Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maximus Rex (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 30 July 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Stuff is deleted by administrators. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. The forthcoming meta:deletion management redesign may address many of these issues, but that is some way off. See also:deletion policy and undeletion policy.

Please note that 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 they were not aware of the discussion on votes for deletion (VfD), or because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion, but were ignored.
  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.

If you wish to undelete an article, list it here with a brief reason. The procedure explained at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy will then be followed, and if the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.

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.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for deletion 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 case of copyright violations.

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

Votes for undeletion

Add new votes at the bottom.

City of Palaces

This is an original article written by me and I would like to "undelete" it (I would like to see it restored). I have written it on the basis of my knowledge of the colonial history of British India and particularly that of Calcutta.

Amitava Ray, University of Kansas

You're on the wrong page. This article hasn't been deleted. Go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/City of Palaces to discuss whether the article should be kept or not. RickK 20:19, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Aldeism

From WP:SD: —listed on VFD (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Aldeism), unanimous consensus to delete, reposted today by sock puppet of original author. Postdlf 13:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • First, I appologize if this is not the correct forum to dispute the decision of Postdlf. That being said, a review of the discussion at (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Aldeism) shows that the decision to delete was not at all unanimous. In fact several users asked specifically that the page not be deleted. See comments by User:Lucky 6.9 who requests that the page be kept, and User:Andrewa who suggests that the Aldeism page be kept but that the Allan Revich, and AllanRevich pages be removed. The votes for deletion by User:Postdlf reads more like a personal vendetta than like a reasoned response, while this view is admittedly subjective it is bolstered by his reference to the original author a sock puppet. -- User:Arevich
    • Discussion shows Lucky's vote to be "delete all as just about the ultimate in vanity, maybe even nonsense". Andrewa was agnostic on deleting Aldeism. Looks unanimous to me. - UtherSRG 14:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Plus any agreement on a page's deletion does not have to be unanimous; it merely requires a two thirds consensus either way for a page to be deleted or kept. This consensus was quite clearly reached in this case. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Add new votes here:

Undelete

  • Aldeism exists. People look for information about it. Should be reason enough. But I also agree with Postdlf. Aldeism will continue to exist independently of what a few power-obsessed sysops and their self-important cronies do on Wikipedia. Arevich 14:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The degree to which you are taking this personally and resorting to ad hominem attacks illustrates one of the main reasons why we frown upon an author writing about himself or his personal achievements. Postdlf 17:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted

  • Keep deleted: no evidence of notability -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. - UtherSRG 19:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If it has truly had impact, then it shouldn't need its creator to write about it. Postdlf 21:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I never said that this should stay unless I was being sarcastic. Nothing new regarding these delete votes, at least in my case. - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. - Kenwarren 21:57, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Arevich, please also note that re-creation of previously-deleted articles can result in the re-creator being blocked from editing. RickK 06:20, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I just deleted the corresponding categories too. --ssd 22:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ish

I recently wrote an article called Ish. I would like it undeleted. I don't have the original text, but I'm sure it's out there. I was told it was more of a "dictdef". There are entries like that all over this 'pedia, though. Ish is an important word that many people use. Perhaps I need a list of slang under Sociolinguistics or something. -- Kzzl

The complete text of this "article" is:

A slang pseudonym for the expletive shit. It emerged from the abundance of clean versions of songs in which the word shit often became ish, sonically.

Add new votes here:

Keep deleted:

  • Keep deleted. RickK 18:19, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Postdlf 18:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. UtherSRG 19:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - dictionary definition theresa knott 21:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a dictionary definition, and so belongs in a dictionary not an encylopedia. Fortunately lot's of people like to write dictionary definitions so we created a sister project called wiktionary. You can think of it as the dictionary part of wikipedia. Anyway you can find wiktionary here you need to create another account as the related wikimedia projects all have seperate logins. I hope this has solved the problem. theresa knott 18:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I have tried to add text to Wikipedia:recentchanges instructing new users that requests for articles must be more than dictionary definitions but it was removed. New users often see those requests and believe that a dictionary definition is ok. (Several have said as much on VfD and Speedy Delete) - Tεxτurε 16:56, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Undelete:

  • Undelete. Kzzl 18:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I should have put synonym instead of pseudonym. That makes it all better, right?Kzzl
    • It could be a stub. Kzzl
      • I can't really see how but if you can expand it into a decent stub do so above where it says "the complete text of the article is". People may well change thier mind if you can write a truly enclopedic stub. We do have a few words in Wikipedia, see our entry for fuck to see what I mean by encylopedic theresa knott
    • I also included a link to Radio edit because it's applicable. Kzzl
      • Write the definition in wictionary then link to the wictionary article in radio edit. HTH theresa knott 19:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other

I undeleted this as an out of process deletion after asking for opinions in IRC. Four replies, none of which felt it qualified as a speedy deletion, two of which said it should be undeleted for that reason. I've asked UtherSRG whether UtherSRG would prefer to do the VfD. If not, I'll do it per policy (well, unless someone beats me to it, which is likely.:) ). Jamesday 00:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What does IRC have to do with anything? If all votes here are against undeletion, things said on IRC have no weight whatsoever. If those people actually agreed it should be undeleted, they should have voted here. Angela. 09:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

(Please keep comments or discussions above this section).

Brewster Jennings & Associates

Posted on VfD at 01:31, 22 Jul 2004. Speedy deleted at 11:23, 22 Jul 2004 by UtherSRG. While clearly a stub with highly suspicious contents, I do not believe it met any of the specific criteria for a speedy delete. Please restore so it can serve out its time on VfD. (This is my first nomination for undelete. If I should have posted this somewhere else, please let me know. Thanks.) Rossami 03:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've restored it and replaced the delete tag with a vfd tag. Please leave on vfd for the normal duration now. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looks like patent nonsense to me. RickK 19:48, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
It may very well be, but imo pages listed on vfd should stay until the end of the five day period. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It may very well have been in vfd, but it only had a speedy tag, which is how I found it to delete. loked like nonsense to me. - UtherSRG 17:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're in no way to blame for this I feel, it was up to whomever put the speedy tag on the article in the first place -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kegel exerciser

My article on the 'Kegel Exerciser' was deleted because it was deemed to be a product advertisement, which it was not. A Kegel Exerciser (named after the renowned gynecologistis Dr. Arnold Kegel) is a medical device (which can also be used as a sex toy).

Dlloyd 21:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted

  • Delete. An obvious advertisement. Let them start over with a blank slate if they want to enter it back into the encyclopedia. Shard 05:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Have you actually seen the page in question? Also recreating a deleted page exposes it to the risk of speedy deleteion. theresa knott 18:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Undelete

  • undelete - I never saw the original article, but I would like to read it. Suggest POV rewrite if necessary. Arevich 21:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Glancing at the article, it looked nearly better quality than what is now in Kegel exercise before it was turned into a redirect and then deleted. I vote to undelete and/or merge. --ssd 22:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. It looks like a perfectly valid page. It's a bit stubby so merging and redirection is probably the best option but i can't see how it was deleted in the first place. These things are commonly used after childbirth (although I didn't know that's what they were called) theresa knott 23:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. As it would then of course go back to VfD, I think this is at least something that should be discussed again as to its notability as an article subject. Postdlf 23:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other comments

  • No vote right now—I'm wondering why it can't just be a redirect to Kegel exercise and then the product info included there. Do you have any sources that could show that the product itself is notable in some way? If so, I will vote for undeletion. Postdlf 21:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have discussed the 'Kegel Exerciser' article with a local author (who has a Phd in Human Sexuality). To delete the article based on the opinion that it's an advertisement seems absurd to me. They are sold widely here in the US.
"Kegelcisor" is a trademarked name for a brand of 'Kegel Exerciser' (my mistake), that's why I originally moved the article. Dlloyd 22:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • So "Kegel exerciser" is a generic product then? By capitalizing both words you made it look like a brand name. Postdlf 23:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, a Kegel exerciser is a generic product. And I'll watch my capitalization in future :-) Dlloyd 23:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And yes, it may be a stubby article, but I kept it seperate and linked it to Kegel exercise because I'm writing about it in the context of it's medical use as well as a sex toy (it's used for both). Hence 'Sex toy' linked to > Kegel exerciser, linked to > Kegel exercise, linked to > Dr. Kegel, and vice versa.Dlloyd 23:28, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Shard does not seem to be a valid user. Dlloyd 06:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Canada_and_U.S._currency_compared

  • I missed this deletion debate back in June [1](it was discussed in the week leading up to the Canadian election) and I strongly disagree with the decision to delete this article. We have a whole series of articles comparing Canadiana and American politics, health care, and economics. This particular comparison between currencies is important as the United States tends to be the source of changes to the Canadian currency (e.g. decimalization). Certainly the article was not perfect, but it was a more than valid beginning. - SimonP 05:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not sure, the page looks pretty trivial to me. They are both called dollars - so are lot's of other currencies. They both divide up into 1/100th units - so does virtually every other currency (admittedly they are not all called cents) If the US is the source of changes to the Canadian currency then this info should probably go on canadian dollar rather than have a page of it's own? theresa knott 05:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Postdlf 13:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. A single person missing the debate is not a valid reason for requesting undeletion. I remember a better article than this on the same subject on VfD at a different date. Can't recall the name or the outcome. Is this an attempt to keep recreating the same article under different names? - Tεxτurε 17:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vate

  • the electronic musician Vate really exists and there is really no reason given to delete its information. (posted by anon user, 213.229.186.67)
NOTE: According to deletion log, article was deleted November 27, 2003 after consensus to delete on VfD; no deletion debate was apparently archived. Article was reposted today by anon User: 213.229.186.67, whose only other edits were to post the above, and to slap deletion tags on the talk page of the user who had deleted the article (since reverted). User is apparently now registered as User:Vate, as that user immediately appeared to take up further editing of the article. Postdlf 16:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted

  • Keep deleted. Appears to be self-promotion, appears non-notable by its own terms. Reposted out of process by self-promoter after proper VfD (was then speedy deleted). Confusion as to what the article's subject even is—poorly written article describes "Vate" as a musical "project," while author's plea above calls Vate a "musician." Postdlf 16:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Article text is directly lifted off of vate.com, btw... Postdlf 16:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - This appears to be a vanity posting as well as advertising. Vandalism of user pages does not help his/her case. - Tεxτurε 17:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Not noteworthy. Vanity. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for one's own projects. If someone removed from Vate were to write an article, and if the subject of that article had any significant notoriety, it would be a different story. -- UtherSRG 17:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Undelete

  • Undelete. 31,000 google hits for +Vate +music. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:49, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
  • Undelete. By the way , the article was deleted before wikipedia crashed on 8th June 2004 and the undeletion information was lost, hence the reposting of information. This discourages me to contribute in wikipedia. citing a past post from myself:"I am the author of the text that was deleted in this section, and also have it posted in places in wich i submited the same info, such as iuma.com and faircopy.com. The original text and my contact can be found at my webpage". Are we going to erase little electronic music "projects" or "musicians" from wikipedia (call them the way you want)? The lesson for others: It doesnt mean it doesn't exist if you don't know it. This is the defense I should have used back in 2003 if I had been warned about the deletion... --Vate 16:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Vate, your re-creating of the article was out of process. It was deleted back in Novemeber of 2003. Proper process to restore an article is to list it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Then, if concensus dictates that it should be restored, an admin will restore it. Since you decided to not follow this process, I deleted the article so as to restore correct process. - UtherSRG 17:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The vate item was deleted back in 2003 and I was never warned about it in order to defend it. The backup information was deleted on june 8th 2004, that's why I reposted it (with even more info on it)--Vate 17:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You didn't need to be warned about it for it to be properly deleted, and although we don't have the archived debate, it's rare for one vote to change things regardless. None of your given reasons justify reposting in violation of policy. Postdlf 17:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other comments

  • Vanity article creations should not be undeleted. - Tεxτurε 17:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • you're confusing Vanity with the intent to enrich Wikipedia with Info on Mexican Electronic Music, as a musician and bearer of vate project I dont see the problem with it. Any way I am also contributing on other articles in the same area (if you let me ;) )--Vate 17:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As the "bearer" of the project, it is a vanity article, by definition. It is an article about you, or your work. Such articles are often deleted via the VfD process. We're telling you how things are here. We're not confusing the issue, we're trying to educate you so that you are not confused. - UtherSRG 17:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please continue contributing. However, it is inappropriate to advertise yourself or your works. It is considered a "vanity" posting for your own benefit and not those of others. Any other policy will result in all of us creating a huge amount of vanity advertisements for ourselves and our projects. That is not the intent of Wikipedia. If it is famous (or becomes famous) and worthy of inclusion it will be created on its own and will not require you to make it. Recreating an article deleted accoring to process is grounds for speedy deletion. - Tεxτurε 17:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ceqli language

This article was supposedly deleted on a 17-to-8 vote. The count seems to be incorrectly tallied; in fact there seem to have been 15 votes to keep it, as tallied by one observer. In addition, some of the people advocating deletion seem to have been under the misapprehension that the article was a vanity post by the author of the language in question, simply to advertise his language which they claim has no general interest. In fact, the author posted it in direct response to a suggestion by myself, because I believe it is of interest to people involved in language construction (an interest I share, though my own ideas are quite opposed in many respects to Rex May's). Also, some of the deleters felt that people voting to keep it were "sockpuppets," without any evidence to prove it; again, these people have no knowledge of the constructed language community, or they would be aware that the people in question were not only different people, but actually antagonists of one another who rarely agree on anything, and all agreed only because it was felt by all that this was a topic of interest. Most of us, in fact, feel that Ceqli is not our idea of an ideal auxiliary language. -- BRG 18:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted

  • Keep deleted. That a subject may be interesting does not make it notable—by that rationale, any academic theory, construct, etc., would be worthy of inclusion regardless of how new or how little attention it had received. A few objective admins should go back through the deletion debate and decide which were valid votes and on what sides, and if the results do come back as BRG claims, I will support undeletion. However, if the process was sound (as I believe), there is no grounds for undeletion on this one because no new information has come to light—this isn't a forum for trying to merely continue arguing on the same merits. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Postdlf 18:56, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Do we need a sysop? If you look at the deletion page, we find the following votes.
  • KEEP votes:
    1. A.Rosta (15 July)
    2. Larry Sulky (15 July)
    3. BRG 19:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
    4. Pjacobi 11:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    5. 24.7.81.204 16:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    6. Rspeer 04:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    7. Ailanto 16:37, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
    8. Pne 18:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    9. Zbihniew 20:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    10. OldakQuill 18:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    11. Lussmu 08:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    12. Marcoscramer 16:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    13. Tillwe 22:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    14. Bacchiad 23:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE votes:
    1. Kesuari 03:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC))
    2. Exploding Boy 06:08, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
    3. Average Earthman 11:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    4. Lucky_6.9 17:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    5. Jeeves 22:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    6. Ardonik 03:35, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
    7. Geogre 00:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    8. Ambivalenthysteria 01:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    9. wile E. Heresiarch 17:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    10. Everyking 21:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    11. Maximus Rex 01:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    12. Cyrius 03:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    13. Andris 08:41, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
    14. Jerzy 02:56, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
    15. Postdlf 06:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    16. Imran 12:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    17. Jallan 22:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    18. Maknas 14:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    19. SimonP 05:04, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
That does not look like 17 to 8 to me. -- BRG 19:21, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. - SimonP 19:12, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Maximus Rex 19:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Undelete

Other comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=4922251"