User:PiR/RfD

If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives

Shortcut

WP:BEFORE

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines

The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines

B. Carry out these checks

Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletion

Put the deletion tag on the article.

Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
- It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
- You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.

Create a discussion page.

If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
- It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
- A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
- As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.

List it at the deletion page

Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/(name of page to be deleted)}}
Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

If this is too complicated for you, there are some gadgets like Twinkle that you can use. This allows you to do it faster.

Quick deletion

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the user

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

Discussions

The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) will not be counted.
Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "~~Delete~~ keep".
If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.
Requests for deletion is not a war zone. You can click here for more information, although the page is not in Simple English.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.

All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussions

User:PiRSquared

User:PiRSquared (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

PiRSquared17 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Test πr² (talk • changes) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 23:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Wikipedia:Sandbox

Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

PiRSquared17 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: undefined πr² (talk • changes) 22:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

User:Pirsquared17

User:Pirsquared17 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

PiRSquared17 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: undefined πr² (talk • changes) 22:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Sandbox

Sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

PiRSquared17 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: undefined πr² (talk • changes) 22:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Sandbox

Sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

PiRSquared17 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: undefined πr² (talk • changes) 22:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

This request is due to close on 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

User:PiR/RfD/2011/User:PiRSquared17 User:PiR/RfD/2011/User:PiRSquared17

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Acute

Acute (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: "Acute" is an adjective. It is used to modify nouns in the entries below, but does not have separate meanings Auntof6 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

So basically you want to delete it for being a disambiguation? The EN version of the same page is a disambiguation. If you were talking about the bit at the start that says "Acute could mean:", that is just me trying to make a simpler term for "refer". If you wish me to, I could remove all the entries that aren't in the EN version of the page. -Orash matash- 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to remove it for being a dab page. I'm a big fan of disambiguation pages, but dab pages are not for just anything that has the word in the title. The entries here aren't for "acute", they're for "acute foo" and the word "acute" just modifies them. ("Acute" basically just means "sharp".) On the enwiki page, there are entries for "Acute (medicine)" and "Acute (phonetic)" that describe specialized uses of the word. Those articles are basically titled "Acute", but with qualifiers. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed everything not in the EN equivalent. That's about the best I can do. Do you still want to delete it? -Orash matash- 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, removing that entry didn't address the issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The point you might be missing is that these subjects might be known at times just by the word Acute. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that point with dab pages, but to me it doesn't apply here. To me, referring to these particular things as just "acute" would be like saying just "green" to refer to things like green screen, Green Day, Green Hornet, green algae, green card, and others. There are things that might be referred to as just "green" (Green River, for example), but for normal use I don't believe these are among them. Likewise, I don't believe the things on this page are among those that would be called just "acute". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

en:Green (disambiguation)... It is actually fairly common to use dabs this way. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Gotanda (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Both of these things could just be referred to as "Acute", which is why they're in a disambiguation page. Don't see why it should be deleted at all. Besides, I'll get round to making the articles in the EN version. In fact, I'll do it tomorrow. -Orash matash- 21:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Created all but one which was too difficult to simplify. Do you still want to delete it? -Orash matash- 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but yes. I disagree that all of those things could be called just "acute". --Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Other than the medicine one which is most definitely known at times just as Acute. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? How would that be used? Would one say something like, "Take this antibiotic for your acute"? That article itself says that it's an adjective. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think this page should be deleted, then RFD the EN version as well. --Orash matash is travelling 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be in a sentence. It could be a sign for example. Disambiguation pages are for avoiding confusion. This is very much a case of "does no harm". It is pretty standard to use dab pages this way. I am not sure why there is such a fire to delete something that is potentially helpful. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just an adjective. Why not put it in wikt? Isn't that what wikt is for? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page, not a dicdef. -Orash matash- 16:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Per Orashmatash. Gob lin 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
Delete - Per Auntof6. Normandie 13:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are people wanting to delete the page here, but nobody will RfD the EN version? I'm really confused. The two are identical bar one article. -Orash matash- 18:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't believe that anyone searching for any of those four articles would search solely for "acute". We are not en. Maybe en is wrong? Normandie 20:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I know we are not EN. I am not implying that we are EN. All I am saying is that the EN version has not been RfD'd, but the Simple version has, and they are the exact same bar one article. It doesn't make sense to me. -Orash matash- 21:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? Well I can't tell you why something hasn't happened, but if you have a look at the Talk page over on En, you'll see that the article isn't getting much attention. I really feel this falls under "not a dictionary" and should be deleted for that reason, but also because if it is better for new or improved article to link to say Acute angle rather than just Acute. If the Acute disambig page exists, editors will see a blue link and may think it is fine, but the more specific link would be much better. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it falls under "not a dictionary". It is a disambiguation page, not a dicdef. -Orash matash- 13:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The way it is laid out just now is like me creating an disambig article called Small with only links to Small business, Small solar system body and Small-eared Dormouse. You would not search for small to go to any of those articles. You'd search for small business, small solar system body and small-eared Dormouse. Normandie 13:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - I don't really see the point of the page, but it isn't unuseful either. Yottie ^=talk= 15:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Chenzw Talk 02:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Polička

Polička (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: very hard to understand. not complex, just reads like a poor translation Auntof6 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete — Self explanatory, really. -Orash matash- 21:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Unless someone can fix it, this article has to go. Chenzw Talk 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Gob lin 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

This request is due to close on 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Chenzw Talk 01:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Damaging hurricanes

Category:Damaging hurricanes (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

70.184.168.201 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The classification is too vague. What exactly qualifies a storm as damaging. By the simplest definition it would be any storm that caused any damage at all. Personal injury, property damage, etc with no limit on how large or small that damage is. The storm would not even need to get close to land to qualify as just the threat of landfall would cause monetary damage due to loss of revenue in the expected areas due to loss of tourism during its expected landfall. If the storm swept a deep-water bouy out to sea or caused ships to have to divert around it, these could be seen as monetary damages. Nearly every hurricane has caused some form of damage to someone or something. This category is just way to broad-based.

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete per nom. This might be a good subject for an article if parameters were defined, but not a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse that, but we students at UNI are extremely against deleting this category. The Atlantic storms' damages and deaths factor into our strong reasons for creating this category. Storms like Andrew, Katrina, Camille and Frederic are serious examples of why we created this hurricane category.

The Univ of Northern Iowa school class at 166.216.194.71 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The main problem here is that there is no set point which divided the amount of death and destruction of one storm that does not qualify for the category for the amount that does. Who does, and how is, it decided how many people have to die for a storm to make the list? How much damage must be done for a storm to qualify for the category? What is damaging to one person may not be to another. Clear cut guidelines on what is needed to qualify are needed and "Damaging" just does not do that. Also, a bit curious why you specifically stated Atlantic storms when there are Pacific hurricanes such as Hurricane Pauline that killed more than Andrew, Camille and Fredrick combined. The closest to a definition on what makes a storm damaging is if it caused enough damage to get its name retired. Only rarely is a name retired for any other reason. And we already have a category for retired tropical cyclones to go along with lists of retired names for both the Atlantic and Pacific basins. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Category:Hurricanes is sufficient in my opinion. Normandie 12:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - we already have a category for hurricanes, and since "damaging" is a subjective term, it would be best to stick with the existing category. However, if you wanted to spotlight the most destructive hurricanes above all else, I'm sure one of us could make a template for, say, the ten costliest hurricanes in history or something along those lines and we could put it on the pages of those hurricanes. Kansan (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier due to WP:SNOW.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Chenzw Talk 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missão Jesus

Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missão Jesus (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Osiris has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears to be a non-notable church. I was looking to add references to the article, but didn't come up with much. A search on Google books found very few sources, most of which are in Portuguese. Most of its content is made up of two lengthy quotes, which is concerning for a possibility of copyright infringment. Osiris (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Osiris (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Now listed at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - If you ask me, the "famous quotes or arguments" would bother on advertising (1st reason), but the problem is that they do not even attempt to support the church's notability (2nd reason). Chenzw Talk 10:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Gob lin 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Delete - Not notable Normandie 13:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, advertisement, and borderline copyright. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 19:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. No consensus to delete. Albacore (talk · changes) 15:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CECIL

CECIL (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Osiris has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Version on enwiki was deleted in 2008 for perceived lack of notability. Should probably be reviewed here also, in conference with Wikipedia:Band and the accompanying Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Osiris (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Keep - It is still on en.wiki. It establishes notability by being signed by EMI and a song produced by a member of Foo Fighters. This is all assuming these facts are correct. Google results for the band are difficult to find at a quick look. Normandie 13:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also I've moved the article to Cecil (band) per en. Normandie 13:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Parlophone/EMI is a very major record label, which is good enough for me. Kansan (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Page was speedily deleted. Gob lin 23:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda!

Category:Main topic classifications

Category:Main topic classifications (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This category is not used or needed as described. Both of the categories in it are also in other places that are appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Agree. Seems not to be needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier due to WP:SNOW.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. - No consensus was achieved in this particular discussion. Editors may nominate the article for deletion again if desired.
- It is my opinion that, not taking into consideration the University of Northern Iowa's (166.216.194.180) rationale for creating this article ("due to the importance of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season"), this article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, as the names are fact. However, the suitability of having such content in its own article is yet to be affirmed. Chenzw Talk 10:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

2013 Atlantic hurricane season

2013 Atlantic hurricane season (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

AJona1992 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I am not sure why a 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was created, furthermore, there isn't even a 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. The article fails any notability until June 1, 2013 which violates WP:CHRYSTAL. Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. -Orash matash- 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Keep - Per Auntof6 -Orash matash- 12:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep. There's nothing WP:CRYSTAL in it yet -- the names are decided in advance. If this needs to be deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, then so should the many articles about future sports and other events.Delete. The addition of information other than the names pushes it over into WP:CRYSTAL for me. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:CHRYSTAL future events must be verified, secondly, the topic is not notable right now, therefore its WP:UNDUE weight. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Er...UNDUE deals with when you give too much weight to a minority opinion and an unbalanced article. Why is this UNDUE? Only (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not about a specific event. Are you suggesting that the 2013 hurricane season will not take place? The season happens whether or not there are any hurricanes. In any case, I have added a reference from a federal agency. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it will happen however, the article is un-notable until June 1, 2013. Why have an article about a future event that will remain a stub for almost two years? Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We have lots of articles about future events. We have lots of articles that remain stubs for years. I'm not saying this article should definitely stay, but those aren't necessarily reasons. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. We at the University of Northern Iowa added the page due to the importance of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. We are strongly recommending we keep the article because the 2013 season may have some Andrew-type storms or Agnes-like tropical storms. The University of Northern Iowa class at 166.216.194.29 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Source? The information you provided borders WP:OR. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the source I added? Original research? Really? It's a federal agency. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was talking to the University of Northern Iowa about their claim "because the 2013 season may have some Andrew-type storms or Agnes-like tropical storms" - if this is true, then I'll strike my vote to support. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This is not Crystal ball, and see comment above.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that it has at least a link its not CHRYSTAL, but at the time I nominated the article it was because it did not have a source to verify. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, having a source doesn't affect whether something is WP:CRYSTAL. (BTW, the word "crystal" does not have an "H" in it.) --Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, not sure why I keep doing that. But according to CRYSTAL if a future event doesn't have a single source to verify then it fails for inclusion. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

delete - Hasn't happened yet, and disagree with the comment above: added the page due to the importance of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season - it isn't important yet, as it hasn't happened. I wouldn't mind if it had been created early 2013, but it's still only 2011... Yottie ^=talk= 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete unless more is added - I considered the rationale that scientists think it might be an especially violent season (mentioned above), but the article doesn't give any reason for this - it only has a list of names. If some reliable sources could be added to show why 2013 in particular might be a violent hurricane season, I would be willing to reconsider my stance. Kansan (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep per above. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing stops it being introduced when there is hard evidence. But two years ahead? Lunatic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete - There is no reason to keep an article on the hurricane season two years from now. In another year it might be reasonable, but certainly not now. PrincessofLlyr ^talk 15:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, there wouldn't be any piece of information to add to this that would be verifiable. Osiris (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article that qualifies as Crystal balling. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment What I think really needs to happen is a central article on the Atlantic hurricane basin needs to be created and this information would be useful there, but unless that happens, I'll stick with my keep !vote. I'll also try to contact Juliancolton (talk · contribs) and see if he can help. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that he was very active on hurricane articles, I'm an hurricane enthusiast as well, however, the article is not notable until the start of the season (well a few months before that, not two years). Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a Chrystal ball. --Katarighe (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
How is it crystal balling? CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Note to the closing admin should you decide the community said delete, please userfy it to my sandbox instead so I still have in the information handy. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Its a very different article to one event which has already happened: 2011 Atlantic hurricane season. I think we can delete and re-create once we are there. Throw in 2012 Atlantic hurricane season as well for the same reason. Normandie 13:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, can we include 2012 Atlantic hurricane season here? It was just created. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep or at least retain text in someone's userspace (we will need the article again eventually, and it would be a shame to lose perfectly good content for ever) DJDunsie (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep not crystal. Gotanda (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment (have already, but more) Honestly, the closing admin must take into account the words possible and if (twice). Wikipedia isn't a guessing game, and guessing is what this article seems to contain. Yottie ^=talk= 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been changed (using should instead, which still implies a condition - and is less simple) and it now reads as if it is definitely going to happen: Factors affecting the 2013 season include warmer than usual waters across the Atlantic Ocean - sorry, but where I come from we call that a prediction, not a fact. Yottie ^=talk= 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  - Fine you have one speculation part as part of forecasting. However it's sourced reliably which removes the Crystal Balling tag. The season will happen and those are the names that will be used. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    - Upon looking at it again, you're right, I've removed it. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Because I don't see how this is crystal balling. Crystal ball is in reference to events or things that are in the future, are not notable, and have no references. This article is about something notable, and it has references. It also doesn't make any wild claims like "There will be 5 hurricanes in the season." It is strictly factual, and has references. I was going to close the discussion, however there was fresh discussion, and I don't think there is any rush to close. Another admin can close when they feel it is ready.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Recently closed deletion discussions

Charlotte Lindström

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. Kansan (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Lindström (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Addihockey10 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article is almost identical to this enwiki article, it just omits the lead of the article and the last section is worded a bit differently. If someone is willing to simplify it, please note that here so we don't lose an article. Thank you. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Weak Oppose the "murder" section seems to be the only section to be copy-paste. What about just adding a sentence or two about it since the article is notable? Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 04:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
If I compare this to the English-language version, it seems ot be noticeably different; the problem I see here is that this is about a crimial case of someone trying to "hire" someone else for a murder (a "hitman") - So far, Lindström is the only one held in relatiion to the case; her boyfriend is also serving time, but this is in relation to a different crime, mainly involving drug-dealing. If the article is kept, we should really find out what remains; Will people be looking for this as "Lindstöm", or as (Australian) "hitman case". The last section of the current article should be reworded. --Eptalon (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Per Eptalon. -Orash matash- 21:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep - notable. Racepacket (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 07:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Template:Portal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Kansan (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Portal (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: We don't have portals on Simple English Wikipedia, so this template and its many subpages (see list here) aren't needed. I'd also like the following templates included in this request:

-- Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete - The templates are either blank or unused (transcluded nowhere except userspace). I think they can be QD'd as unused templates, no? Chenzw Talk 03:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the subtemplates are used, which is why I brought this to RFD instead of QD. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - As I recall, there was some talk a long while back about trying to add a few portals and see how well they work on this wiki, but I never figured out how to make it work right and there wasn't much community support behind it. If there still isn't much community support for using portals, then I say delete all these templates. It was an experiment that didn't quite work out, and I'm okay with that. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Cameras and videocameras

Cameras and videocameras (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Orashmatash has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unencyclopedic and looks a bit like advertising. Has also been recreated several times with the same content which has been deleted before. -Orash matash- 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

It looks like the author was trying to create camera and video camera as one article - it's pretty much redundant to them. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted a massive amount of times under a different name (I can't remember it) with the exact same content. -Orash matash- 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Using Special:Undelete, I see that he has created them at Camera and video and Camera and video camera before. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It's horribly unencyclopedic and looks a little like advertising... -Orash matash- 17:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Chenzw Talk 02:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

2.71 BAR

2.71 BAR (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Orashmatash has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Looks like a hoax to me - EN does not have an article on this and the Google search did not return anything to do with a rifle round. -Orash matash- 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete - obvious hoax, no Google hits for "boutique ass round" in quotes. Kansan (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - per Kansan. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Delte and quickly. Hoax. Normandie 13:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages

All archives before July 2008 - implementation of new system made archives redundant
Category:Requests for deletion that did not succeed
Category:Requests for deletion that succeeded
Wikipedia:Deletion policy
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Category:Deletion requests
Category:Quick deletion requests