Meta:Requests for deletion

Shortcut:
WM:RFD

This page hosts local (i.e., Meta-Wiki) requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Files with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. Deletion requests ({{Deletion requests}}) can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Pages

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

Bad translations

CNBanner:Wikimania 2016-text2/tokipona, Template:StrategyButton/tokipona and the pages created by Special:Contributions/200.8.23.129. The ones which don't look like nonsense are in the wrong language. - Nikki (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone could delete these ones at the same time Special:Contributions/101.9.122.118 MarcGarver (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think these could have just been tagged for quick deletion. Ternera (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted* Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is closed and will be archived shortly. Please do not modify it. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

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

Template:Proposed logo

Meta-Wiki doesn't allow fair use, hence unless such logos can be re-licensed free, we don't have any good reasons for serving them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History is a good reason. Anthere (talk)

@Anthere: But there are still risks that some of them are derivated from 3rd party works, and their author may suggest them as copyvio of their works. Anyway, I contacted uploaders of these 36 files used this tag. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. 20-22 years later... poor quality artworks... low res... zero financial impact foreseeable... oh well... Anthere (talk)

Non-free logo's could be used, which would be used with permission of the organization, not relying on fair-use. As such the rejection of fair-use doesn't relate to this. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of things are certainly odd edge cases, my point is that removing the way to identify something being such an odd exception, or even being able to find violations via such a tagging are useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xaoflux – I agree that this template doesn't have much of a use, but there's a reasonable chance it could come in handy with the odd exception. --SHB (t • c) 01:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux & SHB2000 Maybe the first two files File:Wikipedia logo1 small.png and File:Wikipedia logo1.png can be migrated to Commons as {{PD-textlogo}}s? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is very clear on the matter - since Meta doesn't have an EDP it can't host any image not known to be under a free license. End of story. This outcome is kind of a shame, but we can't in good conscience avoid it. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

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

Redirects

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

Requests for undeletion

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.

Old proposed logos

I disagree with the result of Special:PermanentLink/18325457#Images. There are many old files, originally uploaded without an explicit license, that are kept, because they are presumed to be under GFDL, as was once everything. See Template:GFDL-presumed. Janhrach (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the deletion on this, six years ago - as it was uncontested, and the files had no licensing information. However, these specific files also have no author information available at all and were copied by a system developer in 2002. To be under GFDL I would think someone needs to be identifiable as the creator to issue such license. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three were added to Logo suggestions by Magnus Manske with a note (from Magnus Manske). I will leave it to others to judge whether this is a sufficient claim to authorship by Manske. Janhrach (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three have no author information in their metadata, their logs literally read, "2002-10-10T00:11:36 . . imported>(Automated conversion) 132 × 134 (8,189 bytes)". If Magnus would like to claim ownership and declare their license, I'd certainly speedily restore to assist in that process. I don't think that simply using a file on a page is sufficient to determine ownership. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is the policy regarding the use of {{proposed logo}}? Janhrach (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any specific policy there, it is possible certain non-free files may be permitted to be uploaded here - for example if a chapter or thematic organization were working on a logo that wasn't going to be made free use. That specific template appears to apply to files that would be non-free and where WMF itself was the copyright holder. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I asked about policy because I saw the template used, e.g., in File:Newlogo5.png. Janhrach (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janhrach Tend to

Oppose, even they are properly licensed, as such, can't you just upload em to Commons? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has deprecated GFDL-presumed. Janhrach (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meta has no EDP. Hence it can't host anything that Commons can't host. This rule is not very well enforced, but it's there. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Janhrach Also Commons doesn't fully disallow GFDL only licenses, certain images from GFDL-licensed softwares are still allowed. As for proposed logo template, I would love to nominate it for deletion too, since WMF no longer claim unfree for every logos. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]