Jump to content

Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Dan100 (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 28 March 2006 (→[[Wikisuicide]]: delete). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Shortcut:
WM:RFD
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

Please read the Meta:Deletion policy before listing pages here. Please add {{rfd}} to the top of any page you list here. Speedy deletion candidates do not need to be listed. All the other will be listed for at least 15 days. To request undeletion, see Meta:Requests for undeletion. Any language may be used on this page. Delete: this page does not belong on meta can be used for general comments about what does not belong on meta.

Please add your listing to one of the following sections: #Articles, #Templates, #Categories, #Groups, #Images, #Older listings and #Recently kept

Previous requests are archived here (for the record, it was here in 2005).

Speedy deletion

The following are usually deleted without delay:

  • Vandal pages
  • Meaningless pages (containing skfhsdjfkhdjkshfdk)
  • Offensive pages (containing insults, swear words)
  • Personal pages per request of the user himself

Check for Speedy deletion candidates

If you want to propose a page for speedy deletion, insert {{Delete}} ~~~~ or {{DB|Reason}} ~~~~ on top of the page.

Don't list speedy deletion candidates here, thanks.

For routine deletion, please see Meta:Deletion policy.

Older listings

Articles which status is unclear due to lack of clear consensus can be listed here for further discussion.

Recently kept

Kept article might be listed here for some months.

Articles

Add new listings at the end of this section.

How to deal with Poles

Racist, no underlying humour, certainly not the official Wikimedia stance on things, yet it may easily be interpreted as so. -- user:zanimum

Comment: If this vote doesn't pass, I'm making "How to deal with Muslims", in order to test the boundries of taste. Zanimum 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JFYI: The article was mainly written by Poles, so please consider to convert to islam before writing it :-) --Avatar 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Pmsyyz 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- oscar 12:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this site is very popular among Polish Wikipedians at enwiki, I'm a Pole and I find it very funny - it's hardly to find a Pole who'd feel being offend cause of it :) D_T_G 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The page is symptomatic of the paranoia and the persecution complex so strongly ingrained amongst a hard core group of Polish wikipedia users. It also seems to be implying that accusations of "nationalism" are based only on prejudice against a nationality, when in actual fact accusations of nationalist bias are usually the result of an actual nationalist bias; it hence encourages POV behaviour, because its readers will never actually believe they're being POV. - Calgacus 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as a matter of fact your talk looks like nationalism/culture biased for me... Being honest: you insult a large group of people even not knowing what you are talking about. Even on this talk page you try to enforce your prejudices. You show ignorantness and bad will. Great argumentation... aegis maelstrom δ 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Funny, and true in at least a few cases. I don't see how it can be viewed as racist or offensive - certainly I know not of a single Polish -pedian who thinks it is so; in fact it is linked mostly from Polish -pedian userpages (mostly on Wikipedia).--Piotrus 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's interesting that - if I'm not wrong - many politically correct non-Poles like to delete it, whereas most Poles find it pretty funny. --Avatar 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since I wouldn't have any problem with How to deal with Germans ;-). --Tolanor 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please send your draft with two carbon copies to the German-Article-Beauftragter in the next 24 hours. You will receive the notification by mail in the next 4 weeks till receipt. Guten Tag. --Avatar 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again? Every once in a while someone from a country where political correctness is an integral part of the culture comes in and proposes it for deletion. Strangely enough, it's mostly Poles themselves to vote in favour of that article... Not only is its content funny, but its history is even more laughable. Don't you think? Halibutt 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was written by a Pole (ekhem) and is extremely popular amongst Poles. It is not as much directed against Poles, as against the behaviour of some of the non-Polish wikipedians (including one of wikipedians who wants to delete it, because probably it too precisely describe his behaviour) szopen 150.254.130.180 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be moved to that user's talk page? Then it is there opinion, and doesn't look like it is supported by Wikimedia. Also, readers don't know this is a self-parody just by seeing it. Finally search Google for "poles unpleasant", "poles irritating", "deal with poles", "poles deal", and the page is always at least fifth ranked, usually second. Thus, people searching for hate literature would find this page without effort. Actually "Poles racist" brings up this AfD discussion. -- Zanimum 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to user space. It looks too official. I don't have any stance on the rest of it, but we wouldn't accept "how to deal with X" for many values of X no matter who it was written by. You know which ones I mean. - Taxman 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Meta official? As far as I know, meta was always considered far less "official" than wikipedia, and the articles were never supposed to look like encyclopedia. For example: How to win an argument, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, or There Is No Cabal. Now, why you should single out this article for deletion? None of the original reasons given holds. 150.254.30.35 06:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meta is the place to coordinate all the Wikimedia projects, thus it's articles should pertain to that. User essays and so forth should be moved to user pages. We have all kinds of crap on meta at the moment that don't help any of our projects. Keep the thing if you really want it, just on the creator's or someone else's user page. Then there's no harm either way. - Taxman 14:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To taxman, "User essays and so forth should be moved to user pages. " is your opinion, I think, but meta:About seems to me clearly include those user essays. And this page shows one aspect of our project ironically and humorously. Aph.
Well, Mr Taxman, you cannot forbid anybody to keep the thing... :P And, funnily, this article is about coordination and cooperation. Sorry to say that, but if you were less self-centered you would understand what is the purpose of it. aegis maelstrom δ 10:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Wiki

Ad, unnecessary proposal? (See talk page). Previously tagged as speedy. Korg + + 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LanguageIs.php/old and LanguageIs.php/old2

I am cleaning/arranging LanguageXx.php pages, which they are not used on meta anymore. So these are old subpages of an obsolute Language page. So keeping just the main LanguageIs.php page should be enough for that warning purposes fir this language. --Dbl2010 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBlog

encyclopedic, non-meta article. oscar 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oiquimedian

Redundant, bad name. 134.10.12.12 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (actually en:User:JesseW/not logged in)[reply]

Talk:Wikiversity/Archive

I've copied the content of this page into Talk:Wikiversity/Old - I don't know where the content had come from, but there is only one version of the page in the history, so it was obviously copied and pasted from somewhere else in the first place. It's not a big deal, but it's just reducing the amount of archived talk pages we have for Wikiversity. Cormaggio @ 10:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems best to just leave it where it was and delete the new page you created. One is worth keeping, but there's no pressing need to change the name. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to explain, Talk:Wikiversity/Old and Talk:Wikiversity/Archive existed already - I didn't create a new page or a new name, I've simply merged them. I want the one which had no history (ie which had itself been copied from somewhere else) to be deleted. Cormaggio @ 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphons

non-meta article. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shaboigan

non-meta article. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarbarSahib

just an image, non-meta. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the contents. how it looks now?

Wikitopia

Currently under deletion at en wikipedia and en wikibooks. The author is using meta to publish his own work. Others articles include:

  • Delete all Infinity0 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not using meta to publish my own work. I created an outline of a project which will be sincerely collaborative. It's a candidate for deletion at wikipedia because somebody flagged it as a suspect neologism. The discussions at wikibooks indicated that this project would be best at home on the Meta. I sincerely believe that this project will be right at home here, that it is not simply "original work." --Wikitopian 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You call this an anarcho-capitalist project. I don't think that sort of project is appropriate for a neutral website such as wikimedia. You say discussion at wikibooks? Really? Then why does the talk page not exist? Infinity0 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will respect a concensus that this doesn't belong here if it doesn't belong here. You need to settle down and avoid flatly accusing me of deception when you haven't done your research. The conversation at wikibooks which I mentioned was under the deletion log, not in the talk page. It was suggested that I move the project to mediawiki. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" and would appreciate it if you didn't make this a personal attack. Thanks. --Wikitopian 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the person who made the suggestion did not know the project was anarcho-capitalist in nature, as you have only explicitly stated so on the talk page of anarcho-capitalism. Infinity0 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that creator has set up it's own home. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How to Destroy Wikipedia

Was an essay, now is just an old talk page. Not much reason to keep it around except for historical bickering. In that case there's got to be a better place. - Taxman 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisuicide

This is a one-line substub about a neologism not in popular use; it returns a grand total of 120 Google results. // Pathoschild (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Genders of languages

Semi-encyclopedic article about grammatical gender. Not relevant to Meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; this article is apparently a multilingual grammer how-to. It has no relation that I can see with the Wikimedia Foundation, and there are no significant incoming links. Wikipedia has a far more complete text at Grammatical gender. This should deleted or, at the least, transwikied to Wiktionary. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Related to all Wiktionary projects, hence it makes a sense to keep it here on meta, not a particular Wiktionary or on every Wiktionary (the latter is a waste of time to transwiki and database redundancy) --Aphaia 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this related to all projects? Users are expected to learn grammer in school; should we have a comprehensive page on Meta about homonyms and common spelling errors? // Pathoschild (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It was created for quick reminder for Wiktionarians by Wiktionarians. For this purpose, consumed & huge page serves us not well. I am genuinly curious how you can verdict it unrelevant, because I don't know you at least on wiktionary-l & #wiktionary, hence not involved to its activity. Not criticism, but question. --Aphaia 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not an active Wiktionarian, but this isn't Wiktionary. From what you've said, I deduce that it's placed on Meta for access by all language Wiktionaries. I don't think that's appropriate for Meta, though, since it's of interest to only one Project. Perhaps it could be moved to one Wiktionary and linked to; the page would then also benefit from attention from the general Wiktionary community, instead of languishing here. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • That is the point we have a different opinion perhaps. I don't think it is appropriate to move it to ONE local project. What is wrong to use meta for coordination to several local project? So you may want to delete Wikiquote also? How about "restruction of Japanese Wiktionary"? Thought? --Aphaia 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikiquote is about Wikiquote, which is within the scope of Meta, "a website about the Wikimedia Foundation's projects". On the other hand, I honestly don't understand how Genders of languages is used to coordinate Wiktionaries. It is a quick guide to grammar rules relevant to one project. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Language names gender

Same reason as Genders of languages: This article is apparently a multilingual grammer how-to. It has no relation that I can see with the Wikimedia Foundation, and there are no significant incoming links. Wikipedia has a far more complete text at Grammatical gender. This should deleted or, at the least, transwikied to Wiktionary. Pathoschild (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Value systems

This is an ancient request for commentary that was never used. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple View of Ethics and Morals

This is a hybrid essay/encyclopedic-article that has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reflexions sur la bioethique pensées

EN: This is an essay about the ethical implications of biotechnology with a particular focus on cloning. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Meta.
FR: Ceci est un essai au sujet des implications morales de la biotechnologie avec une attention particulier sur le clonage. Ceci n'a rien à faire avec le Meta-Wiki.
// Pathoschild (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Latino Unity

This is a hybrid life story/essay about unity of various groups with a common Latino origin, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Corporation SOS

This is an essay about a rock band, which should be incorporated into any relevant Wikipedia article and deleted on Meta. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Magnificent 5

This is an essay about a Wikipedian's teen rock band, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Antifeminism rant

This seems to be discussion from Wikipedia:Talk:Feminism, moved to the Meta-Wiki because it was unwanted there. As a user on that page stated, "The meta is not a place to spout off on any subject you like, but exists to discuss Wikipedia related issue." // Pathoschild (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu On Terrorism

This seems to be a discussion from Wikipedia about an article that has since been deleted, probably predating the last loss of deleted revisions. This has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki, with the exception of one probably-deleted article. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk about Christianity

This is a discussion about Christianity, and has no relation to the Foundation or any wiki. We could archived somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps w:Christianity. In any case, it doesn't belong on the Meta-Wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A definition of Philosophy

This is an essay about various philosophical fields, and has no relation whatsoever to the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal. Parameter Reader.

Appears to be the readme of a program called "par_reader". Does not appear to be at all related to MediaWiki or Wikimedia. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Republicans

This is a rant about biased media attention in the United States, and has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Investigator as Philosopher

This is a essay which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. If it's notable, it should be moved to Wikisource before deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A pome of sorts in narrative style...

This is a essay which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. If it's notable, it should be moved to Wikisource before deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Media Bias

This is a general discussion about media bias which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-automatic dictatorship

This is an encyclopedic page about a non-notable neologicism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Science Hypertextbook project

This is a page about a non-Wikimedia wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Vision of Knowledge

This is an excerpt from Reflections on Life after Life by Raymond A. Moody. Besides having nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki, I'm uncertain about the legal implications of the excerpt. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikianarchism

This is a two-line definition substub; unless vastly expanded, this doesn't contribute anything that isn't obvious from the term. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Skanwiki/Ugens artikel/Uge 52, 2005

This is a duplicate of w:da:Wikipedia:Ugens artikel/Uge 52, 2005. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep until there's a better place for such portals. This duplication is intentional; skanwiki is an effort to produce a cross-language portal for a language cluster (including dansk). Sj 09:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it makes a sense to keep a multilingual portal on meta rather than on a certain language for the sake of lingual neutrality. --Aphaia 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Anarchist's Creed

This is a manifesto of Anarchism moved to Meta because Wikipedia didn't want it. It has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is reality

This is a collection of one user's opinions about reality, and has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Reconciliation

This is one post cut out of context urging participants of an edit war to discuss on an inexistant subpage. This not at all Meta-worthy content. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure

This is an essay about Israel-Palestinian politics which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet Authority Disease

This is an article about those who control the Internet and their addiction to power. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Everything

This is a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Drawbacks of Philosophical Understandings

This is an essay that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethics vs. Morals

This is a discussion that was transwikied from Wikipedia because it didn't belong there. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is an historical page from user 24. Please keep it. Anthere
  • This is an historical page from user 24. Please delete it. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, perhaps as a compromise, we could merge all his nonsense into one place rather than having it all over meta? Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the very fact you say this... you admit it is actually an important page, because it is one we both care about. Me to keep it. You to delete it. Something we both have been trying to do for basically 3 years now :-) Your argument "it being all over the place" would be fair, if it was really all over the place. 24 pages which survived must be less than 15 I guess. How many pages are they on meta ? I think we can keep these 15 pages, they do not deface the place. Imho. Anthere 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as for the other Hubley essays. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm beginning to merge all historically important pages to Meta:Historical pages, assuming there is some consensus to do so once we've begun documenting these. Since you're apparently aware of the context, please help document it in the notes parameter of the {{header}} template. // Pathoschild (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced merging all the historical pages together makes sense. Merging the 142 stuff does, but you don't want that randomly mixed in with Cunctator vs. Sanger stuff or whatever else is about to come up for deletion. Angela 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't merge, create a category. That's what categories are for. If you merge then you lose the history, which is kind of the whole point of having a historical page. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokus

Quite honestly, I have no idea what this is. It looks like a misplaced sandbox with random content copy and pasted from other pages. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Quest

This is a hybrid of oddity and advertisement. I don't think I can say anything else about this one. -.- // Pathoschild (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinoia

This is a page about a neologism with only 263 Google results. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? There are lots of wiki-related neologisms on meta. I think they belong here. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki For Dummies

This page has no content. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Introducción

An article in Spanish about an MBA program run by a University. Is not related to Wikimedia. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Internet

Is a copy of the page w:fiu-vro:Internet. Does not belong on meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test-wp/nor/

This page and all subpages are redundant with identical pages on the Norman Wikipedia, many of them already blank. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the Test-wiki will need to be deleted, it should not be deleted yet! The Wikipedia was just created a few days ago, and we have not yet finished transferring articles and relevant discussion (in other words, not all subpages are redundant yet). We need more time to fully transfer the Test-wiki. In a week or two we will have likely finished, and the Test-wiki could safely be deleted then. The Jade Knight 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, an admin deleting these pages would need to check whether they've been transferred yet. :) // Pathoschild (talk)
Are you aware a hasty request would trouble an admin? Why didn't you like to wait even a week or days? --Aphaia 10:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, currently. Precedent test wiki pages survived about half a year. You needn't to make so haste. --Aphaia 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of these are speedy deletable by policy, since they're redundant with identical pages on the Norman Wikipedia. There's no need to make haste, but neither is there any need to deliberately be slow. // Pathoschild (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:20030713 091355 fruechte.jpg

This is not appropriate for Meta. It would be more appropriate for Commons or Wikipedia. // Pathoschild (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Don't move elsewhere if the source and license status remains unknown. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Generation

This is "outdated chit chat" (contributor's words) moved from Wikipedia when it was no longer wanted there. // Pathoschild (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ideal for Meta's historical collection. Keep Sj 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish pages?

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Categories

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Groups

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Unused images

As of 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC), there is 1759 unused images, except some like proposed logo, I propose hereby to delete most of them under the condition not deleting images which someone will list on the whitelist below. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These images are now shown at Unused images 1, Unused images 2 and Unused images 3 so people can see what they are voting on. Angela 06:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete.--Shizhao 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete most of what is on Unused images 1 since these are "automatic conversions" (not including those on the whitelist below). A lot of Unused images 2 are logos and should be kept so we have a proper historical record of the Wikipedia logo contest. Unused images 3 is a mixture - keep the logos and delete the rest from that one. A few are corrupted (or have become orphaned since this RfD listing) and are not showing up on these three subpages. See Special:Unusedimages for those (not all of those should be deleted). Angela 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)/03:38, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep !! I am hungarian, and the ones starting with HU are logos of counties in Hungary. I am not an active wikipedian in Hungarian wikipedia (but an active one on English). Please think before deleting them, as they might be useful in the Hungarian wikipedia. I think it would be best to give a notice to the Hungarians before deleting them. I am going to do that now. So please wait a bit before deleting, they might be useful, and get linked after I post a message to them! Wait, please! Then delete! Thx! 195.56.194.129 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason there are many pages in the "Image:" namespace without images, and several of these pages are listed in unused images 1, 2, 3. I think that we can delete such pages. --Kernigh 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't undelete an image once you delete it. I vote we keep all of them except those for which a solid case can be made for deletion. Otherwise we risk deleting valuable images which are not linked from anywhere simply because a vandal removed the link, or because they were linked from another project. Meta's entire image directory is only 1.4GB, we can afford the space. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whitelist

Image:Wiki-logo nl.png, Image:Vikio.jpg, Image:Wiki-pl.png, Image:Vikio.png, Image:Search.png, WIKIPÄDIA-frej-frei-frii.png (but rename), Image:Vikireklamilo1.png, Image:Vikireklamilo2.png,

Please keep Image:Nohat-logo-X-vi.png. It is the Vietnamese Wikipedia's logo with the old tagline, and could be linked to occasionally for historical purposes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Untitled-1.gif

Logo for WrestleMania that has nothing to do with meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

User:KUUFWorship

personal agenda which has nothing to do with meta. oscar 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Reflexions sur la bioethique

This is a redirect to a userfied page. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so ? A redirection hurts no one. This page has been linked from other websites. I later moved it in my user space, but I would appreciate taht the redirection is kept. Anthere 13:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect In Memoriam

This is an interwiki redirect with no incoming links. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Electoral reform jargon list

This is an interwiki redirect only one significant incoming link which can easily be fixed to point to the target Wikipedia article. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Internal error

This is an unused and unneeded redirect to MediaWiki talk:Internalerror. // Pathoschild (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=316523"