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. 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.

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.

Rebuilt Wikimedia

Discussion open until at least 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Rebuilt Wikimedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Baseless proposal, mostly written with the help of an LLM. Proposed by a user blocked on enwiki and frwiki for disruption. Not a single proposal suggested on this page aligns with what Wikimedia projects stand for, so it should be deleted to save editors' time. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A not useful proposal created by an user with a bad history. Per DR, it should be deleted to save editors' time. @SHB2000 and A09: Pinging users who left comments at that page. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 12:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (and not speedy) – extremely unserious proposal largely AI-generated; user history extremely uncompelling as well. //shb (t • c) 12:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Deleting would IMHO just open a way to bad proposals and it'd be harder in the future for us to point what was already discussed and what arguments not to make. Do we have precedence in deleting such pages, is this even covered by any specific policy?--A09|(pogovor) 12:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This page could have some good ideas for future reference. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this goes against the meta inclusion policy and deleting it seems like it could set a dangerous precedent as A09 was eluding to. If an editor is blocked on other projects, I don't think we can use that as a reason for treating them any differently here since this is a separate project. Ternera (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an overly long proposal that goes far beyond what Meta-Wiki is meant to resolve. In any case, it would require local consensus for extremely controversial ideas, such as merging all Wikipedias into a single one or dismantling "governance structures" that have been developed through decades of discussion and consensus. --Divinations (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the reason why it should be kept and marked as closed. Because these ideas will reappear and far less community time will be spent if we could just point to previous proposals regardless of their quality (barring obvious vandalism). A09|(pogovor) 19:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say better have the proposal closed instead of deleting it and keeping it if needed at some point in the future. -Barras talk 17:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 20:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]