Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion
From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.
Contents |
[edit] Page name
(comments moved from related user talk pages)
I'm not sure that I agree with the new name (added: page name was "Wikipedia:Pages to delete"). I understand wanting to simplify it, but the new name has a connotation that the pages are to be deleted, rather than the deletion is being requested and discussed. How about "Votes for page deletion" or "Requests to delete pages"? -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, this new name is not to my liking, some new user moved it 'out of the blue' (which I have no problem with). I am undecided on the title of the page, so I will let you choose and move, as long as you fix the double redirects. For the record, I don't see any particular need for having these pages in Simple English, as they will be almost exclusively used by advanced English speakers. It is even worse in a case like this, where either a long title is needed, or the meaning will be lost.
SimonMayer 01:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I think we can get by with using Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. I like this because it's the same name used on Meta (m:Meta:Requests for deletion). -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(end moved comments)
[edit] Copyright violations
I'm not sure what exactly do we do for articles that are obvious copyright violations? I'm looking at John Quincy Adams which is directly from www.whitehouse.gov. I'm working on rewriting the article, but should I put a deletion notice up for an article that is obviously important to have around here?? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I am showing that I do not know, but isn't it true that all written text from the US government is 'public domain'? But it may still be true that you have to give credit to the source. Shenme 04:50, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe you're right. Still, the article should be rewritten as it is not simple. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Voting - For anyone?
I'm rather new, so I still don't really know how most things are done around here. I have one (embarrassing) question: is everyone/anyone allowed to vote for deletion of articles? I've just added my vote and realised *maybe* (although, I feel, it's unlikely) it's not everyone who can vote. --Ianleow7 11:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, voting is for everybody. However, personally, if it is a close decision (and I haven't seen any yet) I may discount the votes of anonymous or new users. If you don't want to vote, you can always add a comment to the discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Campaigning for justice among wikipedia
I believe wikipedia is supposed to be an enviroment where users are allowed to free their mind and express what they feel is most important to them in their life. As i express my love for the digital mark reader and its origin i am obviously at a dismay to see that it has been requested for deletion Digital Mark Reader Much like a religion, please do not delete this page as you will notice the reprocussions immediatly i can assure you as soon as the page is deleted you will recieve complaints from around the globe about how they think wikipedia is run by a nazi government. I will also be prepared to press charges if the deletion of this page continues furthur.
Yours Sincerly Edward. L. Arthwright
- Obviously a timewaster judging by their contributions, page deleted and user blocked. Archer7 - talk 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change to Articles for Deletion?
Anyone wants this?--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 08:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renomination of Wikipedia:Simple English Dictionary
Early this morning, I renominated the page Wikipedia:Simple English Dictionary for deletion. I had five reasons for doing so, which were all listed at length both on the talk page and here on RfD. Four months have gone by since the last time I nominated it, which is plenty of time for things to change, such as a specific consensus regarding SEWiktionary, as we have reached on Wikipedia:Simple talk#Project direction. There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy that states that anything kept once must always be kept, nor should there be such a statement. My renomination was perfectly valid, with plenty of reasons to back it up. Netoholic reverted my nomination and the deletion tag, simply saying that that page will be kept. I was not asking for immediate deletion, I was asking for a discussion over the deletion. Netoholic is out of line. Process is process, and he must let this page go through that process again. Even if a page should never be on RfD (such as what happened when someone nominated the RfD page itself for RfD over at English Wikipedia), they still must be put through the process if they are nominated. We can be sure that if they should be kept, they will be. Because Netoholic apparently has a vested interest in this page, I would also consider it a conflict of interest if he again made the final decision on this request. We have plenty of administrators. Let's let one of the others make this decision. But I do invite Netoholic to vote and comment all he wants on this nomination, since I am adding my renomination again. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- That page will not be deleted. At the very least, it has historical value/interest. Project pages such as that are not candidates for deletion. No I don't care what is written in the policy. -- Netoholic @ 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Lol, wait till the Wikitruth hears about that.
--This preceding comment was left by Sutodaang.