Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by TheSandDoctor (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 6 June 2020 (→How to deal with Poles: close as kept, nc). It may differ significantly from the current version .
Requests for deletion
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. You may use {{subst:RFD2|page name|reasons here. --~~~~}} under the appropriate section to start the deletion discussion. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request using {{subst:RfD notice|page name --~~~~.}}. 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.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.

Pages

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

The following discussion is closed: Kept, no clear consensus for deletion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Humour page that is decidedly not funny, nor has it been. This comes from a discussion on EN.wiki on deleting a soft link to this page, see [1]. Not that I'm trying to be the fun police, I think humour is critical to smooth editing and I've read as many Poland ball comics as the next person, but I fail to see how this page is funny or helpful. It seemed to be a joke on the "Polling is evil" essay, but that seems poorly traveled, and last edited ten years ago. From my perspective on EN.wiki, this page is very backwards, and is a bad look for Wikimedia. This page has been the target of past contention, see the last deletion discussion in 2013. CaptainEek (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Keep. It's humor, and many consider it quite funny. (Pretty sure that it's a take on "Polls are evil", btw. The original name of the page was "Poles are evil".) (I still want someone to also write a similar page on interactions with Czech users. :) ) --Yair rand (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. It's an attempt at humor, and I'm not going to judge the creator's sense of humor, but there's no point in having this. Considering this page has had controversy in the past (see the old discussion pointed out by the nom), I'm not sure meta wiki is the best place to keep around potentially contentious humor. Hog Farm (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC) (visitor from EN.wiki)[reply ]
  • Delete. Would we keep How to deal with Jews? Do we really want people to think it's funny to make jokes about ethnic groups? It might be ok if it was a major group that wasn't the target for bigotry, but that's not true of Poles. Doug Weller (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. Any humour that's good to keep wouldn't need that disclaimer at the bottom. Oh, and reading through it, every one of those "humorous" points just made me cringe. I know humour is in the eye of the beholder, but it's a warped eye that sees any here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete per all. An outsider who stumbles here might not get the reference and issues would ensue. Also, per Boing! said Zebedee the disclaimer kind of ruins the whole gag and is further evidence that this isn't suited here. John M Wolfson (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete - Bigotted essay based purely on the weak attempt on humour that the name for a native of Poland is a homophone of poll. Not funny and not required. Voice of Clam (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete as utterly inappropriate for any wiki, much less a wiki that aims to include all cultures, Poland included. --Rs chen 7754 06:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete Just say no. Buidhe (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep Keep it is an interesting piece of wiki lore we do not want to lose. That being said we do need to indicate it more clearly that this is a nonsense page to talk about on evening wiki meetups rather than an actual discouragement of actual Poles from contribution. --Base (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. On English Wikipedia this page would have been speedily deleted as an attack page. It don't see any reason why it should be kept here. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
I think part of the issue is that it can easily be questioned "If a humor essay can cause offense to some editors, should it be kept up on the project, since it's not necessary or strongly related?" Even if most Poles don't find this offensive, I don't think this helps create an environment conducive to building an encyclopedia, but that's just my opinion. Hog Farm (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
@Hog Farm: I'm working under the assumption that there aren't any editors who are offended by this. --Yair rand (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
Do you presume to speak for all of them (not just one or two?) --Rs chen 7754 07:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
@Rschen7754: (I assume this was directed at me?) I'm not Polish, and I can't speak for anyone. This is the sixth time this page has been nominated for deletion. Of the Polish users who have supported keeping the page, many (Szopen, Halibutt, Datrio, Roo72, Qviri, WarX) are no longer active, and I suspect it wouldn't be appropriate to ping the active ones (Piotrus, Fjl, Kpjas, D_T_G, Julo, and Aegis Maelstrom (current president of WM Poland)) to allow them to speak for themselves, per canvassing rules. --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
I don't think there would be any problem with informing Polish users who might want to say something about the proposal. This proposal surely attracted attention from en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil already anyway. --MF-W 16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
@MF-Warburg: Do you think it would be okay to ping all the Polish editors who have previously commented in RfDs of this page? --Yair rand (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
I don't see why it could be not ok. --MF-W 22:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
@Yair rand: Halibutt would certainly vote but sadly he's not with us anymore. Kpjas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep. This text obviously has nothing against Polish people and does no harm: indeed it's useful for Polish people, otherwise we wouldn't have Polish users linking it from their userpage. For those who only recently joined the Wikimedia projects and may have missed it: this is an important historical document which helps understand a phase of the Wikimedia projects circa 2004 when there was a significant influx of new Polish users on English and cross-wiki Wikimedia projects. There are entire books written on this phenomenon and how communities deal with it. The essay happens to be about Polish users but really has nothing specific about the Polish: it contains useful advice on how to deal with any significant group of new users on the wikis. I know that it's rare nowadays to see many users join our projects at once, and it looks like we're long past the times when we needed to learn how integrate new users in our communities, but this is a skill that may be necessary again in the future, and we need to preserve learnings from our past time of rapid growth, otherwise we'll just repeat the same mistakes. Nemo 07:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete as unfunny and bigoted with no redeeming qualities. Tavix (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This page is only offensive on the most glancing, problem-searching read. This is a whole bunch of faux outrage by people apparently being offended on behalf of a group that doesn't appear to be so. That said, I really don't care if some obscure and marginally funny humour page remains on Meta or not. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
    Now that the plwiki crowd has showed up to confirm that they are, in fact, not offended by the page, I will vote Keep Keep. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. No benefit for Meta.--Jusjih (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Delete. Nonsense.2405:9800:BA30:C21A:79D5:89D1:59CD:9E28 09:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Pinging Polish participants of previous RfDs for this page: @Datrio, Roo72, Qviri, WarX, Piotrus, Fjl, Kpjas, D T G, Julo, and Aegis Maelstrom:. --Yair rand (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Weak delete. Er, yeah, so, that's a blast from the past. I'm not really offended by it, but personally I currently don't think this sort of stuff should be written new, and to me it doesn't seem of great historical value. (Yes, there's lessons to be drawn from cultural conflicts resulting from influxes of new users. No, this isn't the best way of keeping such records.) I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted. Maybe Uncyclopedia or somesuch place would like it? If not deleting, the closing of the 2013 request for deletion suggested "The historical context is important, and that should be added briefly to the heading of the page (suggest a head notice that discusses Meta-held essays, and points to the corresponding talk page) and a more meaningful explanation on the talk page." - this doesn't seem to have happened and would probably be a benefit. --user:Qviri 01:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
    @Qviri: I suppose people like @Piotrus: and myself can offer historical background, explanation and context on the talk page or elsewhere. Kpjas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
    @Kpjas: I have since added a really basic intro in https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_deal_with_Poles&type=revision&diff=20104609&oldid=20029762 but feel free to amend or add more. --user:Qviri 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep. This is a cultural history of Wikipedia (Wikimedia...). It's en:WP:BJAODN level, but so what? We should not deny our history, even if not all of it is not up to what we today consider best taste or practice. (I am Polish, btw). --Piotrus (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep. Per Piotrus' vote. Besides for me it is quite funny and brings back my fondest memories. Just to put my vote into perspective: I was an (inactive) member of Nupedia, has been in the original (English) Wikipedia from the start and co-founded the Polish language WP and Wikiquote. --Kpjas (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep Ok, so first, this isn't making fun of Poles. It's making fun of the things that Polish editors have to routinely deal with. And if you're a Polish editor you immediately "get it" because you literally see these "arguments" and "strategies" ALL the time ("we can't use Polish sources on Polish topics!" <-- how come no one ever goes to, I, dunno, Canada-related articles and starts insisting that all Canadian sources from Canadian related articles must be removed?) . Is it funny? I dunno, humor is subjective. Some parts are, some others are kind of awkward and clunky and probably not very woke by today's standards. But yes, it's part of Wikipedia history and should be kept on that basis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep It makes me laugh every time I come across it. Really don't understand how this page seems offending to so many people above – I'm not offended and I'm Polish. In case of deleting, I think this page should be imported to pl.wiki. Wostr (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep Keep it is a part or Wiki history and it does not offend us as Poles masti <talk> 09:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep Does not offend Poles. Instead, it documents the (historical?) approach part of enwiki users to Polish editors, sources etc. Therefore this is a very useful page. I am not surprised that this page has been removed from enwiki. It is very uncomfortable for this community. However, it's better to change the user's behavior than to delete critical pages. --Piotr967 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Keep it's a part of history :) Gdarin

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]
  • 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 ]
  • 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 ]
  • 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 ]

Templates

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

Categories

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

Images

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

Requests for undeletion

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /