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.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. You don't have to get the stub undeleted, and as long as your new version has content it should not be redeleted. If it is, then you should list it here.

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.

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.

Votes for undeletion

September 13

Advertisement for "Deletion Review"

Please join the discussion of the means for reviewing an admins closure and have a chat at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU, which is a continuation of a recent discussion.

Template:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD

This template allowing users to proclaim membership of m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (which is just as valid as deletionist or inclusionist organisations, if slightly more verbose) was speedy deleted after user:Bobblewik replaced it with a {{delete}} template with no explanation. It might be better named Template:Wikipedia:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD or something, but that is not a deletion criteria! Thryduulf 20:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Slightly silly but harmless template. I've been meaning to join the organization, but can't be bothered to get an account on meta. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostly harmless - No valid reason for deletion but I could understand its mistaken deletion as nonsense. - Tεxτurε 20:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. I wonder if the speedying admin forgot to check the history and "what links here". As this was so clearly out of process, does anyone object to an immediate undeletion (which is allowed)? -Splash 21:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete, speedily if possible. Kappa 21:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete; does not seem to meet speedy critera. Nandesuka 21:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - I think this is all enough of a reason to undelete it, so I have done. violet/riga (t) 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• The template is restored. (I think I beat Violet to the restore but Violet beat me here.) If anyone wishes to they can place it on TfD. I will not. - Tεxτurε 21:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Dang. Violet beat me on the restore by one second... - Tεxτurε 21:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • When did it become acceptable to undelete an article before the 5 days of discussion on VfU had ended? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • When there's an obvious consensus and it was so blatantly obvious that it was deleted out of process. Meets NO speedy criteria and bobblewik didn't even bother to give a reason. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Monir Georgi

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monir Georgi

I have composed this coorespondence to illustrate the obvious lack of investigation in the deletion of this article. I am Dr. Monir Georgi and according to the postings and votes posted by the incompetent and highly under educated self proclaimed Wikipedia content experts. The statements made by these individuals are inimical to the very basis of the Wikipedia Project. I am 25 years old and do hold the educational and experiential logros that were stated in this page. It is insulting to me as professional and is discriminatory in its very nature. This level of censorship demises the very essence of Wikipedia. I challenge these Psuedo-Experts to truly research me. I can provide copies of my Degrees, Transcripts (Legalized by Apostille issued by the US State Department), References from Employers and a reference from Oxford University (including a contact #) to comfirm my accomplishments. I am deeply saddened that these Psuedo Experts have only a Google Search as their principal means of research. It is speculative that the capacity of these Experts well defined or for the very least accurate. Therefore I petition within the realm of my Human Rights of expression that my site be restored. I understand that this antebellum petition may be denegated but I wish to communicate that the deliberate deletion of this page is intolerant and fundamentally injust. Therefore as you peruse this comment remember that the removal of one man's right to speak is the destruction of humanities right to express. I recommend that these mediocre "experts" read Farenheit 451.

• Keep deleted. Gor reasons stated above. -R. fiend 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. Please read WP:VAIN. You have no "human right" to a Wikipedia article about yourself. android79 18:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from the article-space. This is not your website. This is an encyclopedia. You have no "right" to an encyclopedia article and far less to an autobiography. (You may, however, have it moved over to a user page if/when you create a log-in. Any admin can help you do that.) Rossami (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• KD. There was no process violation in the AfD.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  19:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No one has a "Human Right" to a wikipedia article, nor is it censorship to delete one that doesn't meet our normal grounds for inclusion. Holding degrees and having various expereinces does automatically not make one noteable or a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. The deletion process was valid and this fourm exists primarily to review deletion improper on procedure, not to second guess content judgements. Also, a less confrontational style might incline people to greater good will here. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. This person's vanity just oozes from every sentence, doesn't it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. And suggest to the good doctor that he learn how to ask nicely in future. -Splash 21:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. And the insults aren't exactly helping your case either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter trolling

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter trolling

The AFD was first closed as no consensus by Moink yesterday, however Phroziac has overruled this decision and deleted the article, without any discussion with Moink. I agree that it's a borderline case, there are a lot of delete votes, however, I do not think there is consensus, and the original closer also didn't think that. Therefore, it should be undeleted so it can be merged or taken back to AFD where it can be deleted if a consensus emerges the second time round) -- Joolz 01:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a proper deletion to me. There were 16 or so delete votes, 2 non-anon keep votes, and 5 merge votes. If someone wants to merge, a temporary undelete (for the purpose of moving to a temp page) might be in order, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's around 69-72%, depending on how you count, is that really enough to override the decision of the closing admin, what kind of consensus does it show when you have to do that? -- Joolz 01:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the only problem was one admin overriding the other. It's hard to see how it could have been a "keep" vote; regardless, disagreements like this should lead to discussions, not actions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I have pointed out to Joolz that 72% is definitely a consensus for AfD. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I hate the business, fairly recent, of sysops overriding other sysops' decisions on closes. I happen to think that the article should indeed have been deleted, and I happen to think there was a consensus to delete, but, darn it, Moink called it and Phroziac should have respected that call. AfU does not seem like the right place for dealing with disputes between sysops. No vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• I only see 4 merges that I'm really prepared to entertain, and 2 keeps against 16 deletes (although I haven't checked the contribs history for all of the deleters). It's not about numbers directly, but there's not much support for retaining either the article or its content; and one of the keeps has no reason given at all. AfD closures are not sacrosanct, save for by 'tradition' so, since this has been deleted, keep deleted. If it really must be undeleted, then it really must go back to AfD. -Splash 01:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted valid VfD. I certainly see a consensus to delete, unless one counts every "merge" vote as a "keep" vote, which one really shouldn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not? A merge would preserve the contents of the article elsewhere in Wikipedia and leave behind a redirect in its place, which doesn't seem much like "deletion" to me. Bryan 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. Non-delete votes: The Hokkaido Crow, Joolz, Hooperx, Bjwebb, Theuniversal, Ryan, Sandpiper, + anon. Of these, the anon and TheUniversal will not be accepted by most closers as valid voters. However, a conservative count (ie., accepting both Hooperx and Hokkaido Crow) gives us 6 non-deletes. (Incidentally, taking Morwen's sentence as a Merge vote gives 7). Therefore, with the 6 non-dels there is easily a reasonable basis upon which an admin, so inclined, may have closed with no concensus to delete. Note, the question here is not how any one of us would have counted the vote— we did not close this AfD. The question is whether there was a reasonable basis for Moink to close it as she did. And there was. If there were 20 deletes and 1 keep and she closed it as a keep, then yes, we would be justified in second-guessing the close, as there is no reasonable way under the sun that that could be called a keep. Not here, however. Much as I detest the article, it was not unreasonable to close it as Moink closed it.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  07:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. This was a valid judgment call by Moink. There is no automatic rule that says that anonymous votes must be discounted or that a debate with just over two thirds majority must result in a "delete". In such cases, plausible decisions by the closing administrator, such as this one, should not be overridden. Allow the article to be merged however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We need to shake up that discussion on the talk page. We nearly had a proposal, but then it went all quiet and I couldn't wake anyone up. -Splash 08:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is precisely the kind of case that this page should handle as Deletion Review. On finding that a deletion discussion had clsoed as a keep when it seemed that the consensus was to delete, insted of unilaterally overriding the cloer, another admin, or any editor, could and should bring the matter here, for a reveiw of the process, resulting in the keep being confimed or overrulled, or possiblily a renewed stay on AfD mandated. DES ^(talk) 13:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I agree that this would be better resolved in Deletion Review than as an overruling by another admin. How's that project going? - Tεxτurε 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• There is reasonable room to have interpreted this as a "no consensus" decision. The decision to arbitrarily overturn the closure on the basis of a vote-count was out-of-process. Phroziac should have at least discussed the matter with Moink. Failing that, he/she should have asked for wider review rather than taking matters into his/her own hands. Undelete and immediately renominate it for another AFD discussion with a link to the prior discussion. Note: I also agree that this should have been solved through Deletion Review and believe that this page should be renamed to support that mission. Rossami (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, deletion out of process. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Whilst I think Phroziac should have discussed, this was not out process. There is no process for it to be out of. It was just rather discourteous. -Splash 21:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Advertisement. We should settle the question of the means for reviewing an admins closure and have a chat at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU, which is a continuation of a recent discussion. -Splash 21:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. please see Moink's comment on my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, no vote, but I thought I should at least participate in this discussion. I've been out of the loop on a lot of things over the past few months, and I re-read the deletion process before continuing, but I hadn't noticed the edit on Wikipedia:Consensus that changed the guideline for rough consensus on AfD from 80% to 67% (not that I think it should be about just numbers, but really the numbers mostly guided me on this one, and I counted 6 non-delete votes). The article is of no importance to me and I don't really care that it's deleted. But I have to admit I'm somewhat uncomfortable with having my judgment, even if poor, summarily overridden without discussion, and I'm worried about the precedent that might be set. moink 23:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Why has this been restored, when neither the nondelete nor the deletion were obviously out of process? It's very frustrating, and quite different to the template question above. -Splash 00:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the text has to be kept for the GFDL, even if merged. Redirects are required for redundancy. I take it you all know Snape kills Dumbledore? I undeleted it, since the VFD decision clearly says merge rather than delte. And now I'm getting told off. Dunc|☺ 00:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, because we have a process here that is working just fine, and the issue isn't so urgent that it need be circumvented. -Splash 00:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote--I really don't care one way or the other whether the article stays deleted or not. But I agree with others here that it sets a very bad precedent to have admins summarily override another admin's good faith action without any attempt at discussion. older≠wiser 00:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

September 12

General time dilation

VfD discussion page

It was deleted for being original research but it's not original research since it comes straight from Einstein's general relativity of 1915. For some reason nobody noticed that general time dilation comes from Einsteianian gravitation and as far as I know it is nowhere described except in my article The General Time Dilation (relativistic redshift in stationary clouds of dust). I didn't do any original research there and just describe what I see in Einstein's gravitation. Does reading about something from someone else's theory makes this reading an original research, only because other people don't understand the theory? Jim 20:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Valid VfD - This page is for improper deletions. This article properly went through VfD and was deleted by consensus. Don't take this wrong but are you just repeating what you have on your personal web page? - Tεxτurε 21:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is what I have there but it is not original research but popularization of Einstienian gravitation. Which apparently needs a lot of popularizing since as I cn see is completely misunderstood. Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Popularization"? "completely misunderstood"? Sounds like your original view of Einstein's theories or your effort to put his theories into a different representation. You may be correct in your paper but that still makes it an original work and not an established concept. - Tεxτurε 14:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Is general time dilation something Einstein actually described and wrote about himself? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:22, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I invented the term for him to describe his physics in a way easier accessible to the public. Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you "Invented the term for him" then it is an original work by the very definition. You created a brand new term for something - Einstein did not. - Tεxτurε 14:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm sorry, but a topic that is nowhere described except in an article you have written yourself is original research. An original reading or synthesis of another work is just as much new research as an original theory. - SimonP 21:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Popularization is not original research by any standard. Are you kidding? I wouldn't have to do it if it were already done, so what's wrong with me being only one who desribes something that everybody else has problems with understanding? Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted, obviously deleted in process. But: Jim you may have a point, only I'll suggest starting with an article which is less revolutionary but better sourced in scholarly discussion. Searching for Einstein+Finsler at scholar.google.com gives over 350 matches, and a significant share seem to point into similar directions you are wanting to explore. Our own article Finsler manifold sounds rather pessimistic about applying Finsler geometry to GR and distinctly doesn't mention Einstein himself probing this. But if you can give sourced evidence to the contrary, just go ahead. --Pjacobi 21:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for a hint. I'll try to do this. However I'm not a theorist and I just describe it for physicists who want to understand gravitation which as I found out is rather a big problem. Since I understand the physics of Einsteinian gravitation I'm trying to share the knowledge with those who don't. The interesting part is also why they don't while it's so simple. Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep delete. Properly deleted in process. (And IMHO the deletion was appropriate. The article itself says that it is describing a "hypothetical relativistic effect" and the concluding sentence is "If the effect is real..." This would seem to be acknowledgement that the article is original research even though based on accepted theory). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Mostly everything in science is only "hypothetical" and requires constant verification by observations. Einsteinian gravitation happens to be rather good hypothesis. Whether it will be the same good in 1000 years I don't known. So I have to say "if it is true". Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If you have references for your conclussions from Einstein's theories, that would be another matter. You say yours is not original research, but since only you saw that in Einstein's graviation theory, it means that it is not at all obvious, and maybe not a well-known fact accepted by the scientific community, which is what this encyclopedia should publish. Oleg Alexandrov 22:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If it were obvious I wouldn't write it since everybody would know the same thing that I know. I hope that it'll become obvious when people read my explanations of Einsteinian gravitation and ask questions about what they didn't understand. Which is less likely if you will consider it original research rather than popularization of Einsteins discovery. Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clear consensus to delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a strange regularity that in matter od sience majority have been mostly wrong. Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to vote. I was afraid that it will wait forever because no one is interested in gravitation. I'm glad that there is so much interest in it even if so little understanding. One of my physics professors said that "no physicist understands gravitation". But I hope that those few whom I alredy talked to might have now better understanding of it. There is also Einsteinian gravitation for poets and science teachers that is without any math except for derivation of gravitational force (as dE/dx=gm) and demonstration how energy is conserved in gravitation in free falling body that puzzles everybody who knows that there is no gravitational attraction any more in the real world. It is also shown where the "potential energy" is located in space. If anybody of you would read the stuff I'd be interested in critique (at any level of politeness). Jim 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• KD. Please note VfU is about process.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  08:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Programmer's Day

This Wikipedia article is cited all over the Internet and still all links are broken. Delete log for it is empty, last changes show no signs of stagnation. It's not clear why it was deleted in the first place. Alex Kapranoff 15:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - Valid VfD - This page is for improper deletions. This article properly went through VfD and was deleted by consensus. (It was later speedy deleted for having the nonsense text: "ÁËßÄü".) - Tεxτurε 16:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's ok with me. I thought it was mistakenly deleted as the delete log is empty. Alex Kapranoff 16:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Whilst you wrote that message, I restored the page. I decided it had been speedied in error as a vandalised version, because there is no deletion log evidence that it was deleted as a result of the VfD. -Splash 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone was sloppy about edit comments, but there is plenty of "evidence." One edit containing the VfD tag is the edit stamped 10:23, 16 September 2004 Dmr2 presently at [1]. Please re-delete pending conclusion of this discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I saw the VfD tag; it was in the last non-vandalised version at least. However, the article was not deleted as a result of the VfD, but as a result of it being reduced to nonsense. This was, presumably an oversight on whichever admin 'closed' it (appears to be RickK), but the speedy was out-of-process. It has only ever been deleted once. I have no particular problem actioning that VfD although it is very old. For that reason, I would, personally, prefer to see a re-affirmative AfD done now, and this VfU ended. -Splash 16:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like one more coincidence happened (I tell this in my defence). I was actually looking at history of Programmer's day (note small "d"). No redirects took place because redirect target was deleted too. Alex Kapranoff 16:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I get bitten about twice a week by MediaWiki's case-sensitivity and general lack of any kind of "fuzzy" matching. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid VfD. Side notes: The article was voted for deletion mostly because nobody produced any convincing evidence that any such day is widely observed. The Keep votes were mostly from people who acknowledged that it is not widely observed but felt it should be kept anyway. The suggestion that an inaccurate article in Wikipedia should be undeleted because other Wikipedia sites believed it was accurate and linked to it before it could be deleted is the most alarming rationale I've heard in a while. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No-no, that's not the rationale for undeletion, just the reason I was bothered about this deletion. Lots of links from both forks and articles, widely recognized (I read VfD discussion now and understand it's probably our local tradition) and total lack of delete log. Alex Kapranoff 16:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. Lack of entries in the deletion log appear to be due to the fact that the original deletion occured before the conversion to MediaWiki 1.4 (as per Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops). --Allen3 ^talk 16:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, that would explain it. In that case I shall redelete it now, and I apologise. Keep deleted valid VfD. -Splash 16:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

September 10

Lester Rodney

Someone claiming to be the original author left a complaint on the Help Desk about this being deleted; I looked into the matter. Tagged as a possible copyvio in July, listed for two weeks with no-one saying anything, then deleted (it was an original textdump); see Special:Undelete/Lester Rodney, and [2] for the WP:CV lack of discussion. From what he's said it doesn't seem to have been a copyvio - though I can understand why it got tagged as one - and is probably worth resurrecting, though I don't know what the policy for undeleting suspected copyvios is. I'm willing to wikify the article, if it's recovered. I've pointed the user to this page. Shimgray 14:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I Googled for the first bit of the text and some other random bits, and the only hits were WP mirrors (which share our licence). That doesn't mean it isn't only in print somewhere of course. If undeleted it needs a considerable neutralising as well as wfying. -Splash 17:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• If I understand correctly,

172.171.234.227 wrote the article April 29th.

User:Arcturus listed it on Copyvio July 13th, writing, "Not sure about this one - looks like it could be a copyright infringement. At the very least it needs wikifying." It did not elicit any discussion on Cvio.

RedWolf delisted it from Cvio and deleted it on July 28th, writing "listed as copyvio since July 13."

From this sequence, it looks as if no one actually determined for certain that it was a Cvio; we're also not sure why Arcturus thought it was. He's still active, so I'm leaving him a note and a link to this page; he may remember a print source not available online that led him to believe this was cvio. Until such time as a definite determination of copyright violation has been made, however, we have no right to delete an editor's otherwise valid contribution to WP. Please undelete.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:32:34, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Hello! I remember listing this article but I would need to see it again so that I can recall what I thought about it at the time. I probably listed it after doing a Google search on part of the text and finding an original (not Wikipedia copy) website. I'll commnet further when it's restored. Thanks. Arcturus 19:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have temporarily undeleted the article, so you can take a look at the history. --cesarb 00:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I now recall this. It looks for all the world like a direct copy from a webpage (however, Google throws up nothing apart from mirror sites) or a scanned image from a book, though I do not know of any printed version. The statement at the end "Written by Kelly E. Rusinack with Lester Rodney" and the edit comment about it being an authorised biography add credence to the idea that it had been sourced from somewhere and may well be copyrighted. Such remarks are also very unusual in Wikipedia. How many cases are there of individuals "authorising" their biography on Wikipedia, I wonder. However, if the original writer is complaining about it being deleted, and can guarantee it's not copyrighted, then clearly it should be restored. Shimgray has offered to wikify it. That, together with the "neutralisation" suggested by Splash, will make it more acceptable to Wikipedia. I suggest it's undeleted immediately and the original author informed. Arcturus 09:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

September 9

Gary Takes a Bath

Consensus was to merge or keep, not delete. --SPUI (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. I agree, I'm all for admins making judgment calls while closing VFD debates, but calling a "delete" result when many more than half the users wanted it merged or kept outright doesn't seem right. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete I count this as 7 Merge / 4 Keep (one of whom said "or merge" and one who said "do not merge) / 4 Delete. I don't see how that is a consensus to delete. It might be called a merge consensus, or a non-consensus, default to keep, with a suggestion that the mergists do so on their own. Unless lots of the votes were dioscounted for some reason (but there was no mention made of this) I don't see how the result was arrived at. (Mind you i would probably have voted Delete or Merge had I noticed this discussion, but this is about process, not content). DES ^(talk) 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. If there is a consensus to delete then I don't see it. --Allen3 ^talk 16:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. I'm not even sure it need really go back to AfD. What does (blk-cmp error) mean? -Splash 16:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's referring to "block-compression error", a problem with a previous version of MediaWiki that meant that some pages couldn't be deleted in the normal way – IIRC a developer had to do it manually. It's since been fixed. android79 17:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does that mean this was a jargony way of saying that the "normal" way of deleting this page (by seeking consensus) handn't worked, so the clsoer was going to do a special fix (by ignoring consensus in the close)? If it is, then this sounds a lot like an abuse of admin powers. Does anyone think this issue should be raised anywhere else? DES ^(talk) 18:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not. It only means that the delete button didn't work for this particular article, and the page had a special template added to it to note the fact that the page should be deleted but couldn't be due to a bug in the software. Note that User:Pending deletion script, obviously a bot, actually carried out the deletion, and not ABCD. android79 18:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh I see. I hadn't checked the deletion log. Sorry for jumping to an assumption. It was only the very odd nature of the closing conclusion that made me do so. I also hadn't paid attention to the fact that this deletion happened before the last verion upgrade in MediaWiki software. Sorry. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - looking at what little content there is I would have voted to delete had I seen the VfD but there clearly is no consensus to do so. - Tεxτurε 16:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. No consensus to delete. android79 17:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and while we're at it, I don't think that VfD/Afd is really the place to get rid of individual episode guide articles anyway. If there's a problem with them, a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for the lot would be a far better way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have no idea what my reasoning was at that time. – ABCD✉ 18:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete; I think ABCD must have just miscounted this one. Nandesuka 18:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, no consensus to delete. Zoe 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete per ABCD.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:49:18, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

September 2

Korps Nationale Reserve

The Korps Nationale Reserve article was deleted,the reason given was that the page was not in english. Might I suggest that the {{notenglish}} tag was created for this purpose, and that this is not a proper reason for speedy deletion of an article. Indeed IIRC the proposal for speedy deeltion of articles not in english was voted down. Undelete and list for transaltion, or put on AfD if content turns out not to be proper for soem otehr reason. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• While I agree that not being in english is not a speedy criterion, the full text of this article prior to tagging for deletion was Names B compagnie 20 Natres Bat. verwijs ik u naar www.natres.nl. My dutch is pretty poor but I think this loosely translates to "B Company of the Natres battalion can be found at www.natres.nl". That would qualify under speedy case A3, "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link..." Rossami (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Babelfish gives a translation that is functionally the same as Rossami's. I agree with the assessment that this qualified as a speedy under criteria A3. --Allen3 ^talk 19:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • It takes me 5 minutes to write a stub on this subject. Can I, or would I be breaking Wikipedia deletion policy if I did so? Andries 19:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You absolutely can, per WP:BOLD and the preamble at the top of the page. Just make sure it is not "substantially identical" or it'll be speedied, but I think that would quite hard to manage! Worth mentioning here that you've rewritten it when you have. -Splash 20:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Go for it. I can't think of any policy issues, so long as it's different from the version that was speedied. (I'm assuming you think it's notable enough to be worth a stub; try to say something about it that is notable or someone might nominate it for VfD). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thirded. Definitely go ahead and create a meaningful article. Zoe 19:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • But what title should I choose? I propose Dutch army national reserves Andries 19:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • In that case I'd favour an undelete first, so that the page - along with its history - can be properly renamed. It wouldn't hurt to have the Dutch text ready while expanding the stub! --IJzeren Jan 20:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on this link, the proper name in English appears to be Royal Netherlands Army reserve. Several redirects would be appropriate after the article is created. As for undeletion of the original, a history-merge is a simple task after the new article is created. --Allen3 ^talk 22:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)