Jump to content

Abstract Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

Add topic
From Abstract Wikipedia
Latest comment: 8 days ago by ReXLer in topic Shrines

This page is the venue to request for the deletion of pages that cannot be speedy deleted (see also Template:Delete).

Scholarly articles

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There is very little abstract encyclopedic content that can come out of a page about a specific, non-notable scholarly article. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

We currently don't have a community-ratified definition of notability. I've tried to kick off this discussion here. For now, I ask that stewards/global sysops wait until we come to a consensus on a policy. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@JJPMaster: very interesting request. I'm not entirely sure... I would tend to agree for these papers but not all of them (Attention Is All You Need (Q30249683) exists on 16 Wikipedias for instance), so where to put the threshold between notable and non-notable? on which criteria? Anyway, I agree to wait until the community reach a consensus on what is notable on AW. Also, I'm pinging @Immanuelle: who created these articles. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Feeglgeef: the notability discussion does seems to be moving, meanwhile it's seems more and more obvious that these page are not good (see the deletion request below too). Should we still wait? I don't think so anymore. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure, sounds good. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done VIGNERON (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q6489603

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

See Talk:Q6489603. This does not work as a category, it is more an article about a category. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Under my proposed notability guideline, this would not be notable, so I Support Support deletion Feeglgeef (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ameisenigel @Feeglgeef Although the page has been deleted, I believe that the vague wording related to categories (and templates) should be clarified. Please review and improve the deletion policy to help current and future contributors better understand how categories are handled. Refer Abstract Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Categories John Samuel (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Deleted ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Creations by XeNivalys

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

user:XeNivalys has posted several pages as part of their cross-wiki spam crusade. Please delete them all and if possible issue a block. --Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 08:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

auto-created broken articles

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest we do a bit of a cleanup of pages that were created by a software tool, using immature functions that have been deprecated for months, that would be very annoying to clean up by hand. So I propose deletion of the following (feel free to add to this list anything that matches this description). No prejudice to re-creation if anyone wants to make them good. --99of9 (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

99of9 (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I thout the same, or even more: I would like to discuss if it is best to delete outdated articles. There is a lot of discussion and critique about a lot of those articles. I think in particular to articles created by @Immanuelle, that are not edited afterwards by somebody else. Those articles were a) created in mass and b) most of them with outdated functions. PS: I value the attempt of use:Immanuelle and hope to see him/her to continue on this project, now or later. HenkvD (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ping User:Immanuelle. Do you mind if we heavily clean up some of your contributions? --99of9 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done the original set. --99of9 (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Articles created by User:Immanuelle and not edited after creation. I would like to propose to delete these (if not already mentioned above):
HenkvD (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some are okay. I clicked on two, and IMO both should be kept: Q188 German, Q3503 Congo (River). So I think we need to go through them not just mass delete. --99of9 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Those 2 are only one sentence, are using a conversion from string or monolingual text to HTML and are therefor not good to be used as example. I think it is better to delete them. HenkvD (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd be happy to hear other opinions on this kind of short stub with older functions. For now I'll concentrate on deleting those that don't even meet that level of viability. --99of9 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unless if they are update and improve very soon, I also think it's better to delete them quickly (obviously with no prejudice to recreation): they don't bring anything and they give a very unfaithful representation of what AW is (especially now with the RFC or the Wikimania, where many people were telling me things along the line of "oh so it's a tool to make one or two - bad - sentences"...). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I marked the articles that have been update recently, so they slould not be deleted as part of this request. HenkvD (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are also some lists articles that have been edited twice:
Autom (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean "to be deleted as well"? HenkvD (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done these --99of9 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Articles created by User:BigKrow

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Articles created by @BigKrow do not have any substance: Q668755 Bob Burnquist, Q37492190 Musty and Q267298 battery. HenkvD (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done --99of9 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Test article

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Q27318, literally named test, but using QID for tests/exams. No useful content. Feedmepaperr (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done --99of9 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Auto created articles using f:Z26955 (DO NOT USE) SPO sentence (singulars in present)

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I request that the following auto created aricles of @User:Immanuelle using f:Z26955 (DO NOT USE) SPO sentence (singulars in present) to be deleted:

HenkvD (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Template:Support

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Q5056 is an article made using a QID used exclusively for templates. I cannot connect it to Wikidata because that would involve delinking Template:Support, which is what this QID is meant for. I don't know if it's possible to also just make it impossible to make articles for things like this but that'd be helpful. Feedmepaperr (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done --99of9 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

1981–82 Western Football League

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Created by a cross-wiki spammer. No meaningful content. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Delete Not needed. Jianhui67 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done --99of9 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wiki

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

mammal

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Q7377 "Mammal is a Vertebrata."

@Jsamwrites if the only function gives grammatically unsound output, please can you just add it as a (failing) test on the function itself, rather than making a whole article to show the failure. I've had to delete a whole lot of earlier experiments (see above), and I'm concerned that if you don't invest in each article you make, we're going to have to go through a lot of yours too. --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

commune of France

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  • Q484170: "It is a commune, electoral unit, territorial collectivity of France, LAU 2, fourth-level administrative division and fifth-level administrative division."

@Ornithorynque liminaire this sentence doesn't really make a lot of sense. I think auto-functions like f:Z39177 should only be used when their output is acceptable (in at least one language!), otherwise we should invest editing effort to customise what we want to say. (Or wait until there is a better function available.) --99of9 (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was a first try (preview does not work on my side). I was on the way of correcting that when the Internet died yesterday. It's up again so I will improve them now. I'm using them as test items as you do with Q408 (by the way I'm also improving the French functions and lexemes using this article as a basis). I would suggest to use the talk page in these cases and not RfD, I think it might more fit the international wiki étiquette. Or maybe we could have a template or a function mimicking {{in use}}? Cheers. Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Request withdrawn Okay, I'm glad you were not planning to leave it that way. Sorry that you felt bringing it here was impolite. To note in-use, my best suggestion at the moment would be f:Z32220. --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Do you think it would be worth creating an actual function or a function derived from f:Z32220 that would indicate more clearly the article is currently worked on? And where would be the best place to discuss that? (if you think that's needed, cause I can also just go with it). Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Go for it if you want to use it. I think you'll be the first person using it. It might catch on? --99of9 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Blank, test, meaningless, and nonsensical pages

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments4 people in discussion

We should really do something about the pages that only use something like f:Z26039 (subject is instance of). These pages provide no substance, are without references, and add to the perception that AW is a half-baked mess.

Moreover, many pages by Jsamwrites should be deleted because they are clear tests of his new functions. There should be an actual deletion reason added to Abstract Wikipedia:Deletion policy which includes any pages created to test a specific function with no clear intent to improve it post-creation. We need less pages that are higher quality. That 2,031 number we see on the main page is full of useless pages like these.

All of these were pulled from Special:ShortPages.

Completely blank pages:

(despite being redlinks the above pages actually do exist, but are blank)

Monolingual text:

Pages with no substantial content other than an infobox/table:
I'm not including articles that have an infobox that actually includes information about the subject. These are just navigation boxes.

Test/nonsensical/useless pages:

  • Q102 (article subject is a word. very good content here)
  • Q8216 (an alphabet is an alphabet. amazing)
  • Q5148741 (a person is a human. good to know)
  • Q1357 (article subject is a taxon, without indication which)
  • Q16035842 (hearing loss is a hearing disorder. stating the obvious)
  • Q18123741 (infectious disease is a type of disease. repeating itself)
  • Q3246016 (for sure just a test page)
  • Q85781149 (same as above)
  • Q3124 (same as above)
  • Q3045 (same as above)
  • Q186030 (the article content is "Contemporary art is a .")
  • Q982364 (completely meaningless)

EatingCarBatteries (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ping @Jsamwrites since he was mentioned. --99of9 (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, my apologies. EatingCarBatteries (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@EatingCarBatteries Personally, I disagree with deleting these pages, especially considering that the project is still in its early stages. While adding a relevant image may seem simple to those of us with a technical background, it is a significant barrier for many other contributors. The same applies to pages that currently consist of a basic "is a" classification sentence. Shouldn't these be viewed as opportunities for improvement? Even a simple sentence stating that something is "a human" or "a taxon" holds foundational value for certain contributors.
"We need fewer pages of higher quality" is a noble ambition, but it falls short when we have so few functions across such a vast number of domains.
To help address this, I have carefully created 31 functions covering domains like Geography, People, Software, and Programming Languages (a complete list is available here).
Regarding the personal part of your message: as you can see from the link, every new function is designed to improve existing articles. You can verify this by looking at function usage alongside the creation dates of these pages. Developing a new function takes time—especially given our commitment to multilinguality and the current lack of an API for creation and modification.
Even after all these years, Wikipedia still relies heavily on the concept of "stub articles." We shouldn't prevent contributors from creating basic pages or categories, especially when we don't yet have stub templates to flag them for expansion.
At this early stage, our focus should be on encouraging contributors across different domains—by expanding into new areas, rather than deleting their work. What may seem simple to some of us is often a meaningful contribution to the original creator.
Thanks @99of9 for pinging me for such an important topic of discussion.
John Samuel (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi John, I'm very sorry if I came off frustrated, especially in the test pages section. I've had a long day and I'm tired, rushing my writing without fleshing out thoughts.
I originally made this list of pages for deletion for the blank pages after taking a look at Special:ShortPages (all the bullets before the monolingual text section), but as you can, see it has since expanded. Regarding the short articles, I'm mainly concerned with the ones that were created in the opening weeks of AW, the editor has left, and the article has remained incorrect and broken. The only articles in this post that I truly want to delete are those - the rest are up for discussion.
My thought process about why I want a lot of pages to be deleted is due to the closure discussions over at meta and enwiki. While much of the argument there is seemingly done in bad faith, and I've been increasingly frustrated due to that, they do rightfully point out that many of the two thousand articles are subpar, containing obvious grammatical or factual errors. I agree that many of these pages hold potential for expansion - from my experience, contributors would rather add to an existing article than create an entire one. It's just that as things stand, the quality of these pages bring down the reputation and quality of AW. An admin at a local wiki may be hesitant to include AW pages if they see this content.
This is ultimately the reason why any other wiki has deletion policies - many of these articles would quality for the English Wikipedia's A1 speedy deletion criteria. The other option, of course, is to improve these pages, but that seems unlikely to me given the amount of pages, the amount of editors, and the effort required to do this. But hey, you could say the same thing about Wikipedia when it came out.
Another issue comes with the lack of categorization or maintenance templates. I've raised issue with the WMF over at the phabricator, but they seem as willing to implement these as they would be to implement wikitext as a whole. Given this issue, it is hard for editors to even find these pages to begin with, without browsing the new pages, recent changes, or all pages special pages.

I'm heading to bed after this, and will not be able to respond until the afternoon tomorrow. What my ultimate thoughts are is that we should remove a lot of the most obvious, damaging articles. Many can and should stay, especially those that have room for growth as you mentioned. I think this should be done on a case-by-case basis, but I'm not sure how best to describe it. EatingCarBatteries (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Surely you don't disagree with deleting *some* of these? Even the blank ones?? --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
We're dealing with many good-faith people trying out. I think the focus should be on "how we don't discourage these people from editing Abstract Wikipedia". The other focus is "how we convince people clinking on random article that Abstract Wikipedia is not a complete nonsense". I would be many possibilities for that, three examples :
  • Deleting blank and monolingual articles but sending a nice message to the users "thank you for trying out, we're removing for now cause we want to focus on a fewer number of articles, here are the good practices if you want to try again".
  • Just sending a nice message with the good practices, offer help (on-wiki, on another channel?) and reconsider the problem in a few weeks
  • Block the creation of new articles from now on to encourage people to improve the existing ones (but we also should offer help for that and a better space to experiment with)
The important thing here is: how do we care of lost new users (it is a complicated project to understand, took me a few days and I was familiar with Wikifunctions since 2023, with Wikidata since 2012, and with Wikipedia and code since 2010...). Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there are lots of new users around at the moment, and it's great to think about how to encourage them. I'll add another idea: rewrite Help:How to create an article using html functions. Feel free to send nice messages, but please don't require the deleting admin to do that, there are already too many per day for me to keep up with. I oppose blocking the creation of new articles. I think people like to work on what they are connected with. In the last few days I've seen some great fresh starts. E.g. Q5753. I don't want to discourage new articles, I want to see bad articles either improved or removed. --99of9 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q110268499?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This living person’s notability is not self-evident. Online sources seem to link back to the person’s own content. As a primary source, I don’t find this article convincing. I am happy to assume good faith, but I worry about Abstract Wikipedia’s credibility too. Comments on our draft policy suggest that we might want to see an existing Wikipedia page, and we might want to consider that a higher priority for a living person. Procedurally, when there is no such page, I think we should certainly review notability more carefully, but this is difficult without established criteria. GrounderUK (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indeed there is no wikipedia article for this person, and that would a reason for deletion.
The Wikidata entry is quite extensive, but sources seem to link back to the person’s own content.
I think the creator of Q110268499 is pushing images of this person on several wikis and is reverted on en.wikipedia and ar.wikipedia. His edits on fr.wikipedia, es.wikipedia and others are not (yet) reverted. It might be in good faith, but the user has a lot of issues, including AI articles.
Article on no.wikipedia wad speedily deleted on basis for AI generated, and speedily deleted several times on en.wikiquote for Not sufficiently notable.
So a lot of reasons for deletion. HenkvD (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the additional information. For the record, I don’t consider the absence of any Wikipedia page conclusive in itself, but I support deletion if no evidence of notability comes forward. There is little enough content there anyway, so I don’t see a problem with speedy deletion for low value and no links. GrounderUK (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Likely self-promotion. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done --99of9 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q313940

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Vandalism 解浪 [hɛ.ɾaŋ] (U/T/C/CA) 16:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the vandalism has been reverted and the article is okay now? --99of9 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
On FAQ/ko not all was reverted yet. I think I corrected the last one HenkvD (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes It's okay now, but it needs protection. ― 解浪 [hɛ.ɾaŋ] (U/T/C/CA) 07:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes please protect it as it is a target of LTA vandalism. Jianhui67 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done I've semi-protected it for now. Thanks everyone. --99of9 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q929731

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

No valid abstract article. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Other articles created by @BigKrow:

  • Q5454630 fish fry: Fixed English text
  • Q7369 dolphin: Fixed English text
  • Q482964 Depeche Mode: Only infobox
  • Q83099 Jana Gana Mana: Only infobox
  • Q590342 World of Tanks: Only infobox
  • Q38684 Bay of Bengal: Only one sentence (Bay of Bengal is part of the Indian Ocean.)
  • Q959362 gin: Only one sentence (The instance of of gin is liquor)
  • Q1499 Uttarakhand: Only one sentence (Uttarakhand is a state of India.)
  • Q25280 Harrisburg: Only one sentenc (The population of Harrisburg was 50,099 in 2020.)
  • Q3957 town: Only one sentece (Town is part of the country.)

HenkvD (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q117462830

[edit]
Latest comment: 25 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Blank. ReXLer (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deleted by 99of9 ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q939743

[edit]
Latest comment: 27 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Q939743 (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) is a result of test edits by a new user. HenkvD (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I improved the article since those tests. Decent stub now? Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, article can stay. HenkvD (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Request withdrawn by OP. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q830149

[edit]
Latest comment: 27 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This Wikidata ID is for Paris, Texas, but a number of authors appear to have gotten confused and written an article about Paris, France (Q90). Since the existing article for Q90 is much better-developed, it's probably best to delete this, providing a blank slate for anyone who wants to write an article about the correct Paris. Carnildo (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deleted ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q141305964

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think we're ready for this kind of pointed BLP. There is one citation on WD, but not for all the claims, and I'm not sure it meets our expected notability standard. --99of9 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

FYI @Webmaster2024 --99of9 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Speedy deletion for me. He's known on the niche Internet, afaik. The risk of harm is important. We should also do something on Commons + WD probably. Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
btw, I blanked the page for now given the risk. This is called w:fr:WP:Blanchiment_de_courtoisie on frwiki, I don't known the standard use in other ones. Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
sorry, I'm new to abstract wiki. I forgot that this page is about BLP Webmaster2024 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
no worries @Webmaster2024 if that was with a good intention! My advice would be to try out this project with a city you know, or a taxon, etc. Feel free to shout any question! Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done --99of9 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q37530492

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Diamondarmorstev: This article is for family name Jupiter not the planet Jupiter, so for the wrong Q-id. The correct one is Q319.

Deleted ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q41692

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

has only fixed English text and looks broken ReXLer (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

@BigKrow 99of9 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Q2393807

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Q2393807 (taquito) has only fixed English text. Reference is empty. @BigKrow HenkvD (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply


Shrines

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@User:Immanuelle. Request to delete the following abstract articles about shines with less than 5 links. See the discussion at Abstract Wikipedia talk:Notability#Even even sharper criteria.

HenkvD (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The criteria hasn't been formally accepted, so I don't think it applies for deletion right now? ReXLer (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://abstract.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=22678"