Meta:Requests for deletion

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.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.


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

The following discussion is closed.

Wikimedians of Slovakia's Annual Report 2018

Basically the same report, in 2 languages:

The text below is from the English version. The Slovak version have the same issue, with even stronger wording.

The report contains false and libelled information about me (Michal Matúšov). The organisation haven't reacted on Meta for 7 months; private consultation (regarding the file on WMSK's website) is ongoing. The false, libelled information is in the section "Board changes" and texts "Michal Matúšov resigned his position as well as his membership in the organization on 20 December 2018. As a result, Radoslava Semanová, the deputy chair, became the only board member able to act in the name of the organization. However, she was staying abroad at the time. Accordingly, the board asked Michal Matúšov to register the organization for 2%. The then chair asked for a 100 euro reward for such action. The board, knowing the potential outcome of the 2% registration accepted it." More information on the topic is on the Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en.

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMSK – Výročná správa 2018.pdf.

--KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I will only add that the matter has been brought to the attention of AffCom. WMSK and I personally have been supportive of this inquiry and we have offered all the necessary information and explanation to AffCom. I hope you, KuboF, have done the same. Be well!--Jetam2 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a correction: WMSK, Jetam2 personally and ex-member of Audit Committee Lukas Mikulec was in fact very unsupportive of this inquiry. During 7 months they made absolutely no reaction on Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en nor on Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk, during more than 1 month no reaction on the original RfD and even was covering-up the falseness of the information in the report. Good to know that this is the "support" that WMSK is providing for the Wikimedia movement...
But back to the topic: The report spreads false and libelled information about living person for 5 months. I again ask admins for deletion. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I (and we) do not believe it is best practice to keep reacting and rereacting and rerereacting. Issues in the reports and others have been explained many a time on sk.wikipedia where they were first raised. See, especially here. There comes a point where more explanation will not advance anything. That is why we welcome AffCom's interest into the matter. Let AffCom judge our participation in the inquiry.--Jetam2 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Jetam2, please keep this discussion on topic - its topic is the concrete report (Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en, Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk), not any report (I am also not going to write here about bylaw violation of WMSK's functionaries here, simple because it would be off-topic...). I have raised objections about this specific issue on Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/en and Talk:Wikimedians of Slovakia/Reports/2018/sk but functionaries of WMSK was only covering up the issue without solving it. As the report is spreading false and libelled information about living person for more than half a year, I ask admins to proceed the request for deletion. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I wish you took your own advice and not spread libelous information about a cover up etc. In any case, I now understood that the chronology was indeed reversed. I corrected it.--Jetam2 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Please refer to the report discussion page.--Jetam2 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

KuboF Hromoslav, would it help to just replace your real name with your username for now? (While as I understand other people are still figuring out what is going on). It definitely does not look constructive to delete the whole report. --Base (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This may sound usable at a glance, but it introduces another problem. The text presented is an official document. Changing its content without clear decision of the Generally Assembly would break its integrity. As a, not the best, compromise I have emptied the page and put up into the listing direct link to the original version. Hopefully admins can delete it quickly and WMSVK correct it officially so the document will contain only truthful information. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Blanking is hardly a compromise. For more information, I added a longer explanation of the contexts. Thanks!--Jetam2 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Can I exactly know what is the basis of deletion? I really can't follow this discussion even after reading several times. Thanks much, willing to do what is needed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Took me a bit to unravel this as well. As I understand it KuboF Hromoslav has alleged that the report contains false and defamatory information, which is specified in the nomination statement. This has been disputed by Jetam2. In any event I've added my thoughts below, but what is really needed is an investigation by AffCom or whoever is responsible for sorting out these disputes. 𝒬𝔔 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment, the essential question here is whether the section is defamatory as alleged. If so then deletion is appropriate as we should not host libel, or at the very least the offending section would need to be removed and previous versions revision deleted. If not however, an official report certainly fails within meta's inclusion policy. 𝒬𝔔 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. AffCom is looking into it and WMSK is cooperating as requested and required. Be well!--Jetam2 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Shall we defer to Affcom decision? I think there are members on Affcom who have rights to delete pages here, shall we let them do the necessary? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: yes, defer to AffCom is my current position on this in a nutshell. I guess we'll have to wait and see if any other independent observers feel differently. 𝒬𝔔 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Deferred to Affcom - the meta administrator team had discussed about this issue at length, we cannot determine unilaterally what the best cause of action here. I had send an email to Affcom just a while ago today regarding this issues, and will be willing to help implement their determinations. With respect to the pages, it will stay fully protected per consensus among sysops and we will review the protection again when Affcom get back to us. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: Please do not archive this section in order for Affcom to access this discussion easily. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation requests/Guidelines for future chapters/sourceEdit

This is an outdated translation request, when there wasn’t Translate extension. I don’t know what to do with actual translations, but I think they can be deleted too; do you agree? --Pols12 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Any reason it can't be marked "historical" or "archived" and leave it as is? Why does it has to be deleted? — regards, Revi 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The only page which links to this page is Translation requests/Guidelines for future chapters/status which has no related page.
However, I have looked at some other old Translation requests, there seem to have several practises:
  1. target page was the /source page; when ready, it has been moved, so /source is now only a redirection.
  2. target page content is copied into /source page.
  3. target page was transcluded in /source, then it may have been updated to use Translate extension, so /source unexpectedly displays translate tags.
I don’t know what was the usual policy regarding translation requests. Very few pages include Template:Translation source: were the other ones deleted? Pols12 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keen to just mark it as historical/archived per -revi. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiGap Nigeria Online Challenge 2021Edit

Since I have not received any answers from Kaizenify, I post here to ask community advice. That page seems to duplicate WikiGap Nigeria Online Challenge/2021, I think a redirection would be better for maintenance and to having a unique talk page. --Pols12 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


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.

Proposed Wikipedia logos of uploaded by GuillômeEdit

These logos were uploaded in 2003 by Guillôme. In February 2010 Anthere did tag them with the {{GFDL-presumed}} template as that was the license we used at the time. (See #1, #2 and #3). Ten years later, on February 2020, the uploader and presumed author removed those tags and replaced them with {{no source}} (See #4, #5 and #6). This Deletion Request is being filed to clarify their status and consider their deletion. If the uploader disputes themself the source of their uploads, I think that should be a valid reason to proceed with the deletion as it casts significant doubts on the legal status of the file (See Commons' precautionary principle). Note that it might also be that the uploader wants some information removed. In any case, without valid source/author/copyright tag those files cannot last on Meta. Uploader and Anthere are notified via Echo Notifications as well as talk page messages. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Valid proposition. Anthere (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2021‎ (UTC)
@Guillôme One more ping for this issue, if you want the files to be deleted do let us know, we will be happy to delete for you. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, he's challenged the GFDL tags on his own uploads tagging them as unsourced. If the uploader now claims that even the source is dubious or non existent, I don't think these files can remain; so delete per my above nomination. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted per consensus in this discussion. I think we have given enough time for uploader to air their views if they wished. I think there isn't a consensus to keep which means the files are deleted. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


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

Requests for undeletionEdit

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.