Wikipedia:Deletion review

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

Purpose of this page

It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:

1. People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.
2. Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
   • As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

How to use this page

If you wish to undelete an article, follow the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.

If an article was deleted via VfD because it was a stub and contained little or no information and you believe you can write a non-trivial non-stub article on the subject, you should be bold and write it, rather than request the stub for undeletion. The speedy deletion criterion for "reposted content that was deleted according to policy" does not apply to a good article about a subject for which a stub was deleted earlier.

If you wish to view a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form — either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.

Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted

If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

May 16, 2005

Wikipedia:A proposal re BCE-CE Debate

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate was moved here at 04:22 today, and thus this page had all the history. The content was copy-pasted back to the old location by slrubenstein at 11:15, who then slapped a speedy tag on the moved page, and deleted it himself after I removed the tag. This is not GFDL compliant. --SPUI (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I don't even need the article undeleted, just the history. It was speedied, and the history has been lost. A vote is missing from the new page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate and I can't see what happened to it without looking at the history. --Silversmith 18:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Combining both requests - working on the undeletes - Tεxτurε 18:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Slrubenstein deleted it again. --SPUI (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's back, but only as a redirect. The history is still gone. Slrubenstein doesn't seem to understand why this is a bad thing. --SPUI (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, got distracted as I restored it. How about now? - Tεxτurε 20:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks good. If someone wants to try to merge the two, that might be worthwhile, but it would be rather annoying. --SPUI (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Anybody? —Ben Brockert (42) 00:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for undeletion

May 21, 2005

Altar Q

Although I originally listed this article on the VfD page, I later decided it should be kept upon learning that the band was more than a local one. It has an entry on Allmusic and is sold amongst very well known bands such as Green Day on mainstream punk (not an oxymoron) music sites like Interpunk. The original VfD page and the talk page on which I presented my case for undeletion of the article, before being directed here by the administrator, contain relevant information on the matter. Unfortunately, I could not accurately recite the text of the article, which was much more than a stub. Lesser bands than this are kept in Wikipedia, and there is no question in my mind that it is a better encyclopedia with the article restored. Hence, I say undelete. --BDD 20:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• "Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion."-- from the top of this page. Keep deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) 21:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where then are people meant to go if a VfD debate received insufficient attention or if new information comes to light? - SimonP 22:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • How can you tell that it got insufficient attention? Was it not listed on VfD? People often don't vote delete if it is unnecessary. Three delete votes to counter one keep is being efficient, not inattentive. That the page was written by a friend of User:BDD's makes me question his motivation for the undelete listing. —Ben Brockert (42) 23:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • It didn't get my attention LOL. Kappa 23:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It is wrong to ssume that all things listed on VfD receive sufficient attention. There are many examples of listings that go the full five days almost and are almost entirely ignored. From one day alone I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/RSS survey, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Swunk, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Expenential Smoothing, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blake Kensington based on one or two brief comments. VfD works well but it is far from perfect. - SimonP 23:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • To be fair, sometimes there are few comments because the question is uncontroversial. I often will leave a VfD discussion alone since it seems headed for a reasonable consensus without need of a 'me too'. Just because I don't comment on all the VfD nominations doesn't mean I haven't seen them. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• undelete, original nomination was insufficiently informed so this vote didnt get enough attention. Kappa 22:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Kappa doesn't know that the nomination was insufficiently informed, whatever the hell that means. The VfD was kept for 5 days, what more do you want? The article itself says, "As of now they only have one self-released, self-titled album', so what makes anybody think this would be kept even if it were undeleted? RickK 23:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete based upon BDD's feedback. This one fell below my radar as well. —RaD Man (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. "Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion." Wile E. Heresiarch 18:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Altar Q is the name given to a well known Mayan artifact from Copán. The artifact is certainly worthy of its own article, (frankly, I'm surprised that we don't have one). I have no thoughts about the band. func(talk) 19:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Mayan artifact merits an article. I would also like to extend much thanks to Brockert and Wile E. Heresiarch for assuming that I am a whiner who put this up because my position was not endorsed. I believe I made a mistake in originally recommending the deletion of this article and feel that in starting the series of events which deleted it, I did an extreme disservice to my friend and Wikipedia. As my supporters are mentioning (and a sincere thank you to you all for doing so), there is more information than was used during the VfD vote, which indeed did not receive much attention. --BDD 01:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, replace with article on the Mayan artifact. I don't think that you're whining, BDD, your opinion is welcome but in this case I simply disagree with you. Radiant_* 09:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

May 15, 2005

Franglish

Not sure what made this a speedy candidate. Might be an idiosyncratic definition, but should at least be eyeballed for useful content before deletion. I think this is the full text: "A dialect of high school-learned French spoken primarily in Ontario and the rest of English-speaking Canada. Essentially similar gramatically to the language spoken in France, it is marked by the heavy "English Canadian" accent and poor vocabulary. Although it may be understood with, more or less, minor difficulty by a person living in France, its value as communication with Quebec-French speakers, ironically, is limited." Kappa 06:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Bearcat gave no reason, the content is not obviously speedyable, and it Googles in the way it's been described (even more hits are garnered by Frenglish, however). Even if it were a neologism: except for insult pages, purported neologisms are still VfD candidates to the best of my knowledge. See also Franglais, which seems to be not quite the same thing, but a merge might be in order anyway. JRM · Talk 08:07, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• I pasted the most recent full text over yours. Hope you don't mind. So yes, that is the full text. —Ben Brockert (42) 08:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - "... dialect of high school-learned french?" - Keep deleted for certain. Some high school student is yanking you around. - Tεxτurε 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, the text here is more than enough for it's BJAODN. --Gmaxwell 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Spoof, fit for speedy deletion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Spoof. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it wouldn't survive VfD if put on there anyway. Radiant_* 11:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What-eveeeer. JRM · Talk 13:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
• Keep deleted but redirect name to Franglais (as Fringlish and Frenglish do) --Henrygb 17:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

A1 (rocket), A2 (rocket) etc

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A1 (rocket). Including A1, A2, A5, A7, A8, A9, A11, A12 as far as I can tell. These were all speedied with "merged" as the reason given. Some still have red links to them. Should be recreated and then redirected, to preserve history. Kappa 06:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Spot on. I'm undeleting them now. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • And if anybody wants to watch that admin's activities to make sure this doesn't happen again, it would be a service to the 'pedia. —Ben Brockert (42) 05:25, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I applaud the merging, but the process is 'merge and redirect', not 'merge and speedily delete'. So, support undeletion. Radiant_* 11:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Radiant and Kappa, favor the undeletion as well. —RaD Man (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

CoolguysLimited

This was speedied three times. It makes a claim to notability, (although I can't really evaluate it) so it should be undeleted and taken to Vfd. The first version said: "Coolguys Limited (CGL) were the very first group to start writing demos on the ZX Spectrum. They soon became known throughout the worlds Spectru...".

See also Talk:CoolguysLimited, where it turns out to be a "vanity page" but that doesn't make it a CSD by itself. Kappa 06:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• It's vanity and not notable. First deletion falls firmly under Articles 1 and the following two under General 4. I plan to delete the talk page when this discussion is over under Implied 1. Keep deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) 06:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe "first group to start writing demos for the ZX Spectrum" provides context. Kappa 06:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, not a CSD. Grue 19:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Valid speedy delete - new user joke - Tεxτurε 04:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm I have to admire a joke that sets up an ftp download [1]. Kappa 08:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Kappa has convinced me that it at least deserves a chance at VfD. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. User:Kappa, kindly stop wasting other people's time. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you care to give a reason for keeping it deleted? Kappa 08:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, wouldn't survive a VfD anyway (unverifiable/vanity) so there's no point in undeleting it really. Radiant_* 08:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consistent recreation of speedied articles is a sign that there should either be an article or that there should at least be a VfD vote. And Kappa hasn't wasted anyones time. Sjakkalle 09:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The only thing consistent recreation is a sign of is, is of a persistant vandal. RickK 22:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Quote from WP:CSD "Proposed: Caution should be used if the only prior deletion was a speedy delete. Re-creation of the article may in some cases be evidence that the topic deserves an opportunity to expand for a short time, and later, the full VfD discussion." Okay, I see this is a proposed point, but since I cannot see the whole article, I decided to vote a "cautious" undelete. The article should probably be deleted, but I don't think it's a true speedy candidate. Sjakkalle 07:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The full article text will be provided upon request, per the undeletion policy, if you want to see it. —Ben Brockert (42) 22:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Vanity, non-notable, royally deletable, but I don't think it falls in any CSD category. Not an obvious hoax, joke, or newbie test. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Sorry, but I just don't see the point of undeleting an article which doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of surviving VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well then, someone should add "articles which don't have a snowball's chance in heck of surviving VfD" to the list of speedy candidates. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Less flippantly: a lot of articles are speedied really deserve deletion but are borderline in terms of being speedy candidates. My philosophy is that a speedy is one guy, sometimes shooting from the hip, and VfD is a careful, formal, open process. I feel that, in general, most of the time, articles that have been voted for deletion should not be undeleted; on the other hand, articles that have been speedied should be undeleted (and nominated for VfD) almost on request. Again, VfU is not a consideration of the merits of the article, it's a consideration of the deletion process. There's no need to judge whether an article is capable of surviving VfD; we can just put it on VfD and find out.Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that some people vote on the VfD listing with the idea that "if it got undeleted, it is therefore automatically worth keeping". They don't understand that undeletion is relatively easy. Nobody reads policies. —Ben Brockert (42) 22:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

P. S. I might change my mind if people started clogging VfU with a high volume of disingenous nominations, as a way of gaming the system, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• In this case VfU seems to be combining a consideration of the validity of the speedy with consideration of its chances of surviving Vfd. Incidentally I see a lot of things in CSD which aren't speedy candidates but look like they have no chance of surviving Vfd, and I leave them there. Kappa 17:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I admit that my votes take into account the survival probability of the article, just because VfD is constantly swamped. If it wasn't, we could just undelete any article that had a questionable non-VfD deletion and let them do it again. —Ben Brockert (42) 22:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete as per Dpbsmith. —RaD Man (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Eliezer Kepecs

The article on Eliezer Kepecs was being worked on by many competent individuals who have spent hours of time gathering information doing extensive research on him. I believe it was well written, with many good sources, from periodicals and web sites. In the last version saved, everything was quoted properly, a big improvement over the original article that appeared some months ago. Kepecs is a highly accomplished notable and distinguished individual, respected by his colleagues, congregation, and peers. - Kepecs is an exceptional tenor, who has concertized worldwide including in Europe and Canada. He chooses the most difficult repertoire to perform. - He is also an artist, some of his paintings have sold for over $42,000 as noted in last version of the article. - He has been a cantor for 17 years, and with his current congregation for 9 years. - He has been involved heavily with organizations geared for feeding the poor and the needy. - He is on the board of directors for the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America and Canada. - He is a professor of liturgical music for the American Seminary for Contemporary Judaism. - He was invited to sing for Pope John Paul II just before he passed away, also presenting him with a special gift which he made specifically for him. - He has recorded musical albums. The article has not been completed as of yet.

• UNDELETE. --Cantors 01:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)