Redirect to:
Shortcuts WP:RFPWP:RFP WP:RFAWP:RFA WP:RFBWP:RFB Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter Rollbacker Patroller Transwiki Importer Temporary...
Click to read more »main RfA page. However, sometimes they are closed early. If you are reading this page it is likely that this has happened to your RfA. Although RfA has...
Click to read more »article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors...
Click to read more »pages (see this, have Qd'ed several articles since my last RfA, and took part in several RfDs. Hope I'm lucky this time. TurboGolf 05:52, 25 January 2009...
Click to read more »inflated the number of RfAs that I have had. I have learned from this and have not repeated it since about my 6th or 7th RfA. I was a child then; now...
Click to read more »the last RFA. -Griffinofwales (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) -Barras talk 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) His improvement since his last RfA is sufficiently...
Click to read more »an RfB on such flimsy grounds? Lets move with the times and promote the best in our community to Bureaucrat. We need a discussion about the whole RfA/B...
Click to read more »more RfAs. One of the reasons why my RfA count is so high here is because I requested them so often back when I first began. The first real RfA that I...
Click to read more »who passed RfA with 28 supports and no opposes. User:Diego Grez's request for importer did not pass, and User:Immunize withdrew his RfA early. Fairfield (talk ·...
Click to read more »site. I would like to start having people post a tally in the RfA whenever they have an RfA so that it is easier on the bureaucrats to close out Requests...
Click to read more »and his previous RfA, and decided to say yes. FRSign Here 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Out of curiousity, how did you look at his previous Rfa? It was deleted...
Click to read more »Please do not modify it. This RfA is being closed per SNOW new user, with the only edit on this wiki, being this RfA, which is also not transcluded correctly...
Click to read more »the RfA?) -- – RyanCross (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Aaron made a brief visit on Alison's user talk for a request on 13 September. Your RFA didn't...
Click to read more »(UTC) Research before you comment, especially during serious forums such as RfA. required reading —MC8 (b · t) 22:29, Tuesday September 8 2009 (UTC) That's...
Click to read more »07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Note:Only 22 edits before the RfA started. (therefrom 6 on TRM's RfB/C). Barras (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Support -...
Click to read more »RfA, and hopefully I will become an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharnton345 (talk • contribs) Strong oppose – Obviously fails my RfA...
Click to read more »seen as trolling and disruption. Also you should know this since your last RfA is not long time ago and it was deleted upon your request. Do you think that...
Click to read more »that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. If a page has already gone through RfD or QD and was not deleted, it should not be quickly deleted using this rule...
Click to read more »those interested in my sort of editing, take a look at User:Microchip08/RfA, and be aware of my pretty high userspace edits. Microchip • talk 18:52,...
Click to read more »believe that many of the opposers in my previous RfA were opposing me simply because of the number of RfAs that I have had in the past. I definitely think...
Click to read more »Some arguments should not be in RfD discussions, this will list such arguments Examples: Keep, Notable. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)...
Click to read more »this/last year. I think he has matured since this/last year and his last RfA. Our project will surely benefit from him if we give him the mop back. Good...
Click to read more »superseded by Template:RfD/Preload/Template. Currently, manually created RfDs will use the contents of this page as the preloaded RfD contents if the nominated...
Click to read more »consideration. Sweta201500487 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC) Send to RfD There are actually some claims of notability here but I don't think there...
Click to read more »who voted and commented in my RfB. All your comments are much appreciated, and I am overwhelmed by the fact that my RfB was unanimous with 25 support...
Click to read more »needs working on before my next RfA. This is just for reviews, please; please do not bring up any of my previous RfAs' or any such topic. Please let...
Click to read more »nominating pages for quick deletion. That's primarily what brings me here to RFA. I've been particularly frustrated over the past few days by a number of...
Click to read more »that RF failed. This is not the kind of behavior or attitude I expect, nor do I want to see, from a bureaucrat trusted in deciding consensus in an RFA. Besdies...
Click to read more »2009 (UTC) Oppose, no significant change since last month, and last RfA. FOUR RfAs?! That's a lot. And my personal vote count: 4/9 have abandoned voting...
Click to read more »improved quite a bit since his last RfA, and he has expanded his work in several areas, just enough for another chance at RfA. Shappy has been participating...
Click to read more »Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter Rollbacker Patroller Transwiki Importer Temporary account IP viewer No successful RfAs in 2016....
Click to read more »2020, I had filed my first RFA. However, I was proven unfamiliar with the policies on wiki, and humour was used by me in the RFA to 'lighten up' the process...
Click to read more »Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter Rollbacker Patroller Transwiki Importer Temporary account IP viewer No successful RfAs in 2019....
Click to read more »that RfA, it is already too late to put it up for deletion. Please respect the RfA process and the opinions of the participants, and allow the RfA to be...
Click to read more »following events over the past 18 months, but I hope that since re-passing RfA I have shown that I have matured some more and become a much better wiki...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfA successful. (8/2) Chenzw Talk 15:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC) ShadowBallX...
Click to read more »Da Punk '95 (talk · contribs) I am after a Editor Review as I am considering getting a RfA sometime soon, and want to know how I could improve my editing. Da Punk...
Click to read more »dispute about a crat promotion and a discussion about crat chats, changes in RfX requirements is at Simple Talk. Your inputs are welcome. We were forced to...
Click to read more »prehaps we should do away with RfA and simply promote every non-vandal? mc8 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know why RF didn't get promoted - people are...
Click to read more »to the request for permissions by another user. As such its not a valid RfA. -Djsasso (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Radza26siwy (talk · contribs ·...
Click to read more »Firstly, I will be RfAing in the early stages of next year, and I hope that that passes and I can serve the wiki further. On the subject of Rf*'s, I expect...
Click to read more »46 (GMT). RfA was created at 9.54 (GMT). I will be closing this per WP:SNOW. Chenzw Talk 11:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Comment: - This RfA has not been...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfA successful. Chenzw Talk 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) FusionSub (talk ·...
Click to read more »contribs) I want to see how I'm doing again. This will help me to decide if an RFA is in my near future. † ChristianMan16 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Reviews...
Click to read more »collective RfA. Such a thing would indeed be quite pointless. --Eptalon (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I realise it would be seperate RfAs.--Bärliner...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfA successful. Chenzw Talk 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk ·...
Click to read more »with a forecast of snow in the near future. In the 6 days since your last RfA, you have 52 main space edits, but offset that with 58 userspace edits and...
Click to read more »(talk): I would also like to nominate Kennedy for adminship. He meets my RfA criteria and I know he'll do just fine as an administrator. He's done a lot...
Click to read more »to be deleted. If the hoax is very obvious, it can be quickly deleted by adding {{Qd-hoax}} to the page. Otherwise, it can be listed at the RfD page....
Click to read more »warning users (appropriately), contributing to community discussions at ST, RfA, RfD, etc. I've also made a few VIP reports, made at least a hundred QD noms...
Click to read more »haven't edited as an IP before (apart from the time I forgot to log in a RfA) but only until a bit over a year ago I 'discovered' you can edit and create...
Click to read more »demonstrated extreme amounts of self-control and patience as is evident in my last RfA when both me and Djsasso went off the deep end in the Comments section. This...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfA successful. (12/0)--BRP ever 17:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Garsh2 (talk · contribs ·...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfA successful. (13/1) Chenzw Talk 11:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC) CountryANDWestern...
Click to read more »offering constructive criticism. As such, it might be prudent to close this RfA. Kate (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »editor and vote in a RfA with a support vote saying they are a CheckUser on another Wikimedia project, but an editor may not vote in a RfA with a oppose vote...
Click to read more »17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Its pathetic to oppose a potential admin's RfA. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Majorly (talk) 02:53,...
Click to read more »gained 70k or so edits since the last RFA, and was unfortunately 20% off the support minimum on their last RfA. TDKR has created 35,288 pages (as of April...
Click to read more »previous RfA attempts, it is quite stable. Cheers, Razorflame 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I've seen half a dozen of your previous RFAs. Your behaviour...
Click to read more »disregard his age completely and try basing this RfA entirely on his edits. Seems to be where this RfA is going, should be alright... Gwib -(talk)- 23:18...
Click to read more »great addition to our already amazing sysops team! I am withdrawing this RFA at this time. Thanks PotsdamLamb (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Candidate's...
Click to read more »request for deletion was to Keep. Improper request: we don't delete RfA pages (by either RfD or QD) just because the applicant looks unqualified. --Auntof6...
Click to read more »the same one each time. Nominating users for RfA at the right time also shows understanding of the RfA system. Resolved conflicts are also good, but...
Click to read more »:) I'm an administrator at three Wikimedia projects; I passed simplewiki RfA in January, and since then I've edited near daily. My work here includes...
Click to read more »accused of hat collecting many, many times; that RfA wasn't even close to the first time, and I doubt this RfA will be the last. :) Every time someone says...
Click to read more »07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Note:Only 22 edits before the RfA started. (therefrom 6 on TRM's RfB/C). Barras (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Note Please...
Click to read more »end of July (all in the past 3 days) have mainly been Userspace or this RfA. Sorry, BG7even 12:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Oppose - High level of inactivity...
Click to read more »valid reasons why this RfB should go through the long process. Prominently, there is no urgent need for a new crat. Unlike RfCU or RfOS, there are no minimum...
Click to read more »21:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) /me should not only check the edits when the RFA starts... --Barras (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Ja. (And what's with...
Click to read more »than 5 legal votes total are considered to have failed. Upon closing an RfA, the closing bureaucrat should add the relevant header and footer to the...
Click to read more »sure you'd make a great admin, and I wish you the best of luck in a future RFA ! Thanks! Thanks for your time. Join us next time for another interview!...
Click to read more »changes have been related to this RfA request. 3) User didn't understand procedures well enough to correctly set up this RfA. After finally putting it on the...
Click to read more »multiple times along with User Typhon in one of Razorflames RfAs. Another account used in that same RfA is also very likely a sock of another puppetmaster. --...
Click to read more »second edit here making it 1/2 an RfA for User:Example (who is banned with 5 edits).. It was never added to the RfP page in the first place (likely because...
Click to read more »RfA is broken, and we need to fix it... but that's for another place. Good luck Mentifisto! Goblin 11:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Part of the point of Rfa is...
Click to read more »not 100% convinced yet. Only one month ago RF withdrew from an RFA stating "I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again." Just a little too unpredictable...
Click to read more »be accepted by other editors. The more RfAs and the less time between them, them less chance of a successful RfA, ever. Deiz talk 04:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)...
Click to read more »as an admin. Thereafter, he had an unsuccessful RfA, where people opposed primarily because of an RfDA of NVS, with whom he had conflicts previously....
Click to read more »main activities here: vandal fighting and QD tagging! I'm considering an RfA here in a couple months, so I'd like some advice for then. Cheers, Dylan620...
Click to read more »the rule on en: is a minimum of 7 days, so I guess we should leave this RfA open until Nov. 30, and then sysop him on that date. Blockinblox 16:43, 24...
Click to read more »Somewhat to distract from one of the most controversial RfA I've seen in a while, but mostly to get opinions and stimulate interest; what do people think...
Click to read more »(UTC)This was not counted as a support because the account was created after the RfA had begun. -- Creol(talk) 07:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC) User registered on...
Click to read more »(UTC) Yes, he has a point. But, so do I. I'd probably support RF some day if his RFAs weren't so ridiculously close together. Majorly talk 16:29, 9 January...
Click to read more »(talk · contribs · count) End date: 18:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Result: Barras' RfA was succussful - I count 15 support and 2 oppose votes; 2/17 (or 11.7% opposed)...
Click to read more »regarding administrators: Keep up to date with the latest goings-on at WP:RFA, think you missed something? Look here and find out! Look for future Issues...
Click to read more »both unfair and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, RfD discussions, etc. until they "gain more experience." This discourages new...
Click to read more »people. Now, where's Creol's RfB? MC8 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC) They didn't start doing seperate pages for rfa/b until august. So you would have...
Click to read more »all since your last RfA. I would suggest withdrawing this. Hopefully, if you wait a few months, you'll do better. But seeing 2 RfAs in only less than...
Click to read more »these have been added to this RfA. -- Creol(talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Creol, you probably mean "RfD", not "RfA". -- RyanCross (talk) 07:54, 30...
Click to read more »Sidenote 1: I saw this RfA as WP:RFA/Bluegoblin 7, and was wondering who User:Bluegoblin was, and how I'd managed to miss six other of his RfAs. Sidenote 2: What's...
Click to read more »an RFA the number support votes is 72%, there is a dispute going on of whether some oppose votes are legitimate, you happen to be closing the RFA when...
Click to read more »to oppose my RfA, and that you've been very inactive over the past six months other than Sonia's RS page, your own pages and voting in RfAs. I'm curious...
Click to read more »Wikipedia was your persistent refusal to stop creating frivolous RfA self-nominations, RfCs, RfArbs and other activities in the WP: space. I understand that...
Click to read more »there has been one re-confirmation and one de-sysopping. (According to the RfA Archives page... I seem to remember there being another desysop somewhere...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfA successful. (additional votes were made after the closing time, but would...
Click to read more »them via Meta. Kennedy may reapply for these rights via the standard RfA and RfB processes. While there is some disagreement as to whether or not both...
Click to read more »not be used in articles. Many of these words are jargon. !vote A entry on a RfD discussion that is not a vote. Article An encyclopaedia entry. All articles...
Click to read more »Candidate's acceptance: Withdrawn I'm sorry, but I have to Oppose this RfA. You got rollback less than a month ago and your account is barely 3 months...
Click to read more »the support column then, and I ask that it please be discounted if this RfA falls in the crat discretionary range. NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:57, 2 February...
Click to read more »reply to your observation. In voting in this RfA, I have used the same criteria I look for in all users during RfAs. I look for dedication, a proven need for...
Click to read more »review page to avoid having RfA being used as a Editior Review. Before we know it, we may have people with 1 edit running for RfA, and then see them restore...
Click to read more »01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC) American Eagle (talk · contribs) - This is not an RfA, nor do I (myself) intend to start one based on the result of the reviews...
Click to read more »edit being after the RfA started. Razorflame Again, I'll let the 'crat decide on this, but the user's first edit was after the rfa started. Yotcmdr =talk...
Click to read more »(talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) (previous RfA) End date: 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I spend a lot of time online, especially...
Click to read more »BaenreEntreri (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) This account was created after the RFA started, and is therefore ineligible to vote. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 01:40...
Click to read more »misunderstands (or perhaps is not aware) of how RfDs work here. No one ever needs to comment in an RfD on this wiki as our RfDs work in the same manor prods do on...
Click to read more »or one of our rules. Removing warnings like {{complex}}, {{cleanup}} or {{RfD}} just because you think a page is yours is not right. No matter who you...
Click to read more »Pmlineditor ∞ 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I guess that I have to withdraw from this RfA. 1/9 is a WP:SNOW closure, so I am going to take the high road out of this...
Click to read more »about it long and hard for the past few days, and i've decided to give an RfA a go, also after various nudges from various people. I think in the large...
Click to read more »of the RfA and, if I get time, digging a little deeper. Goblin 21:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Orashmatash! Once again, I am unsure. This RFA makes me...
Click to read more »account is now locally blocked and globally locked, I'm speedily closing this RfA as no longer valid. Operator873 connect 21:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC) ImprovingSimpleWiki...
Click to read more »the wiki running, and that includes taking part in more mopping (closing RfA's and approving bots, for example). I meet our new policy for cratship and...
Click to read more »RFA (and you requested it done at your RFA statement). I didn't think a great deal of it at the time, but reading other people's comments in the RFA,...
Click to read more »#:Have a hard time supporting someone who has voted in many other peoples RfBs as us having too many. If we have too many then you shouldn't be requesting...
Click to read more »archiving RfAs allows people to see how many RfAs happened within a given time as well as analyze patterns. For instance, most people withdraw their RFAs when...
Click to read more »WP:SNOW, WP:NOTNOW and WP:CfA. The user's second edit was the creation of this RFA. More experience is need on this wiki before the administrator tools can...
Click to read more »Please do not modify it. The outcome of this election was a successful RfA to promote. 18 votes for 2 of which are Nom and Co-Nom which generally do...
Click to read more »can't imagine why I hadn't nommed her earlier if she was going to have an RFA. Belle tête-à-tête 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Support I can't find any problems...
Click to read more »deletion for the reason: Does not indicate notability (A4). I'm taking this to RfA because it has interwiki links, but was recently re-deleted on en. Currently...
Click to read more »votes for a successful RfA. Note that this new guideline would only be involved with RfA's that only have support votes. As for RfB's, looking at Netoholic's...
Click to read more »rules and conventions. --M7 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose-Your last RFA was too soon to have fixed everything. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 23:23, 26...
Click to read more »like to see how I am doing and what I should do before I accept another RFA. SwirlBoy39 14:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Reviews Hmm... I don't know you very...
Click to read more »maybe a week, but two days? Sorry. EhJJTALK 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC) This RfA closes in 6 days. As long as your edits continue to be as good as they've...
Click to read more »what the problem is; editors that submit RfAs obviously want to do more to help the project, but if their RfA fails, they are left with little else to...
Click to read more »nominator. --Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC) In an RfA, you can't support yourself. Vermont (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »modify it. Mercy (talk · contribs) End date: 21 June 2009, 08:50 Result: RfA successful. (17/1) Chenzw Talk 12:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Hi there! I want...
Click to read more »1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Ends on May 17 12:05PM I am withdrawing from this RfA. I will not try again. I believe that it is now time for another request...
Click to read more »given by Chenzw; also because user has only one edit here (creating this RfA page), and because it sounds like the user wants to use Wikipedia as a web...
Click to read more »contributing as well as you are, and in three months you should be able to pass an RfA. GARDEN 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Not promoted, used does not meet Criteria--Eptalon...
Click to read more »community (only 32 project edits - a significant proportion of which are RfA including this one, 12 project talk edits and 21 user talk edits). I am not...
Click to read more »offensive. I belive that the creation of these odd RfA (for me) was the revenge for my notes on the RfA's here and here. It is just a feeling. Other thoughts...
Click to read more »request for deletion was to Keep. I've fixed the RfD and closed it. We should not be deleting RfDs, they are kept and archived. --Ferien (talk) 22:11...
Click to read more »would possibly want comments around that area. I am not going to start an RfA based on the given comments to me here regarding adminship; all I would like...
Click to read more »Bringing up the old "OHNOES BADGDERING" rubbish definitely is wrong. While RfA/RfX is a vote pretty much, discussion should not be stifled. If one disagrees...
Click to read more »during an RfD, otherwise, it breaks a lot of things. It's easier just to rename it at the end of the RfD so the RfD doesn't have to be moved and RfD tag fixed...
Click to read more »closed an RfD as delete but hasn't actually deleted it after the RfA closed. G6 isn't for clearing out pages that aren't perfect; neither is RfD. They should...
Click to read more »past behind me, I do not believe that it was appropriate to do so in an RfA. While many people I talked to do consider the concerns to be moot, the community...
Click to read more »Shortcuts WP:RCUWP:RCU WP:RFCUWP:RFCU WP:SPIWP:SPI CheckUser is the process of checking information about two or more users (including named users and...
Click to read more »from the bigger project. Majorly talk 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Your RFA votes are... let me say... at odds with the general norms. I don't have problems...
Click to read more »fr33kman talk 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1. from NonvocalScream (talk) Q: For an RFA, could you list a couple of arguments you consider bearing heavy weight and...
Click to read more »Please note an editor review will not necessarily translate to a successful RfA. When asking for a review, please consider reviewing another editor. Editors...
Click to read more »may not have been a part direct part of. But it is very clear that this RfA currently doesn't stand a chance per wp:SNOW, and due to the timing of the...
Click to read more »(UTC) Support. This is a copy and paste of my comment on Fr33kman's RFB. RFA/RFB are designed to reflect upon an editors skills, edits, and positive/negative...
Click to read more »(talk) 20:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Will you please stop being disruptive with RFAs? Either way (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I agree, that's both an old...
Click to read more ».. BG: This is due to all the drama that has plagued the wiki recently, RfA, FR, Tharnton etc. BG: No wiki is gonna be drama free. BG: But we can minimise...
Click to read more »Man (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Support While I think running an RfB at this particular time was a poor choice, due to the current discussion...
Click to read more »anons get striked during RFA's and figured it might be the same for RFD's. Computer Fizz (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC) RfAs are different. You have...
Click to read more »editor on this site and on ENWP saw something to complain about on that RfA.. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Hmmm... I am quite surprised...
Click to read more »confirmational RfA where people would confirm that they can stay an administrator. Good ideas? Razorflame 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I think having an RFA re-confirmation...
Click to read more »IuseRosary after he swore numerous times on the RfA board and on my own talk page and inserted nonsense into his own RfA. He also inserted images of me (which I...
Click to read more »vote changes are supposed to happen in Rfa if someone comes along with a stronger arguement than yours. Rfa already is a discussion format, that is the...
Click to read more »here. If it turns out to be obvuiously non-notable, or advertising, this RfD can be closed early. I do ohwever think we should discuss the issue here...
Click to read more »00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)For a second there I thought this was an RfA, and not an RfB. And that's one the problems Synergy, that you have raised--those...
Click to read more »don't see enough of that currently to warrant a support vote from me in the RfA. Cheers, Razorflame 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I personally find vandal reverting...
Click to read more »October 2008 (UTC) Oppose No QD tagging, no Wikipedia edits (except for this RFA), no VIP reports, nothing...an excellent mainspace contributor but nothing...
Click to read more »"delete", such as merging. Delete If I'm not mistaken, there was a previous RfD and the consensus was to delete. Shouldn't this be deleted based on the fact...
Click to read more »the user who created it keeps removing the RfD tag. The comparison may be able to get it QD as recreated RfD and bypass this issue. If so. salting may...
Click to read more »time to pass and for you to improve from your last RfA. Waiting at least three months between RfAs is what I suggest. And I remember several instances...
Click to read more »has sent to me during my previous RfA and because of the fact that I am feeling like I can never have a successful RfA. It is really making me feel bad...
Click to read more »offered to nominate you, and part of me jumps for joy that finally your RFA is taking place! I've been continually impressed by your admirable work,...
Click to read more »everyone else has said, and per our previous RfDAs. Though did we ever decide whether they needed an RfA to get the tools back or not...? Goblin 12:38...
Click to read more »contribs) Prior request End date: 13 June 2009, 19:00 (UTC) During my last RFA, it was recommended that I wait a couple of months. I've let some time pass...
Click to read more »not about cleanup, especially at RfD. The consensus here is that the issue is notability, which cannot be solved at an RfD --Ferien (talk) 19:14, 15 March...
Click to read more »for volunteering, but you only arrived 6 days ago. That makes passing this RfA impossible, if you see the criteria. Also.. Whilst you have done well with...
Click to read more »concerns me as to how you will judge consensus at an RFA. Do I know that you will explain a closure of an RFA that was close? Right now, the answer is no. I...
Click to read more »for deletion for the reason: Possible G11 but is contested so I thought an RfD would be better :) Goblin 16 50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Please discuss this...
Click to read more »months, you should be ready for an RfA if you take what I said above and run with it. A recommendation about having an RfA: I would recommend that you wait...
Click to read more »be given without going through an RFA process. After a year of inactivity, the demoted admin must go through a new RfA to get the flags back. Admins that...
Click to read more »nominating ImprovedWikiImprovment for adminship today. This would be IWI's second RfA. The reason I'm happy to stand and nominate IWI is I believe they've genuinely...
Click to read more »because of the circumstances leading to this particular RfA, I felt that I should talk a bit about RfAs in general. This is a small wiki with a very slow...
Click to read more »consensus in RFAs. If they are unable to do that, just because they happened to vote, they should not be bureaucrats. A bureaucrat closes an RFA based on...
Click to read more »Delete. In evaluating this RfD, I took into account the fact that the only edits made by the two voting IPs were related to this RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:47...
Click to read more »also think our PGA and PVGA processes needs a new process in some way. WP:RfD — Needs more participants. We can decide consensus more clearly with more...
Click to read more »The user and a few likely related IPs have been constantly removing the RfD notices from both pages. Fixing26 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC) So why...
Click to read more »occassionally help out on deleting nonsensable articles. --§ Snake311 (T + C) RFA 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC) The above adminship discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »with the RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I did read what you said. It is your fault for missing the end of the RFA. -DJSasso...
Click to read more »apparent lack of understanding of copyright, as shown on candidate's recent RFA on EN. Aside from the copyright issues, one thing that jumps out is the suggestion...
Click to read more »almost no RfDs without article issues. If you cannot clearly explain the reason why you voted, you have to reconsider your future participance to RfD discussions...
Click to read more »see him being a bureaucrat now. Also, three and a half months after your rfa here, seems a little rushed. Then, 2500 edits, even though they may be quality...
Click to read more »be WP:RfR, (Request for Rights) which could also be used if things such as AWB, IP-block-exempt and Account Creator ever appear. But I suppose RfA could...
Click to read more »RfA, but had not logged into this wiki with it prior to its start. I believe the intent is to be logged into this wiki prior to the start of the RfA,...
Click to read more »{{support}} and {{oppose}} templates solely for the purpose of using them on the RfA, RfD, VGA, and GA process pages, and from what I have seen, they have been...
Click to read more »occurred only 2 weeks after his first one, not really making it an "official" RfA. Anyhow, Barliner is probably the most active non-admin user here as he currently...
Click to read more »with regards to the issues that were preventing me from supporting his last RFA. I do not at this time believe that those same issues will reoccur. After...
Click to read more »reinstating the RfD template & removing the Wait template. Since those were procedural fixes, I do not believe that disqualifies me closing this RfD as an involved...
Click to read more »what is wrong. I would caution that we do need these RfA's to become an En.Wiki version of an RfA which can become downright hateful, nasty and are down...
Click to read more »December 2009 (UTC) Ultimately it's your decision. If I were to run for RFA and have nothing but opposes, I'd think about withdrawing, but would also...
Click to read more »this request for deletion was to Delete. Closing as there was actually an RfD in the past: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Parisa Mixify...
Click to read more »on the Rwandan genocide. Standard procedure is to take these articles to RfD which is what I am doing here. There are some references, and the movie ws...
Click to read more »deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG. RfD'ing again so we can get a proper consensus on this one. The last RfD wasn't really done properly because according...
Click to read more »accounts PERM Global rights policy Advanced user groups Administrators RfA Bureaucrats RfB Interface administrators CheckUser and Oversight Category: Policies...
Click to read more »Delete. In evaluating this RfD, I chose not to consider the entry by the IP editor whose only edit here has been to this RfD. This is permitted by the...
Click to read more »2008 (UTC) # Weak support. Alright, when I vote/discuss RfAs, I compare myself at the time of my RfA to them now. I have no problem with trusting you. You've...
Click to read more »enough, in my books. I'm sorry, I really wish that I could support your RfA, but I can't currently. Razorflame 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose - You'd...
Click to read more »Re-opening as it appeared that the nominator forgot to list this RfD on the main RfD page.--Chenzw Talk 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure...
Click to read more »perhaps be reworded. Therefore I invite the community to go through a regular RfD process. Eptalon (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Please discuss this...
Click to read more »been deleted at RfD and therefore it can be quickly deleted. --Ferien (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC) @Ferien: My point was instead of an RfD, it could have...
Click to read more »Headless Nick 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, accounts with no edits except RfA votes are not counted. Archer7 - talk 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Oppose. Of...
Click to read more »01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) I knew that running this RfCU at the same time as running Bobherry's RfA would cause some people to wonder about my judgment...
Click to read more »Template was moved out from under this RfD to mainspace. Moving editor was advised not to move things that are at RfD. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2017...
Click to read more »to this discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. RfD request made in error. Closed by creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added...
Click to read more »(UTC) Ah, by the way, thanks @Fehufanga for RfD. I saw Eptalon's message and told me if I wish to go for RfD. DMK-C5 (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »performed by a bureracat. RfA re-opened. -- Da Punk '95 talk 22:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Anyone can close obvious WP:SNOW RfAs. That's why the WP:SNOW...
Click to read more »be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and/or the accounts were created after this RfD was started. When those are eliminated, as is allowed by the rules, consensus...
Click to read more »was RfD'd in 2024 that I don't think G4 is applicable. However, @Kuskrey:, why did you make another RfD? Remember to check whether or not your RfD tag...
Click to read more »vagueness in "RfD discussion page" and "main page" that im not sure what this is in regard to. This RfD page seems correctly added to the main RfD page and...
Click to read more »any further based on comments the IPs made in the rev del conversation and RfD. Link is here User talk:Macdonald-ross#EFEM article deletion thanks. PDLTalk...
Click to read more »for deletion for the reason: Taking this to RfD as QD was declined. If you remember, this was taken to RfD before (albeit under DJ Mixify); deleted as...
Click to read more »admin, but I have some behavior concerns (such as how you acted during my RFA). I think that you should still be an admin, but please don't take WP too...
Click to read more »active as I once was, I am requesting the tools back again. I'm not doing RfA because I don't remember such occurrences being controversial in the past...
Click to read more »raise the required percentage for an RfA to pass from 65% to 75% for a number of reasons; primiarly the fact that now RfB is "automatic" users should have...
Click to read more »for adminship.--Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Please note a RFA is open for discussion --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:43, 8 November...
Click to read more »this crat objection transforms this into a full RfB in which the community can vote in, like a normal RfA. --Ferien (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »thing goes with Rfa's if you mention it to friends then you are basically telling people likely to say yes that you are running for Rfa but failing to...
Click to read more »close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Continues to fail GNG. The last RfD was a discussion that...
Click to read more »much, only a few times. And I also didn't have many VIP reports during my RfA, so we're somewhat similar. You have several QD tags, and, though I hate...
Click to read more »merging. Can be QD. G4: Recreation of deleted material already deleted at RfD and I think all of these can be QD A4: People, groups, companies, products...
Click to read more »reason: RfD again to get a proper consensus on this page. The first RfD wasn't finished because according to G11. Since someone disagrees deletion, RfD is...
Click to read more »RFA Hi everyone! This article is about the RFA process here at Simple. As you might have noticed, there have been/are some quite controversial Requests...
Click to read more »helpful contributor to the simplewiki. While I find no flaws against his RfA based on the Criteria for adminship, he has been widely absent for the past...
Click to read more »and lists are still allowed. Nominator should understand pages shouldn't be RfD's because they don't like them. Operator873 connect 20:34, 29 December 2022...
Click to read more »that were basically a "hi, it's me" RfAs. Look at this RfA and this RfA the day after his first RfA. He threats RfA as a game in my opinion. And then he's...
Click to read more »is reached. "the closure of RfXs should not be undertaken by anyone but an elected Bureaucrat" - no, bureaucrats close RFAs and RFBs. Checkuser and oversight...
Click to read more »appear in things that concern BG - first his RfA, then his RfDA. That's very suspicious. Especially, since the RfA was so close, and he was very friendly with...
Click to read more »and decided to change it. I didn't know or expect that I would have an RFA two days later. Belinda didn't change her name recently; it was actually...
Click to read more »close this. Majorly (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I'm withdrawing this RfA, I'll try again another time. Sorry for wasting everyones time. -- Da Punk...
Click to read more »of this request for deletion was to Keep. Article was improved while this RfD was running. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC) ARCO (edit · talk...
Click to read more »Weak oppose - I see nothing wrong with the user, but I think going for an rfa at just over 500 edits seems a little bit funny. Looks like the user has...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) Comment: User has repeatedly obstructed this RfD by removing and altering the RfD tag and by removing content from this page. When he did...
Click to read more »consensus for adminship. I think it is obvious that you have started your RFA a bit early as you will need more experience for sysophood. If you read Razorflame's...
Click to read more »Least Action (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions) To use interceptor, huggle and other tools. I have a track record on enwiki reverting vandalism...
Click to read more »Wikipedia; if you believe you are ready on English Wikipedia please make an RfA there.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Jasper. CRRaysHead90...
Click to read more »me all the different RfA and RfB Notification update templates which provide current information and status on both RfA and RfB. Thanks. TheGeneralUser...
Click to read more »as merging. Keep @~2025-28612-68: This did not need to be an RfD, why did you open an RfD? I see no discussions to rename it prior to my edit. The name...
Click to read more »is considerd deleted since a RfD for a nonexistant page is unneccesary, even if the root of the deletion was not via the RfD nominated by KCanadianJ316...
Click to read more »January 2009 (UTC) They show that I have somewhat of an understanding of the RFA process. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 16:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Since when...
Click to read more »deletion for the reason: This 2nd RfD is an unusual one, since I was the editor who first proposed a merge in the 1st RfD, and was also the closing administrator...
Click to read more »SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) AdhyaEditor removed an RfD tag on CombatIndia's article that was sent to RfD. CombatIndia is already blocked. Was reported to...
Click to read more »have put it up for QD instead of RfD. Even after an article has been nominated for QD, someone can always list it in RfD if they disagree with QD. SkeletalDome$...
Click to read more »January 2009 (UTC) Support. Out of interest, what exactly happens if all three RfCUsr's go through? We don't need *five* checkusers... MC8 (talk) 22:03, 29...
Click to read more »Uprety (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC) I have tagged this for G11 as an RfA is not a place to post you LinkedIn page and website to promote yourself...
Click to read more »notability guideline. Also nominating a similar article on the same person in this RfD. Ferien (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Please discuss this request below...
Click to read more »coverage. This was RfDd over a year ago but the contents of the current page appear to be different enough that it should go through another RfD.— *Fehufangą...
Click to read more »outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. see also RfD of 2022 for previous RfD--Eptalon (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) DJ Peretse (edit ·...
Click to read more »of them being an admin because it would be a major sticking point in an RfA. Here we are more lenient so its just a suggestion on my part, I wouldn't...
Click to read more »main issue with this is that you can only get so many admins before all rfas fail, and you would want to have as many admins as possible be active. I...
Click to read more »guidelines for deleting them that are different from the regular RfD. We might want to let the RfDs run longer to give the user a chance to respond. We might...
Click to read more »Creol has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Along with this RfD --Creol(talk) 10:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Please discuss this request below...
Click to read more »noticed that our RfDs had reguarly more than 5 or 6 votes in them before getting closed, recently, which is not the case with our current RfDs. Anyways, we...
Click to read more »archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it. Result: RfCU successful. Chenzw Talk 13:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Barras (talk · contribs ·...
Click to read more »RfD is where we have to prove it. So any of those examples you use might not be notable and maybe they should be deleted, but they need to go to RfD...
Click to read more »request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable, recently recreated after a WP:SOFTDELETE RfD at Wikipedia:Requests...
Click to read more »myself. The user's comments at RfCU were inappropriate. Additionally, less than a week ago they were asked not to create an RFA without first consulting with...
Click to read more »space pages. She is also active in anti-vandalism work and DYK as well as RfD. If she becomes an admin, I believe she can help the admins in maintenance...
Click to read more »notability threshold within a week or ten days of the closing date of the RfD, I might just be willing to wait that long and see whether we can save ourselves...
Click to read more »find that the Commune RfDs were kept because many of the articles actually contain substance beyond one-liners. Furthermore, mass RfDs are not a good thing...
Click to read more »addition to the SEWP admin team, and I invite all users to participate in this RFA. :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Candidate's...
Click to read more »nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Nominated for A4 but sending to RfD as I believe this subject is notable. --Ferien (talk) 16:04, 31 December...
Click to read more »answer to Belwine's Q5 and per Djsasso. Please don't feel bad about this RFA, but take this as a Friendly Feedback, and re-apply in a 6 months to a year...
Click to read more »2010 (UTC) Fine by me too. I've yet to see RF doing anything but his best for this Wikipedia. Importing isn't RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 4 February...
Click to read more »RfD.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Delete There is an Rfd for the main article and a template is too soon. Let's see if that RfD...
Click to read more »quickly deleted by Macdonald-ross as this page has been deleted many times at RfD now --Ferien (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Birmal Hembram. (edit · talk...
Click to read more »for highest readership) or G11 (not obvious advertising). Fails WP:GNG. And RfDs will give us a reason for deleting future recreations in the future... --Ferien...
Click to read more »Idea is just to have a page containing all the important pages (such as RFAs, delete discussions, policy pages, important templates, help pages and simple...
Click to read more »personal websites. MathXplore (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC) RfD not transcluded on RfD page as someone accidentally removed it. I've added it back and...
Click to read more »"keep" or "delete", such as merging. Delete - Just to be aware of previous RfDs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2022/Devilraj_(2nd_nomination)...
Click to read more »supposed to nominate another article for RfD, not this one and this appears notable to me, so I'm going to withdraw this RfD, my apologies. --Ferien (talk) 18:08...
Click to read more »delete G3. May I remind the nominator to just do only a QD or an RfD instead of both RfD and QD. This is a very clear quick delete, so please do not request...
Click to read more »frequently deleted as not being notable. Both things like roads that are RfDed and manmade buildings that can be quickly deleted. Regardless, I do not...
Click to read more »"delete", such as merging. This guy again! He's single handedly clogging up RfD I swear. Every article he makes is pretty much non notable but since he's...
Click to read more »curious about your take on these questions: After looking through your old RFAs, I know there have been obvious issues in the past; however, times do change...
Click to read more »delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG. Previous RfD at Wikipedia:Requests for...
Click to read more »the centrist faction. CountryANDWestern, given the fact I have closed this RfD very early, please give me a message if you want it to be reopened or there...
Click to read more »"badgering" or "harrassment". I believe that if you vote at all, in any RfA/B/C/D, you better have a good reason. Cman obviously does, but its Juliancolton's...
Click to read more »an RfA like discussion to be granted. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I think you need to have this decided before you close this RfA to be...
Click to read more »if it is just clicking Show any page and editing that, before trying an RfA. But otherwise, I'd say that you've done a good job. -- America †alk 04:14...
Click to read more »with, or to ask for help from other admins. I also understand that surprise RfA noms are abnormal, and TGSL is not remotely a good nominator for something...
Click to read more »your treating this as a game. You'll have a very small chance at passing an RfA unless you show a need for the tools, that you will not misuse them, and...
Click to read more »Computer Fizz (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC) I have semi-protected this RfD; there's both an IP and a named editor trying to disrupt the process. --Eptalon...
Click to read more »WP:BOLD I have indef-blocked this account: 0 edits to articles, disrupting RFA with frivolous requests, making contentious changes to templates, a clear...
Click to read more »there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging. previous RfDs: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Birmal Hembram (podcast )...
Click to read more »they are high-risk templates: All vandalism warning templates All RfD templates All RfA templates {{pgood}} {{pvgood}} {{good}} {{vgood}} {{disambiguation}}...
Click to read more »to notability. -Djsasso (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Comment: - This RfD was made for a now-deleted version of the Dale Danks page, which was remade...
Click to read more »an encyclopedia. So, I am sending this to RfD.So, what does the community think about this more ununsal RfD (and no, please no quick-deletes...)? Eptalon...
Click to read more »difference between the two! At EN, there is always drama. On pages like WT:RFA and WP:ANI, not a second goes by between dramatic arguments. There is constant...
Click to read more »2022 (UTC) Currently, 3 things link to it. THis RfD, Me telling the IP who created it about this RfD and the template itself which is the totality of...
Click to read more »2023 (UTC) Now it has been sent to RfD, it is best we just leave it at RfD and don't quickly delete it. If we let the RfD run its course then we have a reason...
Click to read more »Comment Original RfD QD'd Operator873 connect 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Quick delete and protect from recreation. This was deleted on RfD, but the result...
Click to read more »been deleted several times but there is a claim of significance, sending to RfD --204.122.110.199 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Please discuss this...
Click to read more »discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. This RfD is very, very long overdue. The consensus here is to delete, the article...
Click to read more »say that anyone opposed an RFA because they thought there were enough admins: it was a general discussion, not an actual RFA. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 23...
Click to read more »(UTC) OK, I misinterpreted. IPs sure can comment wherever they like, be it RfA, RfD or GAs. They just aren't allowed to vote. IPs, as good faith as they may...
Click to read more »contortionist, seems to have gone through an RfD long ago. Contested quick deletion. I therefore propose we do a regular RfD. Eptalon (talk) 11:34, 25 February...
Click to read more »article (with attribution), and turn this into a redirect. Doesn't require an RfD, and in any case a redirect would probably be the more appropriate outcome...
Click to read more »questionable notability. This RfD was by the same editor and on the same subject. Like could be Qd.d as a reposting of RfD material but I have no idea...
Click to read more »The page was quickly deleted at that RfD. Also, it is around a year after, so I think it is best to do another RfD. --Ferien (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2022...
Click to read more »discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. As this RfD did not receive any comments, this counts as a "soft delete". --Ferien (talk...
Click to read more »close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Still fails WP:GNG, following last RfD that closed as a soft...
Click to read more »your work in the mainspace recently which is a big plus. From your last RfA, it appears that you need to take things on WP a little more seriously. Another...
Click to read more »notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead." Or, even go all the way and...
Click to read more »Finance RfD and edited that page, and the other account's main focus has also been this article and the RfD. They both voted "keep" on the RfD. Reception123...
Click to read more »are still below 1000 edits which is a community-agreed requirement for an RfA (as Isis stated above). But only by some unknown reasons, Majorly got adminship...
Click to read more »reason: Fails WP:GNG, previous RfD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Xsoundbeatz but G4 cannot be used as that RfD was a case of soft delete...
Click to read more »responsibility of a bureaucrat is to judge and determine consensus, especially at RFAs, could you point us to some recent examples of situations where you've had...
Click to read more »patrollers. Notes: As soon as I save this page and add it to the RfD page, I will put RfD notices on each nominated page and notify all editors who created...
Click to read more »already been twice deleted, including an RfD discussion. This is one reason we ended up with a huge list of RfD items. RfD is for decisions which need discussion...
Click to read more »note that it would not be worthwhile for me to close an AFD as delete, or a RFA as successful, I don't have the technical permission to grant the admin permission...
Click to read more »you that nobody asked me to vote here. I have actually been aware of this RfCU for several weeks but I didn't have a strong opinion until now. —Soap— 23:24...
Click to read more »single RfA/B a hughe discussion since any crat has an other opinion about what consensus is. Just look at the huge discussion about Clementina's RfA. -Barras...
Click to read more »Ganesh, they created this account with their first edit to vote "keep" in the RFA that those users above voted in. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:27, 23...
Click to read more »closure time, albeit as G4 when there had been no past RfD. Restoring and redeleting to point to this RfD as a consensus to delete for this article. --Ferien...
Click to read more »for deletion was to Delete. Quickly deleted per G4, following a previous RfD.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Yahya Jamaaoui (edit ·...
Click to read more »enough. Still, anyone has the right to file an RfA, and to see this RfA treated fairly. Therefore closing the RfA section is no option. --Eptalon 08:55, 11...
Click to read more »{{comment}} and {{question}} as these are potentially useful outside of RfA/RfD/Consensus building situations. Goblin 19:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy...
Click to read more »June 2010 (UTC) "Kennedy may reapply for these rights via the standard RfA and RfB processes" was stated at Kennedy's RFDA. As he has stated that he scrambled...
Click to read more »said that he told the Eyes to nom me for RFA and I'm assuming they talked and luseRosary decided to nom RF for RFA. You probably knew all this but honestly...
Click to read more »discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. As this RfD did not receive any comments, this counts as a "soft delete". --Ferien (talk...
Click to read more »request for deletion was to Delete. It's just vandalism. No need to set an RfD for this. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 18:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC) Days I...
Click to read more »an article in my opinion, and the 2026 page is already at RfD. Can't be A4'd though so RfD it is. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:00, 7 May...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Twenty-four...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails...
Click to read more »Since the RfDs are archived by year, I propose that we make a rush and close all RfDs i such a way that on years end (UTC), there are no open RfDs. Else...
Click to read more »It’s been nine months since my last RfA. Since then I’ve done a lot of work across different spaces, esp. RC patrol, RfDs, and definitely gained a lot of...
Click to read more »To deal with that, an RfD was started to let the community decide. The removal of the tag to the article will also not stop the RfD. An admin could always...
Click to read more »• block log • email) End date: 19:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC) (since this is an RfB, it may be closed early if there are no objections and two crats endorse...
Click to read more »WP:BEFORE and also nominated numerous articles for RfD without it. Being messy is not a reason for an RfD. I will update this article in a moment. Thanks...
Click to read more »things are different on each project. I would suggest that you withdraw this RfA and review the guideline here. Regards, sonia♫♪ 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)...
Click to read more »really such thing as an overdue RfD here as the 7 days is just a minimum here. And as a CU I definitely don't want RfCU cleared or if it is not any faster...
Click to read more »nominator for that and hold it against them if they ever decide to run for RFA (that's a joke if my dry tone is missed by anyone). Won't abuse the tools...
Click to read more »but it isn't. I have only used my crat tools once, and missed Fr33kmans rfa, theres enough crats, honestly. That said, I think you would make an excellent...
Click to read more »realize it was only 2-3 wks. Truat me, I wasn't lying. I am closing this RFA. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC) While you have made useful...
Click to read more »that RfD is not cleanup. It took me a few minutes to get this article to an acceptable state and now the problem in the nomination is fixed, this RfD can...
Click to read more »Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 08:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedians vote in a RFA. SwirlBoy39 14:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Hello all, I have introduced Category:Buildings...
Click to read more »watchlist when using Twinkle's RfD module. For more information, check the settings panel. No userspace log feature is in RfD, because deletion talk pages...
Click to read more »oppose a future RfA. As far as I'm concerned, you have issues with POV and censorship, as shown in the religious category debate and the RfD on soggy biscuit...
Click to read more »outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. Closing early as keep. An RfD is not needed to change a redirect into a full article. --Auntof6 (talk)...
Click to read more »nominated this page for deletion for the reason: The article was tagged for RfD in March 2021 (here) but does not seem to ever have been listed. Reason stated...
Click to read more »"delete", such as merging. Comment - Merge proposals do not need to go through RfD. With that said, this article is about the single, while the proposed merge...
Click to read more »to RfD? It appears to be a copy off enwiki, which is not allowed if the article is not simple enough, but this doesn't seem to be a matter for RfD. —Belwine...
Click to read more »that is more suitable for discussion at WP:AN or, in an extreme case, WP:RFA instead. Misuse of administrator rights is grounds for removal of rights...
Click to read more »should be made to this discussion. Quickly deleted, as it's been deleted at RfD before: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Deri Lorus --Ferien...
Click to read more »trustworthy. (as adminship is about trust, an rfa reconfirmation seemed a good option) Anyway, I put in the rfa, and Majorly opposes, and says he didn't even...
Click to read more »that he should focus on to gain experience for you to support in a future RFA? What kind of experience do you feel he is lacking that makes him not ready...
Click to read more »by consensus, he/she must nominate themselves via a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat. Where the two positions are...
Click to read more »Simple English Wikipedia does not use this process. Everything goes to RfD, and the RfD template is sufficient for this purpose. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Canadachick has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:...
Click to read more »articles, can't be G4'd since it wasn't deleted at the big RfD (according to the logs) so RfD it is. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:05, 13...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage ~2025-30306-62 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:...
Click to read more »obvious I didn't pay much attention when nominating this article for RfD. As RfDs are not a vote, it is fine for me to add my thoughts, even though I...
Click to read more »Delete. Note: one user who commented had made no edits here before this RfD opened, so that comment was not considered --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 27 August...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Originally...
Click to read more »this discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. The RfD nomination was withdrawn, see below. --Ferien (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2021...
Click to read more »the main page until we have a backlog of hooks The DYK project is sent to RfD as inactive The hooks at next update are posted, despite there being two...
Click to read more »of notability; feel free to take to rfd". Therefore I'm taking it to the RfD for community vote on it. HakanIST (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Please...
Click to read more »(UTC) I am making the request that people stop closing and reopening this RfDA. It was closed per WP:SNOW by Barras and has had multiple reverts since...
Click to read more »request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG, nothing has changed since the RfD that closed 4 days...
Click to read more »this request for deletion was to Delete. As of today, this RfD is two weeks overdue. While RfDs do not have to be closed exactly on the end date, reliable...
Click to read more »The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Already deleted at RfD quite recently --Ferien (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC) King Uche (edit...
Click to read more »09:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC) That is just a glitch on the RfD tag, that has happened on quite a few RfDs over the past year or so. I'm not sure what we're meant...
Click to read more »similar ability, but that is based on determining consensus, not evaluation the Rf itself. Admins were given the powers to work for the group, not act independently...
Click to read more »request for deletion was to Delete. and merged as per the comments on this RfD Barras talk 11:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Through discussion in December, we...
Click to read more »but Paonam is not one of those surnames. Also, I ask RfD participants to please remember that RfD is not a vote; most of the comments here were just echoing...
Click to read more »not happen again on RfDs.) 89.8.177.153 (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Comment: Comment by anon IP was placed after the RfD deadline, with no history...
Click to read more »ShockingHawk 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I don't get why you linked WP:RFA. – RyanCross (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Even if I told you how to...
Click to read more »for the reason: Non-notable and is possibly a hoax. We've already had an RfD on this a little while ago and it was deleted. I don't think anything has...
Click to read more »tweak to the RfA page (which ECed me, grr :P), and I made the Request for Oversightship redirect so that the subpages behave just like RfA and RfB subpages...
Click to read more »previously deleted. This RfD discussion does show a consensus to delete though, so I'm going to restore the page then delete it with this RfD as the reason. --Ferien...
Click to read more »future that a QD being contested does not mean it automatically has to go to RfD. --IWI (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Nova Lee LeClair (edit · talk...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Page...
Click to read more »or "delete", such as merging. Administrator note: This RfD was not properly transcluded to WP:RfD. I have reset the deadline for closure.— *Fehufangą ♮...
Click to read more »previous RfDs. ShadowBallX (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC) JFO Star (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Garsh2 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Appears...
Click to read more »endorsed by another editor, it can be quickly deleted. This is quicker than the RfD process. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 22:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC) Governement...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Passengerpigeon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:...
Click to read more »· delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Second RfD now it has been recreated after Wikipedia:Requests...
Click to read more »this and have already closed the RfD. If a page is already deleted before you've created the RfD, you can request the RfD for quick deletion under G6. --Ferien...
Click to read more »The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. per the previous RfD. Thanks for the link. I was looking for it. The article now is a redirect...
Click to read more »at an RfA in the future when you have more experience with policies :) --IWI (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Also,Out of Humour, cause RFA'S are always/mostly...
Click to read more »stripped his rights here). Then he had some troubles around here and his last RfA was then in November 2011, more than one year ago. He's done some good work...
Click to read more »(excluding to the "paperwork" of the RfD itself) or points at anything that exists, this RfD has nothing to do with it. This RfD has no bearing on the other user...
Click to read more »6 November 2009 (UTC) I would probably want the newcomers to run through RFAs. But for most that should probably be a breeze. By the looks of those discussions...
Click to read more »part of American history and has numerous primary and secondary sources. The RfD should be closed early as it should not have been opened. PDLTalk to me!OMG...
Click to read more »admin to help the wiki grow. I've made some pages and edits since my last RFA and wish to do more with the wiki. --Derpdart56 (talk) 18:03, 17 February...
Click to read more »for deletion for the reason: Recreated deleted content. Has had a previous RfD here Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't...
Click to read more »community supports his RfA because they trust him to be an admin. While I'm not against your reason on your opposition to Gwib's RfA, I mean RfAs merely test a...
Click to read more »come here because they know the article will last at least 7 days while we RfD. If the account is already blocked, or later locked by a Steward, these should...
Click to read more »this discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. This RfD was originally intended for the template only, and no consensus for deletion...
Click to read more »2011 (UTC) Bureaucrat note: Due to the opposes and comment sections, a full RfB will need to be run. fr33kman 03:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Hello everyone...
Click to read more »(UTC) From the top of the RfD page: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD. If you find that adequate...
Click to read more »I say make the best of your time there. Have some fun. Participate in an RfC. If you make fifteen edits a day or so, you'll hit 500 in almost exactly...
Click to read more »The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. Also see the EnWp RfD ; In short, this actor isn't notable yet.--Eptalon (talk) 22:24, 25 July...
Click to read more »(apparently?). I am new but I see that a newbie oppose swayed the previous RfA. Anyway, Razorflame writes about places and engineered stuff and goes all...
Click to read more »way in reality. RfAs are very poisonous at times, my recent one is an excellent example. If we redirected ER to RfA we'd have to make RfA... easier, for...
Click to read more »such as merging. Delete As original nom of the QD for the same reason as RfD nom. Hockeycatcat (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Delete Same - We are not...
Click to read more »A4. He does claim notability here as he has won some awards so we're at RfD. RfDs can be closed within a week or earlier but quick delete is only if it...
Click to read more »(talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC) OK! Well, what's to do now when we close an RfA, RfD, (V)GA and so on? Shall we manually update the page or just leave it until...
Click to read more »of this request for deletion was to Keep. Improved to be a viable stub; RfD isn't for cleanup, so kept--Eptalon (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Life...
Click to read more »were discussed in RyRy's RFA) or Synergy's xFD closures {see Synergy's RFA) were not factors in their overwhemingly successful RFAs here on Simple. So far...
Click to read more »be a lack of proper judgement, and like quite a number of previous failed RfAs, creating lots of articles does not automatically give you a chance for...
Click to read more »keep/delete. So yes an admin could very well close an RfA as unsuccessful with no oppose votes. Votes in an RfA have to be policy based. If consensus on a given...
Click to read more »community stand on the issue. The "results" will not be "law". This is not an RfA, RfD, proposal for VGA, or similar official vote where there is a set percentage...
Click to read more »outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. WP:SOFTDELETEd. This RfD has been open for over 2 weeks now, no other comments but the explanation...
Click to read more »– RyanCross (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC) The conversation on my RfA has got me thinking. Is it really necessary to create the talk page of an...
Click to read more »that does establish why it is notable. (I am sure people will say I am only RfDing this because I want to censor it, but that is not true. It doesn't establish...
Click to read more »an exception in many cases - all WP:Some Wikispace Acronym (WP:ADMIN, WP:RfD, etc) redirects fall under this category. Short of having the developers...
Click to read more »subject. Following the QD tag being placed, they then started an unneeded RfD for the article. I propose we implement WP:ONESTRIKE as it is evident that...
Click to read more »Looking at the article and the given reasoning for that RfD, it seems a perfectly legit RfD. The refs are questionable and notability can certainly be...
Click to read more »This is a new user who had made no changes here before the start of this RfD. RfD rules allow such comments to be given little or no weight. --Auntof6 (talk)...
Click to read more »Tagging an article with multiple criteria Module for nominating pages to WP:RfD. --intforce.aka.weltforce 19:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Nominating an article...
Click to read more »discussion) --Tbennert (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) You could make a group RfD request, or maybe just list the questionable ones here to save everyone else...
Click to read more »22 June 2022 (UTC) Please allow me to include Death race for love to this RfD, which is related to this subject. MathXplore (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2022...
Click to read more »know how reputable these are. So, I think we should go through a regular RfD. Thougths? Eptalon (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Please discuss this request...
Click to read more »request for deletion was to Delete. No apparent purpose of running through the RfD process; it will be four days tomorrow, WP:IAR. --IWI (talk) 17:00, 2 February...
Click to read more »or "delete", such as merging. Administrator note: This RfD was not properly transcluded to WP:RfD. I have reset the deadline for closure.— *Fehufangą ♮...
Click to read more »delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Ferien has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Was sent to RfD almost 2 years ago in Wikipedia:Requests...
Click to read more »outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. The nominator removed the RfD tag themselves. The deletion argument would have had no chance of passing...
Click to read more »close request · open RfD subpage Fr33kman has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Declined QD A4 so nominating for RfD. Non-notable actor...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Trade has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: There...
Click to read more »Proposed for deletion in August 2021, see RfD.Before simply quick-deleting, I think we should discuss again; that RfD was 2.5 years ago. So... Eptalon (talk)...
Click to read more »I think we should use subpages for RfD threads, which are then transcluded on the main RfD page (like on the English Wikipedia). It would make archiving...
Click to read more »request of this page as the RfD is ongoing. I have no problem with another administrator deleting the page or closing this RfD early if they feel it's necessary...
Click to read more »stable software release/OneDrive Note to closing admin, in the event this RfD passes: since this is a group request, you will have to enter the delete...
Click to read more »be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging. Comment - The RfD-tag has been manually removed. (And a bot has undone my later fix. That is...
Click to read more »of notability guidelines. Mark Rekon Mohammad Amin Nejat, please note that RfD is an open discussion. Going forward, if you are found to make any further...
Click to read more »demonstrate notability. The consensus here is a weak keep - please keep in mind RfD is not a vote or a place to use AI - but some sources can quite easily be...
Click to read more »revert vandalism and help out the community here than you should run for RFA.--Yegoyan 00:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose Sorry, you have only 30 edits...
Click to read more »discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion. Keep RfD withdrawn. Article improved. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)...
Click to read more »calmed down, and as there seems to be consensus on Simple I don't believe this RfC is necessary. doesn't even exist on en-wiki. --Majorly 17:32, 15 January...
Click to read more »Rfa in the future. -Djsasso (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC) I don't want a reply to this, but I have to say it; if he ever does run for another RfA...
Click to read more »evaluating the candidate at RFA. Shapiros10 21:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Support I don't know how fixed or unfixed the RfA process is at the moment...
Click to read more »all the dangerous permissions admins have gotten. When someone creates an RfA, you have to ask yourself, "Do I trust this person to edit the main page...
Click to read more »has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Disputed QD. Previous RfD indicated a consensus that the subject is not notable:...
Click to read more »was to Delete. Quick deleted under G4. There have been quite a few past RfDs on the subject. Hiàn (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC) J-PIMP (edit · talk...
Click to read more »discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. We've had 2 RfD's for this LTA/subject in the last year, the previous one ended yesterday...
Click to read more »a keepable state. Whether it can be simplified further is no question for RfD.--Eptalon (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Dalai Lama (edit · talk ·...
Click to read more »template which could be added to an article's talk page if the result of an RfD is either "keep" or "no concensus"? I was thinking of something like this...
Click to read more »user:Gwib/goals. Recently, I've been making mistakes. Most notably, the failure of my RfB. However, I still think that my decision-making abilities are intact and...
Click to read more »percentage of 43.75%. This falls below the community accepted standard of what a RFA should pass. I don't find anything convincing to discount any real comment...
Click to read more »good thing to do, but it doesn't have anything to do with this RfD. Please only comment on RfDs when what you're saying is relevant to the discussion. Thanks...
Click to read more »the information at the top of the RfD page, at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion#Discussions, it explains that an RfD is not a vote. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:18...
Click to read more »· talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request · open RfD subpage Fehufanga has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Same...
Click to read more »discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Merged RfDs, technically The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. for...
Click to read more »discourage you, I failed my RFA 2 times before. Please keep up your good work and stick around. You may wish to read the RFA guide in the future if you...
Click to read more »Simple:wikt is completing the original RfD on all dicdef articles and as it was already covered by an RfD, and all steps of that RfD have been taken except the actual...
Click to read more »edits, but I think you still have some things to improve on before another RfA. Besides, that is, other then the ones stated above. Try to get more edits...
Click to read more »intents an purpose. -Djsasso (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC) At EhJJ's RFA, Aleksa Lukic put out a controversial vote. When EhJJ tried to respond, Aleksa...
Click to read more »delete reason for deletion by RfD automatically builds the RfD page name using the current year. Since the page names for these RfDs will include the year 2017...
Click to read more »further changes should be made to this discussion. Clear consensus for RfC 1 & RfC 2 closed as successful & approved -- Enfcer (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2022...
Click to read more »following. However, there are no references for that, so I'm bringing it to RfD. Auntof6 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Please discuss this request...
Click to read more »indication of notability I could find. Nothing has changed since the last RfD. No reliable sources which are independent and in-depth to establish notability...
Click to read more »quick deletion criteria is strictly followed - any unclear cases should go to RfD. --Ferien (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Comment Universities offer...
Click to read more »as an A4 (Non-notable); the editor is disputing it, so I am moving it to RfD for discussion. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:01, 13 July 2022...
Click to read more »the discussion here has been derailed sufficiently to the point that this RfD should be reconsidered at a later time. Chenzw Talk 05:11, 29 June 2019...
Click to read more »changed. If someone feels it needs to be re-addressed please re-start an RfD. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Barebacking (edit · talk · history...
Click to read more »(UTC) In the diff you give, there is only an invitation to comment on this RfD. Canvassing involves asking people to "vote" a certain way. @FahadMuhammed:...
Click to read more »would give you full adminship. That being said, I would support you in a WP:RfA for DYK. I highly doubt that you would vandalise :P That being said, I don't...
Click to read more »yourself. Also, I'd quickly like to thank everyone who participated in my rfa. I decided not to spam every single one of you, and left a message at WP:ST...
Click to read more »other admin, I also agree with BRP this does seem TOOSOON so I oppose this RFA. –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC) I will admit my rationale is...
Click to read more »Shapiros10 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC) This was proposed after his last failed Rfa and was rejected I believe. Count me as one who would reject it. Adminship...
Click to read more »your own talk page. I'll be blunt, it will snow green cheese before this RFA passes. I'd advise you to withdraw and save yourself from embarrassment....
Click to read more »may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging. Keep The RfD for Keith Wickham closed last week at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Keith...
Click to read more »Comment: I have extended the close date by one day as the RfD was not listed on the RfD page. --IWI (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Delete - speedy...
Click to read more »Qd but that the nomination was contested. RfD is the appropriate method for deletion at that point. The RfD tag was on the page, but it appeared there...
Click to read more »page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Duplicate of this RfD, which was closed with the template being deleted.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page...
Click to read more »net (should have been closed months ago), and likely never showed up on the RfD page, there is too little to meaningfully opt for keeping it. Note: there...
Click to read more »fully protect based on the consensus of this RfD. I'd also hope that people creating a category after an RfD read the discussion before continuing, but...
Click to read more »created minutes ago to RfD? --Ferien (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Quick delete A4 - Does not claim notability at all and the RfD was created by the author...
Click to read more »September 2024 (UTC) This has already been nominated for RfD, so we may as well let the RfD run its 7 days. --Ferien (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2024...
Click to read more »for deletion was to Delete. Clear case, also salted for 3 months, the last RfD of this was at most a month ago...--Eptalon (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »on this RfD are indeffed here, are globally locked, had made no edits here before this RfD was opened, or have made edits here only on this RfD. The rules...
Click to read more »express them in RfDs. If you think the guideline sbould be changed, please discuss that on the guideline's talk page, not in individual RfD discussions....
Click to read more »project), and my support is now strengthened, as I strongly supported her RfA there. —Giggy 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Support. I wouldn't support so easily...
Click to read more »this request for deletion was to Delete. Discussed a few days ago, see this RfD--Eptalon (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Juned king (edit · talk · history...
Click to read more »the requirements, current policy now makes it a requirement to run a new RFA after being desysopped for inactivity. fr33kman 15:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »a new RfD, if you want. Barras (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'll manually remove them if consensus is reached to remove and then perhaps RfD. Pmlineditor...
Click to read more »sentences make sense. Possibility of merge or redirect exists so let's start RfD. MathXplore (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Please discuss this request...
Click to read more »for the sole purpose of creating invalid usernames (and voting against RfA/RfCU's). 43 separate accounts since August 21, 2007. - Blocked entire range...
Click to read more »deletion for the reason: can't be deleted through QD so I'll send this to RfD with the same explanation given for QD by PotsdamLamb - "WP:NFM" --Ferien...
Click to read more »has basically every discussion page. We only have 6 to begin with. AN/ST/RfP/RfD/PVA.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC) @Gordonrox24: I am very...
Click to read more »admin help to delete all the current redirects. I'd be happy to do it if my RfA passes that i'm running for in the early new year, but can we wait that long...
Click to read more »this discussion. The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. This RfD has ran long over, and with arguments for and against keeping this article...
Click to read more »out at other Wikimedia projects, but, at the Simple English Wikipedia, an RfA candidate is judged on their contributions here :( Again, thank you for offering...
Click to read more »particularly strange because other RfDs so far have not run into this issue. Twinkle uses exactly the same preload template for new RfD pages. Chenzw Talk 02:43...
Click to read more »his answer. Probably one of the more thought out replies I have seen on an RfA. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Support, why not?? -BRP ever...
Click to read more »RfA of Hydriz global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00....
Click to read more »administrator. I hope the community agrees and wish them the best of luck in this RfA! --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC) Candidate's acceptance:...
Click to read more »Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:14, 21 December...
Click to read more »The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. as No Consensus This RfD has been open for over a month now. And there is no clear consensus even...
Click to read more »"rollback"). When we start the discussion, we should do so when on other RFA requests are pending, and once we have settled with the new rlues we re-allow...
Click to read more »(talk) 23:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Keep. As Djsasso said. I say we close this RfA down early. Animal do you know any town, city, Suburb, Mars, Saturn, etc...
Click to read more »process. Something is wrong. I am aware of the "minimum" number of votes for RFA which is also problematic. Also, what is wrong with promoting an article...
Click to read more »a page that's currently at RfD. That breaks links on the article page and on the RfD page. A move can be done after the RfD is closed. --Auntof6 (talk)...
Click to read more »Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for what RfD requires – none of these large number of RfDs qualify. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:29, 21 December...
Click to read more »