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.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.


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


Attack page of multiple users after local block. Violation of Meta:Inclusion policy, speedy deletion under G9. Kromsipol (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Base: Hello. The text of the page seems to be written in Ukranian. Could you please read it and advice? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
It is in Russian. Kisnaak is actually blocked on Ukrainian Wikipedia until he removes that userpage content as per Arbcom decision: uk:ВП:ПЗВ155#Рішення. So it is actually that the block is for the attacks on this page, not the other way round (except for the last section). I do agree that it probably should be deleted, it does contain a few personal attacks as well as attacks on the Ukrainian Wikipedia community as a whole, but I would abstain myself: Kisnaak and I were both members of the previous Arbcom tenure, and I have somewhat tense relations with them. --Base (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Will reverting to this good version work. If they revert the attacks back, will suggest we restrain their ability to edit that page. I hope the closing admin will also give them a note not to add anymore attacks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: The page contains no personal insults and therefore I don't think it violates the rules or anyone's rights, nor do I think it attacks anyone. You can verify this with using any online translator, such as Google-Translator. In addition, this deletion request looks like a personal attack and persecution. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kisnaak Hello, I am taking the word from Base for the attacks. Having ran parts of it through the Google translate, for the parts I did ran through it involves commentary about ukwiki. Even if there is no attack, such commentary is out of scope for here and also unacceptable for global userpage. It might be acceptable (if trimmed down and all attacks removed - i.e. no mention about personal users / arbs etc) on an user subpage on meta, but certainly not user page. If you want to mention users, the only place is suitable is a RFC. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I am aware of who I am having this discussion with. I am inclined to continue to believe that my user page does not contain attacks. And now, until we're waiting for react of CU or other admins, we are forced to continue this discussion. As far as I know, criticism has not been made inappropriate by the rules of the Meta. In my opinion, likewise what I have written falls well within the wording of «essay». And yes, there are a several other personal pages made similar to mine that criticize other Wikipedias, but there is no claim to them - so I consider this statement from a «newly registered member» to be persecution. If the closing admin points out specific points that violate the rules of the Meta — I'm willing to remove them, but it seems absurd to me to remove the page completely and return it to, as you put it, the «good version». The problems, what I mentioned in my user page, cannot be solved without the participation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia community with help of RFC. Because this community unfortunately does not care about what is going on inside the local Arbitration committee. Kisnaak (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kisnaak The CU request you had filed was declined as non-actionable. I will ask you not to cast undue accusations to the nominator. Given there isn't a problem with the nomination, the least I could accept is to move the problematic revisions to an user-subpage failing which I will go with delete per Base / nom. Please keep meta scope here and specifically the point on meta isn't an appeal court - take local issues to local forums, not here. Reiterating the only acceptable place for such here is an RFC. In addition, the existence / non - existence of other user having such problematic pages isn't Germaine to this - this discussion is about your problematic userpage alone, and well if there are other such pages, feel free to list it here (with the caveat of good faith nomination and not POINTy ones though). I won't close this as I feel sufficiently involved. I hope you will understand my point and do clarify if necessary. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
And the author of the request for deletion registered his account specifically for make this request. I have already make my request for checkusers about this. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The page consists of criticism of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but does not contain insults or personal attacks regarding its members. And the place where I really made an inappropriate comment about another user after a dialogue with him was removed from the page. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kisnaak + Here: Criticism on a Wikipedia version isn't acceptable on global userpage, this we fairly uphold for all users here. Hope you get it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This page contains only insults of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, individual users in particular and all users in general. The fact that these insults have been here for so long is a nonsense, and the fact that it has been discussed for so long is completely absurd. Ping administrators who understand russian @Base, Amire80, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Kaganer, and Vermont:. What you read on this user page does not violate meta:Inclusion policy? Kromsipol (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
(RU) Я прочел. Похожие тексты с похожей критикой в адрес сообщества русской Википедии я уже ранее тоже встречал. Наверное, в такой критике (и в адрес украинского, и в адрес русского разделов) есть своё рациональное зерно. И там и там есть проблемы, с которыми локальное сообщество не справляется или справляется не очень хорошо. Но в данном случае я вынужден присоединиться к @Camouflaged Mirage: глобальная страница участника - это неподходящее место для подобных критических эссе. Единственное подходящее место и единственная подходящая процедура для публикации критических замечаний в адрес целого сообщества какого-то раздела или отдельных участников (когда эти замечания невозможно разместить в самом этом разделе) - это RFC.
Такой запрос можно сделать и на русском, но, естественно, форму изложения придется всё равно скорректировать. Для RFC недостаточно декларировать, что вас кто-то обидел и вы в чем-то разочаровались. Придется сосредоточиться на описании конкретных проблем (с примерами), показать, что сообщество с ними не справляется и, вероятно, сделать какие-то предложения, которые другие участники могли бы обсуждать.
(EN) I've read. Similar texts with similar criticism about community of the Russian Wikipedia, I also met earlier. Probably, in such criticism (both in the address of the both Ukrainian and Russian editions) there is a rational grain. In the both communities are problems that the local community does not cope with or does not cope very well with. But in this case, I have to support @Camouflaged Mirage: a global userpage is not the right place for such critical essays. The only appropriate place and the only appropriate procedure for posting criticisms of an entire wiki-community or individual wikimedians (when they cannot be placed in this wiki-edition itself) is RFC.
Such a request can also be made in Russian, but, of course, the form of presentation will still have to be improved. It is not enough for the RFC to declare that someone offended you and that you are disappointed in some way. We will have to focus on describing specific problems (with examples), show that the community is not coping with them, and probably make some suggestions that other participants could discuss. Kaganer (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Kaganer. While criticism of projects can be in scope of Meta as part of discussions (though unsubstantiated insults are usually removed there too), this userpage at the very least does not respect Global user pages#Content. I suggest reverting it to the previous state as per Camouflaged Mirage; not sure if further action (such as revision deletion) would be required. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks like this user has specifically registered only to make a protest nomination for deletion. SummerKrut (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut The status of the nominator is irrelevant, unless of course the CU can find something, where the page i question did indeed exceeds the scope of meta userpage. Hence, the nomination is valid. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Wow, I've never thought that a user can be fooled so easily. SummerKrut (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut Proper commentary will be appreciated, but your comment isn't helpful or relevant in the first place. Given the declined CU, there is no reason to doubt the nominator and such commentary against the nominator without refuting the allegations will not be helpful. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete and tagged RFD. Translating the content via Google shows heavy criticism with questionable civility.--Jusjih (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted versions since 2021-08-03 as false vanishing and unacceptable use of global user page.--Jusjih (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jusjih: Do you think it's adequate and in accordance with the rules, that you first spoke out for deleting the page and then deleted it yourself? You don't think it's a conflict of interest? I would prefer to wait for an uninvolved administrator --Kisnaak (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jusjih: So? --Kisnaak (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Kromsipol on 8 May 2022 first spoke out for deleting the page, so I do not feel any conflict of interest while talking so late. My deletion is per Global user pages#Content cited by 1234qwer1234qwer4 on 8 June 2022. If any other uninvolved administrator thinks otherwise, I will consider.--Jusjih (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki World Cup Hackathon 2022- Africa/Contribute and Wiki World Cup Hackathon 2022- Africa/PodcastEdit

Both have been tagged with {{looks useless}} since 9th August, because they have not got any linked page. --Pols12 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Kaffzz as creator. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Pols, we were waiting to confirm certain information before we update the tabs. In the course of this week, the tabs will be updated with the necessary information. I don't think deleting the tabs is advisable. Kaffzz (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I guess with the above, I am leaning to Keep Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

User:David ben Joseph Profeta & Messia degli Ultimi Giorni (Cesnur alla voce SUKKA DAVID)Edit

Spam page and probably a global LTA.--14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


Extremely amateurish and barebones proposal that had zero chance of being picked up. No point in keeping. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


Indecipherable, unviable proposal creator insists on keeping open after multiple attempts at closing; nominating per w:wp:IAR and w:wp:SNOW. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

in User_talk:Dronebogus#you_have_closed_wikilawsuits Dronebogus has shown me a wrong sentence and i have fixed it. he has not shown me any other concrete incomprehensible piece of text from the proposal. --QDinar (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


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

Lang name templatesEdit

Extended content

Superseded by #language. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun 15:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    For the record, I continue to support deletion, and consider the entire concept of deprecating templates or keeping them to preserve page histories to be inherently counterproductive. * Pppery * it has begun 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, to preserve histories. But we still should request a bot to replace their calls, I think. --18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pols12 (talk)
  • Deprecate per nom and Pols12. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Keep but mark deprecated, better to save for historical investigations. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Imported templatesEdit

Mass of templates indiscriminately imported from Wikipedia that are out of scope on Meta. * Pppery * it has begun 13:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Templates used in more places than Wikipedia (Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversity, Wikispecies...), so global, not included in Meta-Wiki. Useful to explain categories and templates. BoldLuis (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm completely failing to understand what you are trying to say. These are clearly included in Meta-Wiki as global templates are currently, to my understanding, a pie-in-the-sky idea, not an actual thing. * Pppery * it has begun 14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
They are not included in Meta-Wiki. BoldLuis (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Possible global usage is not relevant cause for creating any local template in this site. If global templates proposal will be realised, then will be another situation. Until this milestone all uncaused imports will be considered as clogging the common workspace. Kaganer (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Move to Wikitemplates.

Delete per 163 and Kaganer – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose to move these to a project which doesn't even exist yet? Even ignoring that issue why would wikitemplates want a bunch of templates which aren't designed to be used on multiple projects, and why would they want a copy of the template from meta missing all the page history instead of the original template from the project that creating it? This suggestion is nonsensical. 11:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It does, just not officially *yet*Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that the admins should move this, a copy of a template from another project, to a proposed project that doesn't even exist? Are you trolling or are you genuinely this clueless? If the unofficial beta test of a project needs/wants these templates they can import them by themselves from the original project that created them. 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I am NOT suggesting that the admins of this site do it, but to give the admins of that site the chance to do it (assuming they want to). – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
If the admins of that site wants these templates they can properly import them from the project that created them. These already exist on other projects and nothing will be lost by deleting them here (hence why this discussion is called "Imported templates"). The admins of meta do not have the technical ability or right to force another wiki that isn't even part of the WMF to take these. Do you understand this or do I need to explain the same thing to you again? 17:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Got it. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful on this project, meta is not a test wiki, no point importing templates in preparation for a project which may or may not exist. 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, simple and compelling point. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • {{Category see also}} seems generally useful; I've been using it on other wikis. I wonder why it isn't used here... ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    19:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Because {{see also}} could serve the same purpose? * Pppery * it has begun 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Module:No globalsEdit

Deprecated and now unused. Legoktm (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted per nomination. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 06:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Tulsi 24x7 06:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


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


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

Wikivoyage wordmarksEdit

Unused wordmarks, either overly condensed or contains a typo. No foreseeable use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia wordmarksEdit

Unused. Redundant to File:Wikipedia wordmark.svg. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment For context, these files were used by template (which has been archived for historical interest) to display the wordmark independently of the pixel resolution. On most wiki pages, MediaWiki takes care of scaling these images automatically, but the former project portals were unusual for containing raw HTML code that the servers served up verbatim on et al. Special:WhatLinksHere and the file usage lists don't track references in raw HTML. That said, at this point, I don't think there's any way left to preview the portal code as there used to be, so I don't think it would be a reason to keep these images. I'm not sure if there are other hidden uses aside from the old portals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:30, 20 October 2022 (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.


I think it would be a status quo to return -- prefix for signatures, since that is the style that is added by the signature button on the tooltip. It would make sense for two parts of the interface to work the same way. People who dislike the -- can still just add four tildes manually, just like they either do that or remove the double-hyphen-minus when signing in plain wikicode editor. --Base (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This had been brought up at Special:PermaLink/20426322#Proposal_to_enable_DiscussionTools_on_Meta-Wiki; this will lead to anyone with seperaters in the lead of their custom sig getting extra unwanted dashes here, forcing them to edit every entry - that sounds like a net-loss. I'm not sure what you mean about being used to manually removing dashes in the plaintext editor, I don't see any extra characters inserted that way. I also don't think we should have different behavior here only for people who have their interface language set to plain English. — xaosflux Talk 18:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 I refer to the   button. Upon click on it it inserts the tildes preceded with "--". Those people, that dislike the "--" have to remove the "--" manually (unless they use some script that modifies the button's behaviour. This is why I say that it should be the same way across the interface. Since that button does that, it has been doing that for as long as I am around, so should the automatic signature. --Base (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
As to the last point, I have just checked it on ukwiki, where w:uk:MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix does exist, when I have changed my interface language to non-default there English, the double hyphen-minus was still being inserted via the reply tool. --Base (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The default way to sign in the plain text editor has always been "use 4 tildes", which far preceded that button; the default plaintext editor also has the 4 tilde insert button in the "Insertable wiki markup" section - so it is a bit inconsistent. Thank you for the update that this ignores translations. — xaosflux Talk 10:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
"use 4 tildes" is pretty much what I recommend to people that want to use custom stuff, while on the other hand keeping the way the interface acts consistent. --Base (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)