Meta:Requests for deletion

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

Political instrumentalization of Wikimedia. This page is a petition written in Azeri language to request a regular strike on wikiprojects due to the political situation in Artsakh. Personally I am shocked: the editors at the origin of this page should be blocked indefinitely. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. Shocking political instrumentalization on Wikimedia... --Benoît Prieur (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Pretty radical of you to say "the editors at the origin of this page should be blocked indefinitely". Also, it wasn't due to the political situation in Karabakh, but the murder of an Azerbaijani toddler and her grandmother by Armenian Armed Forces. I'd question your POV regarding this topic. It seems that you want us to be "punished" for our political opinions, as users, not article editors. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 09:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, an another misinformation given out by you, we were not calling for others to strike. Instead, we announced that WE WILL BE STRIKING in the given time. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 09:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep The various language sections of Wikipedia are almost entirely in the interests of justice and impartiality. I see this clearly in national issues, mainly in the Armenian and Russian Wikipedia. For this reason, I do not understand whose interests the deletion of the petition serves--Qolcomaq (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. I don't want to see Wikimedia becoming a political instrument, for whatever reason. Vorlod (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• I would suggest moving it to under RFC and then closing it since it is over 2 years old. --Rs chen 7754 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete as off-topic for Meta. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. Off-topic activism. --Yair rand (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, definitely off-topic. Esteban16 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete. Off-topic.--Turkmen ^talk 00:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Similar to above. This page, as it stands, is clearly not about documentation or coordination of the activities of Wikimedia projects, and is non-neutral advocacy in an area unrelated to Wikimedia projects' activities. --Yair rand (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Speedy keep This nomination is the most outrageously tone-deaf thing I've seen for a long time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• speedy keep. Disingenuous nomination. Many pages on Meta document the coordination of political advocacy campaigns undertaken, or supported, by Wikimedia groups. Wittylama (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak Keep Keep the page focus should shift towards campaign for enriching our projects with materials that document the movement, rather than have the spotlight on the (albeit rightful) sentiments of the movement itself. --Base (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I think this would be helpful and would address some of Yair rand's concerns. Uberlibris (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

    Varnent, could you as the author of the page make this happen, please? --Base (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Speedy keep Echoing the sentiments of Pigsonthewing and Wittylama, this is an unfolding campaign in response to a movement with international repercussions. (削除) 80.111.219.157 11:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC) (削除ここまで) Smirkybec (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep I believe that this is a very worthwhile project to coordinate contributions and improvements on the Black Lives Matter movement. It is also very timely, given that it is a highly topical issue with global impact. Uberlibris (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep, same as previous votes. Tha page may need some minor rework but no reason to delete. What part is supposed to be « non-neutral » ? or « unrelated to Wikimedia projects' activities » ? (most of the page is a list of Wikipedia articles, who are obviously part of the Wikimedia projects). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep disruption of collaboration efforts tends to cast doubt on the good faith of the nominator. Slowking4 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• As long as the changes Base suggested happens, I have no opposition keeping it. Otherwise I don't know. — regards, Revi 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Note for the closing admins: Possible recruiting at https://t.me/WikimediaGeneral/15754 and https://www.facebook.com/groups/WikiLibrary/permalink/1657048684456110. — regards, Revi 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Heya @-revi: That’s an English Wikipedia template. :) Is there a Meta policy on recruitment you could reference to make your point? Ckoerner (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
      • Meta doesn't run on a codified rule over everything — some are codified, some are unwritten, some are common-sense business. I know it's an enwiki template, left the link here to let them know there's an external forces on this discussion, so they can make an informed decision. — regards, Revi 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep A worthwhile project coordinating work on unfolding events. Preferable to make revisions or rework as required rather than deletion. Smallison (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep. What the fuck is wrong with you? Gamaliel (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • please avoid incivility. You're a grownup; you can disagree more articulately. Ijon (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strong and speedy keep. Don't be ridiculous... -Another Believer (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep, sigh -- meta has a long history of documenting shared initiatives across different spaces in the movement -- not sure how this would be different from other topical initiatives, Sadads (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep Are you serious? --ToniSant (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep, but separate free-knowledge organizing about BLM and all the related issues listed (which should stay), from protest organizing, discussion groups, donation opportunities, etc., which should find more suitable places to organize in. This page on Meta should focus on organizing Wikimedian work on this topic, not the activist work of people who happen to be Wikimedians who care about racial justice etc. (and I am one). Ijon (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strong and speedy keep. This is insulting and is one of the reasons Wikipedia has difficulty engaging and retaining editors who are not White men. Bridges2Information (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep. Nominating rationale does not hold up to scrutiny at all. Even at the time this was nominated, the page clearly is framed in terms of organizing and encouraging edits to relevant topics areas on Wikimedia projects related to this movement. Is WikiMed non-neutral because it actively calls attention to and seeks to remedy gaps and known problems/controversies with medical content across Wikimedia projects? Of course not. Similarly, as BLM calls attention to issues and gaps in content related to Black communities in the United States we should not be placing undue scrutiny on efforts to make improvements in these domains. I JethroBT (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment. I think that it should be possible to discuss the request without attacking the requester. Do we have rules on Meta that give us orientation here? Do we need more rules? Could the page be renamed in a way that it expresses more the topics to be dealt with? Are there precedents? How about if other external movements would do the same? Would we welcome, e.g., a page about/by Greenpeace, or Fridays for Future, or the Kolpingwerk, or a political movement/party? The comparison with WikiMed is not quite compelling as WikiMed is a Wikimedia Affiliate. / I would like to see a productive discussion about these issues in order to make Meta a better platform. Ziko (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

i'm not attacking the nominator; i just note that it is not a good look. reasonable people might draw unflattering conclusions about this action. whataboutism is a distraction. the pattern of behavior of showing up at new attempts to organize editors, and asking for a rename, is becoming tiresome, don't you have another tactic to disrupt content creation? rest assured content creation organization is curtailed on meta, most of it happens off-wiki for this reason. Slowking4 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

I support renaming it if seeking to keep it, but we need possible ideas. Racial equality matters? Police accountability matters? Governmental accountability matters?--Jusjih (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep - Ainali (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep Useful documentation page, important to help people engage in Wiki projects in the future and above all I agree with many that it is best in all cases to make revisions to the existing page than to delete it.--Hbmtl (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Saying that the page is "not about documentation or coordination of the activities of Wikimedia projects" is clearly untrue. There is room for improvement, but I don't see any reason to delete it. Nihlus 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep The page looks similar to many other pages where people are organizing collaborations and follows within the type of pages that are on Meta. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep. What is wrong with you?--Jorm (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Looking at the page now it's clearly appropriate for meta, directing users to contribute by creating articles, uploading files etc. It details editathons and lists groups who contribute and support in this area. Parallels can be draw to the Sustainability_Initiative and Gender gap pages. I think it makes sense the deletion nominator ( User:Yair_rand ) withdraw this request. Seddon (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep for all the reasons above - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strong support Speedy KEEP. 180.6.142.215 03:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep Shanluan (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC) The page aims to help grow documentation of a historic movement and there is precedent for it's type on Wikimedia along with other reasons mentioned above.[reply ]
• Keep: The page has sufficient material of co-ordination, and a good starting point for anyone interested to work. Please see the "contribute" section. It is in scope. Regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC) and +1 to what Ijon wrote, focus more on the Wikimedia, and the knowledge creation.. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep: We need more folks using Meta (instead of proprietary closed social media) to coordinate work in the movement. This should be encouraged, not discouraged. Neutral advocacy isn’t a thing. The basis of our movement, of sharing knowledge freely, is non-neutral! Ckoerner (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Images in particular need to be preserved for the public record. Not just in the precarious ambiguous social media world. This page is useful to centralise coordination of that. Irtapil (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Since this is Meta there is no speedy keep, but keep nonetheless as a valid group to promote diversity in content. This nomination was incredibly tone-deaf. --Rs chen 7754 19:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep - This page is clearly within Meta's scope, and I agree with Rschen that the nomination is incredibly tone-deaf. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strong and speedy keep, we are preparing to organize events in other Wikipedia languages. --Camelia (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Strong and speedy keep we are using this page to coordinate events generating content so deletion would quite disrespectful for the people who have been working on the subject Nattes à chat (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep I'm lost for words. Amir (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Speedy keep, tendentious nomination - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.

• Meta-Wiki administrators
• Meta-Wiki requests
• Deletions