Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
←Requests and proposals Requests for deletion Archives (current)→
Shortcut:
WM:RFD
This page hosts local requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Speedy deletions. 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.) Images 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}} can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view • talk • edit

Pages[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Pages in Category:Mass content adding dictionary?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: The result is delete. --MF-W 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually don't consider myself a deletionist, but I find these pages useless. They all (or mostly) seem to just be the English and Serbian interwikis of articles about countries. So, all this information is already available on Wikidata. And I don't think they're very historically important. What do you think? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, not useful; clutter. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Useless clutter that isn't needed and doesn't contribute anything to this project. Razorflame 02:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting now (manually). Other sysops can help. All pages btw are/were also in Category:Mass content subproject Countries of the world which should probably be deleted after the pages are gone. --MF-W 04:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


How to deal with Poles[edit]

I found this page offensive and incredibly racist.

  • Delete. Abstain but Modify (adding the historical context) Per disscusion with AFBorchert below85.202.44.245 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Read its talk page. --MF-W 13:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've read it, anything else? I guess if it was to offend Germans, you would be raging now like in the latest century. 85.202.44.245 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Lies! We Germans have so much humour nowadays! --MF-W 15:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure the author only claim to be Polish but in real he is not. Alas, the article's too propagandic to be humuorous. GERhatER (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see how this page would be within Meta's scope. Meta is typically used for global and cross-wiki matters, but this page seems to be something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Meta is also used for essays (Category:Essays) and Humour (Category:Humor). Humour includes such pages as GAY, which could also be offensive to some people (in that case, friends of gays). But it isn't offensive, because it's just supposed to be funny. Nowadays, however, what you described is what takes up most of the new content of Meta. If you include WMF stuff as "global". PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep To deal with Poles by deleting them takes me back to the 1940s, and I would hate to do that. Let's deal with Poles by letting them have this page; they all get it, and it was obviously written by a Pole. I have to laugh at people crying "RACISM!", when the Poles themselves find the page quite funny. Russavia (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Of course my comments apply to every other Pole except for the nominator, who obviously doesn't get the humour. :( Russavia (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Also, prepare for a #9 -- incoming!!! Russavia (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even if it wasn't intended as an attack page on a particular group of editors, it can be seen this way and is thereby not acceptable at Meta per WM:IP. I know that it has apparently been created by a Pole but that does not change the possible perception of this text. See also this related DR at en-wp which provides some background to the creation of this page. I would possibly understand if this text would be somewhere at en-wp to which it relates to. But at Meta it is out of context. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you tell me why the page in wikipedia you have mentioned was deleted if the result of the debate was no consensus?85.202.44.245 12:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you also provide some wider context to the cited dispute? Was the Szopen's article connected with Witkacy's Black Book which contained nicks and IP adresses of the anti-Polish users? 85.202.44.245 12:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The page was deleted in April 2006, nearly a year after the refered discussion took place in August 2005. There was no second regular DR for this. If another discussion took place, I do not know. I've refered to it because of the statement by Witkacy in whose namespace this page lived:
This page [i.e. the deleted Black Book] is intended as an archive of anti-Polish behaviour on various WP pages. Many Wikipedians assume bad faith solely because the wikipedians they oppose are Polish. It is commonly accepted that Poles are nationalists, anti-Semites or simply morons. Such views are promoted by numerous people here, whether conscient or not. In the past this behaviour has led to the creation of meta:How to deal with Poles. [..]
From this I concluded that How to deal with Poles was created after a series of conflicts that took place at en-wp in 2005 or earlier. In my opinion, the article as it stands now at Meta without the context that lead to its creation appears offending. I think that, if this should survive for historical reasons, it is best moved to en-wp and augmented with an introduction explaining its historic context. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It slightly changes my point of view. In addition to what I have been told recently (e.g. that saying a city was Polish for approximately 400 years is POV) I will change my vote.85.202.44.245 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia dreams[edit]

Unused and unexpanded since 2004. Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of this section.

Template:Cờ ngang trên Trang Chính[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as it is unused. -Barras talk 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Old but unused. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unused, unnecessary template. LlamaAl (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Images[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Special:ListFiles/Francis Kaswahili[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Clear copyvios are deleted, the ones left are marked with "no source" or "no license" but are still in use. Trijnsteltalk 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of different camera models, many images in web resolution, some found elsewhere on the Internet (examples: File:Naurastorey.JPEG, File:Around the Impala.JPEG), at least one image (File:Elephant Family.JPEG) with EXIF indicating that it was taken by someone other than the uploader. It's getting a bit tiring to search for all of the user's images on Google, so I suggest that we simply assume that all of the images by this uploader are copyright violations. The images also lack source and licensing information. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Note Speedy one have gone - they are copyvios IMO too. Off line for a bit but I'll look at the others when I get the time - they are certainly questioable. --Herby talk thyme 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Note The uploader has been building Wikimania 2014 bids/Arusha and this is where all the images are being used. Some are copyvios, but many are being copied from freely licensed media on Wikipedia or already exist on Commons. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Comment Maybe we should also check whether the text there is fine. I see that some sections (for example Wikimania 2014 bids/Arusha#About Arusha City) have been copied from w:Arusha (in this case from the section "Industry and economy"), although without acknowledging the source and thus violating the attribution requirement of Wikipedia's Creative Commons licence, since the authors aren't attributed in any way at all. Looking at the history of the page, it seems that text has been deleted from there because of copyright violations. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a few more where the EXIF indicated some ownership that was not acknowledged and some tiny web grab shots. However there are still quite a number of images that at best are not attributed properly unless the uploader has a large number of cameras. --Herby talk thyme 18:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Nearly all grabbed from the internet: tripadvisor et. al. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Note I've tagged a few more as copyright violations. Some of the files had been grabbed from Commons or other websites. Not sure what to do with File:The surviving African Hero’s.jpg. Strictly speaking, it is a copyright violation, but it is at the same time being discussed at w:WP:PUF. Not sure if you wish to wait until the discussion ends there. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for the work on this - I've deleted the tagged ones now. There are still a few like the ones in hotel bedrooms and a few others that are questionable if only because of the varying EXIF info. --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, all files are missing source and licensing information. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems that most files have been deleted by now. The only ones which are left have been tagged with {{no license}}, which means that they can't be deleted as they are all in use. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Will mark this as resolved then. Trijnsteltalk 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

All files in Category:Unfree Wikimania bid media files[edit]

Copyright violations. Meta-Wiki does not allow unfree content. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and the result of a previous request for deletion on fair use files. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't they just be speedily deleted per WM:CSD#G5 or WM:CSD#I1? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If not, just delete them. Files like this shouldn't be on Meta, as the project doesn't have an EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What's an EDP? Is it like an NDA or more like BBQ? Kaldari (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
An exemption doctrine policy QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) .
  • Please notify every uploader prior to any deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've come to discussion because one of the files I uploaded as part of WM2013's bid is being nominated for deletion. My first point would be that this deletion request is effectively trying to overturn a convention which has been on Meta for years - working documents of Wikimedia events, which don't fit Commons' licensing criteria, are uploaded to Meta locally. So it isn't a deletion discussion that we need - a policy decision at Meta:Babel must precede this deletion. My second point is that, what do we do with future Wikimedia events which require inline quotation of non-CC-BY-SA-compatible media for logistical reasons? Deryck C. 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of this discussion has been given to mail:wikimania-l [1] and chapters-l (private mailing list for Wikimedia chapters). Deryck C. 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that Meta needs an EDP; but I don't think that policy discussion should be used as reason to delete images in active use - it is simply a reason to set up an EDP as soon as there is an obvious need for one. As Nathan points out below, not being able to host documents that are used on other projects is contrary to the purpose of having Meta in the first place. As long as media posted here are acceptable on any of our projects they should be acceptable here in the same context; to enable coordination Meta should have the least restrictive of all wikimedia-project EDPs. –SJ talk  04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There has been never a convention to host copyrighted files at Meta, simply a "couldn't care less" and lazy actitude about them on that area and many others. Per the bunch of discussions we already had on this topic in the past, no one is really interested in mantaining multimedia files as Stefan2 points out. Less talk and more actions, please. If you are really interested on setting a EDP for Meta that's fine; but I'd like to see a decent proposal. Because everyone that wants to keep this (currently) copyright violations hosted here simply opposes the deletion with groundless arguments but does nothing else, such as not proposing a draft EDP, for example. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer seems pretty straightforward; Meta is a site, not a project. It's a place for cross coordination between projects, not a project itself, and therefore isn't subject to the licensing resolution. The result that virtually all Wikimania or chapter related documents would be deleted is absurd on its face, so let's find a way to avoid that instead of speedy deleting files that are in current critical use. Nathan T 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Meta is a project as every other is. Meta is subject to the WMF resolutions unless there's an explicit exemption on the resolution itself. Those files are copyright violations and should be erased completly. Chapters should feel free to create their own sites (WMF provides wikis for them) to upload their documents if they want to, as some of them already do. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio, I find your use of the phrase "copyright violations" disturbing. That the files are not CC-BY-SA compatible (in violation of current Meta policy) doesn't mean they're violations of copyright. As far as I understand, all the files in the category are used with permission or fall within fair use (which is acceptable by law regardless of project policy). Deryck C. 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Home page of Meta: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia activities.
Like Nathan wrote, meta is not a wikimedia project, it's a coordination site, per definition file host on meta should be the one that do not belong to commons.--Charles Andrès (WMCH) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The words "project" and "site" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Wikipedia is a site, but it is also a project. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think what we're really trying to achieve with these discussions is very simply the tidying up of all media files hosted on Meta. Files that can be moved to Wikimedia Commons should be moved to Commons and then deleted from Meta (as is standard practice when you move a file to Commons). Any other files should either be properly licensed (now I see work has started on an exemption doctrine policy) and sourced, or deleted. Giving uploaders a reasonable time frame (30 days?) to provide source and licensing information once the EDP is in place, after which remaining files should be deleted seems reasonable to me. In the mean time we should work on getting an EDP for Meta and where possible start the transfer of CC-BY-SA and similar licensed images from Meta to Commons. Thoughts? Thehelpfulone 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there consensus for or against this yet? Any progress? Currently, we have all files in this category in the RfD category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Frieda col mattarello.png[edit]

The file is licensed under CC-BY-ND, which I don't think is a free licence as you can't modify the image. Other projects speedily delete files under this licence, for example by using Commons:Template:Nonderivative or Wikipedia:Template:Db-f3, but WM:CSD doesn't permit speedy deletion of these files as criterion I1 is limited to non-commercial images and images with permission only for Meta-Wiki, which is not the case here.

I see that the file is a modified version of it:chapter:File:Frieda col salame.png (she is holding a different thing in her hand), so this might actually be a copyright violation as the licence doesn't permit you to change what she is holding in her hand. Also, the resolution is different, which may count as another disallowed modification. We don't know whether the copyright holder approved any of these modifications. It is also claimed that the file previously was uploaded at it:File:Frieda col mattarello.png where it was deleted for violating it:WP:EDP, and the file name on Italian Wikipedia suggests that Italian Wikipedia had the same version as the one on Meta. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a copyvio because wmit:File:Frieda col mattarello.png states the author authorised the derivative. --Nemo 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • File is not a copyvio and is currently in use, so hold (or keep) until discussion on WM:EDP is conclusive. Deryck C. 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy doesn't allow non-free photos of notable people who are still alive. If I remember correctly, Frieda is involved in the case where an Italian politician sued Wikimedia Italia because the Wikimedia Foundation hosted an article on Italian Wikipedia, so she is arguably notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Requests for: permissions (global) — bot status — CheckUser information (local) — deletion (speedy deletions: local | multilingual) — translation — logos — URL blacklisting — username changes (local) — SUL problem solving — new languages — adminship on Meta — comments — interwiki map — an account on WMF wiki — help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=5707756"