Wikipedia talk:XfD today

Compatibility

I posted the following message to UCfD talk: "Please extrapolate each day's listings into a one-day log file, the way the rest of the XfDs do. Otherwise, this XfD is not compatible with Wikipedia:Deletion today and can only be given as a link instead of a transclude. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"

Posted a similar compatibility fixit request at WT:AFD. AfD works in here right now, but is ugly because their log pages have misc. templates atop them that need to be noinclude'd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Posted another at WT:MFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

/* Compatibility */ Reply 2405:9800:BCB3:C2E7:258F:B472:118A:3D18 (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing XfDs

Some are missing; WP:SFD for example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I added WP:SFD, and CSD (after a fashion). WP:MFD is still missing from the list. See Category:Wikipedia deletion for potential others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Too Big

This page seems to be getting too large to be useful, as of "right now" it is loading over 800kb of text, with large pages taking even more, perhaps it would be better to have the pages not be transluded, simply linked here? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestions

1.Deal with the size by linking instead of transcluding at least the speedies, since there is already a perfectly usable CAT:CSD. This should also diminish the load on the servers, which have been running rather slowly today. 2. Divide the AfD part of the listings by day 3. Link to such other useful pages as User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary voting summary 4. Publicize the existence of this wonderfully helpful page. DGG (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion today...

Sounds like an scholarly journal. Marlith ^T/C 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD list

It looks like the bot that generates the list is currently down, so the list isn't updating. A large number of the listed articles are currently redlinks, and as far as I can tell it hasn't changed for at least an hour or two. This comment added at 8:10 PM Eastern Standard Time USA. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD list removed

Per this change, Cyde’s CSD list is no longer transcludable, therefore it has been removed from this page. {{User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion}} now produces the following text: I'm currently in the process of re-assessing the usefulness of this tool. It may be replaced with something using the new <categorytree> syntax (although that doesn't have all of the functionality), or it might be deleted altogether. If you have any comments, please make them known on the talk page. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The CSD list is not intended to be used for transclusion purposes. By doing so, you are creating many unnecessary "What links here" entries that administrators on CSD patrol have to peruse on each deletion. Think of the tiny benefit that transclusion affords you versus the large hindrance that it creates to many administrators each time every CSD is dealt with, and you will realize why it is no longer permitted.

See also

• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

—Travis^talk 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hot Office

Sorry I know i must be boring people, but i made pages under the title "the hot office" and then "hot office", and both were deemed unacceptable.

However, i have now found a 3rd party source which shows the product - www.thebestof.co.uk/welwyn%20garden%20city/61604/1/1/the_best_of.aspx

and i'm hopeful that i could now write an acceptable article.

Please let me know if i'm able to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowland Alan Reeves (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions - I have made a proposal that TfDs and CfDs be handled in the same way as AfDs and MfDs, as transcluded subpages. A small consensus seems to have formed, but there have been very few responses. As these are very important Wikipedia pages, please take a look and help form a broader consensus (or tear it apart). Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 08:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The above link was archived to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_29#Transcludable_XfD_discussions.

Whatever happened to the implementation of this proposal, given that the poll looks to have been carried. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's delete this page

This page fails the notability test and I could not find any 3rd party sources. Besides, it's time to clean off the 200 MB drive again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.192.50 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Non transcluded content from main DT page

Peter Sutcliffe, The Yorkshire Ripper

Today I submitted an additional paragraph to the Wikipedia article titled "Peter Sutcliffe" meaning The Yorkshire Ripper. This is my first activity in Wikipedia, so please tell me if I have missed something about correct procedure. In the 'summary of edit' box, I wrote "new and interesting addtional information" or words to that effect. Although the information is a bit disturbing, it is well known and my addition did not breach copyright or contain anything that might be construed as libellous. The text I tried to add is reproduced below, and I would welcome any explanation as to why is has been deleted:

The "Two Rippers" Theory

Soon after Peter Sutcliffe's conviction, a series of advertisements started to appear in magazines in the north of England, claiming that there were not one but two Yorkshire Rippers and that the main Ripper was still free and still killing. The book - titled "The Real Yorkshire Ripper," written and self published by Mr Noel O'Gara of Athlone, central Ireland - has gained a cult following over the years and has been the subject of fierce polemics in internet forums. Occasionally it gets a mention in the mainstream media, for example the Yorkshire Post, 31 August 2005:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/One-man39s-obsession-with-39real39.1130418.jp
Mr O'Gara's "two Rippers" scenario derives considerable plausibility from numerous statements by the police and media during 1978-80, for example: "Yvonne 'a victim of the carbon-copy Ripper .... A second Ripper was being hunted by police last night. The crazed killer is thought to have set himself up as a rival to the man who has already killed seven girls. So far he is known to have murdered Yvonne Pearson whose battered body was found in Bradford on Sunday. A pathologist who examined all the ... girls murdered by the Ripper told police yesterday: "She is not his eighth victim."
-Daily Mail, 28 March 1978.
Even more telling is the interview between Mr O'Gara and Ron Warren, who was deputy chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Authority throughout the Ripper investigation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=hkSaYJg9gMU
Officially the case remains closed and Peter Sutcliffe has made no move to modify his confessions to the thirteen murders of which he was convicted. However, family members who visited Sutcliffe prior to his trial reported that at the time he was emphatically denying having killed all the Ripper victims. --Macnulty009 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is for requests to delete articles, not edits. Please see your talk page here [1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please remove Ysgol_Bryn_Alyn_Room_16.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesdaniel4291 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Wikipedia:XfD today. Ucucha 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Deletion today → ? — Due to various changes over at CFD and TFD, the title of this no longer seems appropriate as they are not all about deletion. How about Actions today or maintenance today? Simply south (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• How about WP:XfD today? (there should also be an WP:XfD yesterday... since the turnover between one day and another will make some things get lost in the shuffle) 76.66.200.154 (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• I support Wikipedia:XfD today, considering that neither CFD, TFD nor RFD are exclusively deletion discussions. "XfD today" would therefore be a more accurate description than the current title. Jafeluv (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, Wikipedia:XfD today is appropriate and also agree with 76.66.200.154 about Wikipedia:XfD yesterday. J04n(talk page) 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia:XfD Today. --Xdamr^talk 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

And what about files?

I just came randomly across this page today and I'm wondering where Files for deletion and Possibly unfree files are. Is there a specific reason not to include them here? --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Something proposed for deletion is breaking Wikiproject Paranormal banner

While assessing for WP Mythology I noticed that today someone has made a proposal for deletion that is affecting Template:WikiProject Paranormal. I've had a quick hunt around but can't find what is doing it, or where it is listed for deletion - however it is messing up a lot of talk pages. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A speedy deletion template was placed on Template:Portal/Images/Paranormal, which is a subpage for an optional image to be used on links to Portal:Paranormal. The tag was for WP:CSD#T3, which has a seven-day waiting period, but it was tagged by the creator/sole editor, so I went ahead and deleted it as a WP:CSD#G7. The banner should look normal now. --RL0919 (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest merge with User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday

Hi, I've suggested a merge with User:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday, over at User talk:Wcquidditch/wikideletiontoday#Suggest merge with Wikipedia:XfD today, to incorporate the best aspects of both pages, in a single location. Please give feedback or suggestions. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

I have nominated the article Nirmal Kumar Ganguly for deletion because it is biography of a living person and holding the office of president of a country's medical research institute is not enough for a wp page.What is his invention in microbiology or contribution that is so revolutionary or saved millions of lives i want to know .if this particular page is kept then why not keep a bio page for each and every medico in 190 countries who has as point of time at some institute of the country. what is his unparalleled contribution to medicine say in comparison to Koch or Pasteur.12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)117.194.236.223 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that your proposed deletion tag was removed. Since the Nirmal Kumar Ganguly article has already been the subject of a deletion discussion, it is no longer eligible for proposed deletion. Any future deletion nomination will need to be made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirmal Kumar Ganguly (2nd nomination). SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How can I make an XFD request?

Of this proposal]? I was told I had to do a XFD request [2] Cinadon36 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)