with a deletionist philosophy. I think that there are substantial problems with Wikipedia (see my contributions to WP:FAIL) and actually trying to edit Wikipedia has been fairly frustrating and literally "impossible" in the full sense of the word. I'm continually accused of bad faith and so on, and diligent attempts at clarifying that's not the case always fail. So, in order to avoid being perma-banned, I'm currently on a "vow of silence" with the Wikipedia community, for my own account's sake, as they don't seem to follow anything I say and I'd have to actually give up the whole idea of "improving Wikipedia" in order to maintain any kind of sanity.

My only goal now is to:

Finish a collection of essays on policy and Wikipedia philosophy (there's tons of such essays all across meta)
Contribute to Veropedia when I get back from the block.

Please, at least let me do that.

Calling them "a bunch of rambling personal essays" is insulting. They're copied from Wikipedia, but I wrote them. They are mine legally, so I can release them under the GFDL to Wikipedia, then release them under the GFDL to Meta, then release them to whoever else I want under whatever license I want.

I don't have a problem with deleting them from enwp if you want or importing the edit history, or what-have-you. Zenwhat 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Meta is a great place for essays and I have also tagged essays before which looked really stupid and well these are examples of those, I should have deleted the first one he created when he was blocked on enwiki but it seems all his essays are just Personal attacks on people on wikipedia and its founder and thats why I believe these essays are not suited for Meta...--Comet styles 12:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through most of these pages I agree with Dmcdevit that these pages are not worth keeping. They aren't funny nor useful. --> Delete. --Thogo (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I'm deleting them myself. User:Kim Bruning has offered to give me webpspace. I'll publish them there.

I mean, frankly, this is ridiculous. How are you going to call Assume nothing a "personal essay"? Zenwhat 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted them all per user request. Enough of this. Majorly (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll be an antigenderist and Ethics or Morals

The following discussion is closed: deleted, clear consensus--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 11:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essays that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or any Wikimedia project.--Shanel 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per nom. --Aphaia 07:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --Thogo (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. ----Comet styles 09:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Adambro 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually prefer to write up something specific about why I think something should be deleted, but I'll be damned if Shanel didn't sum it up quite succinctly. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely nothing related to Wikimedia. Shanel said it perfectly. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. Nakon 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I can't see how they're related to wikipedia. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ethics or Morals has been kept there for 5 years and edited by several users. Nobody here has notified any of the authors that edited either articles. Articles on philosophy, specifically, are relevant to Wikipedia because all policy is based on philosophy, no? Zenwhat 15:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the philosophy actually alluded to Wikimedia, then it would be relevant. Also, The content of Ethics or Morals was only edited by one user (Manning Bartlett). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being relevant to Wikimedia in particular. Giggy\^Talk 10:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches that Wikimedia pages rank first on

The following discussion is closed: deleted, clear consensus--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not being used for anything in particular, as far as I can see, and, given the number of Wikimedia projects, is likely impossible to maintain. In fact, the last time it was updated was all the way in July last year. I can't imagine these will be first page for everyone that searches for these terms, or that they will always be (The article for Anatoli Yevgenyevich Karpov is the 3rd result for me. There is not even an article for "fart lighting," as it should be).--Shanel 05:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely to ever be maintained or to be accurate. Nakon 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Nakon. --Thogo (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Comet styles 09:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty pointless. Adambro 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waaaaaaaay too wide open, and extremely fluid. We could be updating this all the time, and for absolutely no real benefit to the project(s). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would take a lot of manpower to update regularly, at little benefit to the project. Serves no purpose. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintanable. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate criticism

The following discussion is closed: deleted, consensus is quite clear. --Thogo (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author had pages nominated above that were speedily deleted. I am strongly tempted to delete this however I would prefer to have the community's views. Personally I do not see such a page as appropriate for Meta although I appreciate it is a personal essay. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A now blanked comment at most, that may have been needed at articles like m:w:en:Criticism of Wikipedia long ago. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-13t17:43z
Delete with final warning to the editor in question - a couple of those claims is either baseless or rumours created by those "BADSITES" whose only ulterior motive is to bring down the Foundation,..sorry, as mentioned above, we would love to have excellent essays on Meta but that doesn't mean we will allow such 'attacks' on the foundation and its faithful editors...--Comet styles 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh, now come on. :D Zenwhat 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just after one day several similar submissions were speedied per author's request with saying they would be hosted on another website, this page was submitted with a mention to a particular username. Very trollish and hardly to mix with meta purpose to build Wikimedia user community. --Aphaia 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see how this aids community building or the coordination of Wikimedia projects. Seems to just be an excuse to list the more outrageous accusations that trolls have come up with. WjBscribe 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - w:WP:FAIL should take this. Giggy\^Talk 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real value and not appropriate here. --AndrewCates 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thinly disguised, I must say. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not appropriate nor useful. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprograms

The following discussion is closed: kept. Consensus is quite clear. --Thogo (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An old proposal that never got any attention or even any discussion. Only one user commented on it. They said, "Is this not just sourceforge?" and the author never responded. Zenwhat 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For archival purposes and historical interest, meta community have kept new project proposals. I think it a good tradition as well as completely compatible with meta purpose for project coordination with brain storming. This request is somehow trolling imho. --Aphaia 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Per Aphaia...--Comet styles 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Per Aphaia. --.snoopy.  08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aphaia, though I don't quite see the request as trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I could have assume a good faith but it is difficult to see his other submission and voting just before this nomination. They seems to me "oppositions for opposition".--Aphaia 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ???

Aphaia, I found this while surfing Special:Random. I was looking for stuff I could copy-edit and\or nominate for RfD. See my thread here: Meta:Babel#How can I help?

Please, assume good faith. Even for blocked users. Thank you. Zenwhat 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, normally such things are not deleted ~ --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 11:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Aphaia--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aphaia, but I will assume good faith on Zenwhat's part. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

User tsolyáni-1

The following discussion is closed: subst:ed and deleted, clear consensus. --Thogo (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a language template for Tsolyáni, a language constructed for the Empire of the Petal Throne role-playing game. The template is only used by its creator and there are no primary speakers of this language; I see no real usefulness in converting it to the new {{user language}} system.

I suggest it be substituted onto the creator's page, and deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:57:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Subst + Delete Non-notable made-up languages should not be babel boxes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
subst & delete - per nom ...--Comet styles 05:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Pathoschild: Subst: + Delete. --Thogo (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete - Made-up languages don't generally need Babel boxes, this is not an exception. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O RLY? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said generally, there are probably less than 10 exceptions. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just picking on you, don't worry. That's why I said "non-notable made-up languages". :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. --Aphaia 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
subst & delete, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
subst & delete - per nom --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Error-Simple.png

The following discussion is closed: Very clear consensus

Image:Error-Simple.png, Image:Answer-Simple.png, Image:Question-Simple.png,

Totally unneeded to do this with png, it can be done with text, see this for example (I am sure someone can do it even nicer), besides I can't even read the text on the images, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the text there but it's highly unnecessary to have such stuff as image. --Thogo (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE!!!! --- And the CSS version takes like 10x the text in a page to place... when the use of a SINGLE 10 character reference makes WAY more sense. Besides, the type u have in YOUR error, has no negative space above the type and does NOT fit on a line w/ type w/o screwing up the leading... Example Image that SHOULD be deleted eventually! I also would like to USE these images in a lot of my own pages/revisions... and wish they NOT be deleted. --- Dsgncr8or 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per thogo--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these can be done with CSS. The number of characters on a page isn't important; if these are used widely (which they're not), they can be created with a template instead. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:20:14, 08 February 2008 (UTC)
delete, per thogo --.snoopy.  07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pathoschild. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-09t09:00z
Delete - per Cometstyles....--Comet styles 09:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pathoschild. Text should be done with, erm, text. Create a template if appropriate. Adambro 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems of little use.--Cato 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thogo and Pathoschild. I would argue Meta has no consensus to accept CC licensed material, too (we are under GFDL). And generally, if you release something under free license(s), meta is not the best destination. --Aphaia 07:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by --Anonymous Dissident^Talk

Requests for undeletion

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Template:No license

The following discussion is closed: undeleted

It was deleted without a clear reason, so I have doubts that its deletion was proper.--Jusjih 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Judging by the attitude over images without licenses, I doubt this is needed. Majorly (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was a long time ago! We do have "no source" which appears to have been the rationale but I have no problem with it being undeleted if people think that is required - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - We have {{no source}} as noted in the deletion log but I'd suggest that an alternative is provided for instances where the source but not the license is providing to avoid confusion. Adambro 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - No source and no license are completely different and both temps actually complement each other, so It would be a good idea to restore it :) ..--Comet styles 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per nom.--Poetlister 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Purely technical question: after merger of "request for undeletion", our deletion policy says something about discussion terms? Before that, we were very relaxed to undelete thing, someone says he or she needs it, then it would be undeleted unless there is a strong argument, regardless with the term of discussion. So I prefer to undelete it for now, but hesitate at the same time. --Aphaia 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - per all above. There's a difference between not having a license, and not having a source, so we should have separate templates. Giggy\^Talk 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete makes sense to me... --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with Giggy that there's a difference between no license and no source, and we shouldn't cloud that difference. Worst case scenario, however, we could redirect Template:No license to Template:Nosource and make the no source template contain information about both problems. Or just have Template:Image problem and redirect them both. Discuss? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

closed as undeleted. As I cannot really see my rationale for deleting this it seems silly to waste community time on this. If asked I'd have undeleted it anyway - it can always but offered for deletion again if folk want to -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta:Requests for deletion

Contents

Pages

Wikidharma, Diamond, Zen guide, Assume nothing, The Zen of Wikipedia, Heart, Don't be a crybaby

I think I'll be an antigenderist and Ethics or Morals

Google searches that Wikimedia pages rank first on

Legitimate criticism

Wikiprograms

Templates

User tsolyáni-1

Categories

Users by bilingual fluencies

Users who are active on all Wikimedia wikis

Images

Error-Simple.png

Requests for undeletion

Template:No license

See also