Wikipedia:Deletion review: Difference between revisions

Stuff is deleted by administrators. Generally these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Rarely, 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.

Please note that the archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database server switch on 2003-12-03 are not present in the current archive and thus cannot be restored immediately by a sysop, but can be retrieved from the old database if there is need.

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.

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:Deletion 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 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.

Please add new entries at the bottom of the appropriate section, that is, in the middle of the page.

new votes at the bottom

• Now at User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley, discussion at User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley

• Kutelpuuknetimu - I am not listing these three to be deleted. I want to know WHY they were deleted. This was a perfectly good page. wikipedia is not paper! SmartBee
  • Keep deleted. Unverifiable. Angela 17:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. BCorr ? Брайен 19:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

• Cimeria - Correct information. Why delete? Because it was related to an improperly restored page with new correct information? wikipedia is not paper! SmartBee
  • Keep deleted. Unverifiable. Angela 17:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. BCorr ? Брайен 19:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

• Cimeran - Correct information. Why delete? Because it was an improperly restored page with new correct information? wikipedia is not paper! SmartBee
  • This has already been through undeletion and was relisted on VfD where it was determined to be unverifiable. Menchi deleted it with the edit summary "content was hoax, troll-creator linked it to Languages in the United States: 'Cimeran is a conlang spoken in Buffalo, New York, by several internet groups. It has a lexicon size of 570 and is based on a cross be...'". Angela 17:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. BCorr ? Брайен 19:03, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • keep deleted. Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

• I've looked into it, Alteria is in New Zealand. - Arthur George Carrick 04:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• No, it isn't, it's an imaginary place. And you put this in the wrong place on the page. RickK 04:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• The most recent version of the page said "I have decided to remove my entry from this site due to the abusive emails", written by the original author. I think we should respect that and therefore oppose undeletion. Angela 07:16, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• How's this for a plan:Someone undeletes it, copies it, deletes it, logs out, and creates the article anew. ? - Arthur George Carrick 00:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I disagree: that would be dishonest. Honesty is the best policy. It should either stay deleted, which I think is correct, or be undeleted along with its history. Martin 01:23, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• Why does this nonexistant place need an article, to begin with? RickK 19:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Don't undelete. Imaginary places don't need articles in an encyclopedia. Maximus Rex 19:46, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 03:01, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
• The original author's comment is inconsistent with the "GNU Free Documentation License" notice at the bottom of the edit page. -Smack 01:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

• Deleted without going via VfD, not an immediate deletion candidate. Jamesday 15:48, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • It was moved via the transwiki system developed by Eclecticology and myself. Issues with the system should probably be brought up at m:talk:transwiki rather than here. Angela 23:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • That's still an out of process deletion. Deletion from the English Wikipedia via transwiki is not in accord with Wikipedia:Deletion policy or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. This one is problematic because it's an excellent basis for an article on the circumstances of the surrender, why the document was signed by the people who signed it and which forces they were representing at the time. Unfortunately, the deletion without VfD short-circuited the process of getting that done. If you'd like to see it deleted from the English Wikipedia, please restore it, wait a month to see if you still think that it merits deletion at the end of the month, then list it on VfD if you think that it does. Jamesday 11:00, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • if it was source text, and has been moved then it shouldn't be undeleted. Secretlondon 11:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • It has not been deleted. It has been moved. I have replied in more detail at m:talk:transwiki. Angela. 21:07, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr., Pamela Boyce, Swede Joseph Chevalier, Judith Berquis Diaz-Sierra, Anthony Edward Gallagher, Ralph Gerhardt, Gricelda E. James, Hweidar Jian, Zoe Johnson, Joseph John Keller, John R. Keohane, Eugen Gabriel Lazar, Joseph Lovero, Waleska Martinez, Ann Marie McHugh, Joseph Mistrulli, Kristen Montanaro, Bernard Pietronico, Kevin Michael Williams, Wa Xiang, Daniel Thomas Suhr, Anthony Starita.

I don't feel the mass deletion of these was proper. My accounting of the votes is as follows:

Votes to delete all: Delirium, Bmills, DJ Clayworth, Daniel Quinlan, Jtdirl, User:Maximus Rex, Jiang, Fuzheado, Bryan Derksen, TakuyaMurata, Wshun, At18, Kosebamse (13).

Votes for something other than deleting all (keep, or consider individually, or keep non-tribute, or keep those with information, etc.): The Cunctator, Cimon avaro, JamesDay, VeryVerily, Oliver Pereira (5).

Unclear entries: Gareth Owen (comment seems to favor deletion), Tlotoxl (says keep if merited, but implies (?) none listed are merited), Rossami (says delete unless..., suggesting entry in second list, but seems to think "adding back" is an easy option).

I should note Cimon avaro carried out the deletion, so perhaps his vote could be reconsidered, although maybe he just counted differently.

Anyway, I don't think this constitutes a consensus. For one, there were a lot of keep votes. Furthermore, many of the reasons given for deletion were adequately addressed (such as The Cunctator to DJ Clayworth). Also, this may not be 75%, either, although it's teetering around it.

As for me, I favor giving individual consideration, and erring on the side of keeping. -- VV 19:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. There are over 3,000 Sept11 th victims - and we have a special memorial wiki to keep them in. Secretlondon 19:28, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • The issue is that some of the entries were encyclopedic. The victims were notable for some reason, and the entry provided relevant information. In cases such as Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson this is clearcut; in others not so. But no one is suggesting having all 3,000 entered. As for the sep11 wiki, it is for tribute pages and memorials, and entries of that nature should be moved there, but those which are encyclopedia entries should stay on Wikipedia. -- VV 19:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • are you saying that some of them would get an entry if they were still alive? If that is the case then yes they alone should stay. But they must be NPOV, not sentimental victim entries. Secretlondon 19:51, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • well the first entries for Anthony Starita are wikipedia. He was a bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald ie totally non-notable. Do I need to do any more?Secretlondon 19:54, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
      • Well my objection to the deletion is mostly a procedural one, for the reasons noted above; I don't think the question of which entries merited preservation was considered to the extent requested by some voters. Since I cannot read the entries (they were deleted), I can't evaluate them myself. Yes, some might have been notable were they still alive (as Barbara Olson), some might be close calls knocked over the threshold of meriting entries by their 9/11 deaths (as perhaps Keith A. Glascoe?), and some deserve mention because of the massacre (as Mark Bingham). -- VV 20:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Well Keith A. Glascoe was a fireman. So only notable for 11th Sept. The other two you mentioned have already got articles. Secretlondon 20:20, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
          • I don't think you've understood me at all. I was delineating categories of victims using examples of people I do know about (including, of course, those with articles). I do not know what was in the deleted articles, as I said, and am arguing they were deleted improperly. As for Keith Glascoe, he had a modest acting career. -- VV 20:46, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. These articles are not encyclopedic in any way. And I've checked 5 of the above links to look whether these articles are NPOV. None of these 5 has a "undelete" button, did these ever exist? -- JeLuF 19:40, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Maximus Rex 23:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on Vfd as separate cases, as should have been done originally. I've looked at VV's statistics, and it doesn't seem at all clear to me that there was a consensus to delete the pages en masse. That doubt has been cast on the process by which the articles were deleted is reason enough to reopen the case. (See my note on the talk page for further discussion.) -- Oliver P. 03:08, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. FearÉIREANN 04:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I tried to undelete the above but got the following error. This is the same error you get if you try to undelete a page that never existed. I have submitted it to sourceforge. Angela. 03:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

INSERT INTO cur (cur_namespace,cur_title,cur_text,cur_comment,cur_user,cur_user_text,cur_timestamp,inverse_timestamp,cur_minor_edit,cur_random,cur_touched)SELECT ar_namespace,ar_title,ar_text,ar_comment,ar_user,ar_user_text,ar_timestamp,99999999999999-ar_timestamp,ar_minor_edit,RAND(),'20031206033001' FROM archive WHERE ar_namespace=0 AND ar_title='Pamela_Boyce' AND ar_timestamp=

from within function "doUndeleteArticle". MySQL returned error "1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near at line 1".

• • Well, I don't know much about how undeletion is carried out by admins, or how the guts of Wikipedia are implemented, but this is a syntax error, not a failed join. The problem seems to be the "ar_timestamp=", which should be "ar_timestamp=''" or "...=NULL" or some such. Of course, if this is done by a script this error could come about because there was no entry to fill in the values from. As for the articles, they presumably existed, having been listed on VfD, although it's possible Delirium mistyped one or more of the names (?). Anyway, I agree with those who state that this is not the place to discuss whether the pages deserve deletion per se, but rather whether procedure was followed to good effect. -- VV 04:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

According to Brion, "if they're really needed they can be reimported from the old trash bin." Angela. 04:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Also Waleska Martinez. As it is clear that there was not consensus to delete these entries, I ask someone to undelete them. If noone does it soon, I'll do it. --The Cunctator 03:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. FearÉIREANN 04:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • There were no votes to keep this on VfD. [1] How on earth is that lacking consensus? Angela. 04:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• And Christoffer Carstanjen and Talk:Christoffer Carstanjen. --The Cunctator 03:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. FearÉIREANN 04:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • There were 6 votes to 1 on this which perfectly meets the rough consensus requirement. Angela. 04:05, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I decided on this as my first "real" delete because there was no question on the consensus. I moved the entire article text, minus VFD boilerplate, to sep11. Anyone who wants to see or edit it can go there. How exactly is this a problem? -- Pakaran 04:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Infrogmation deleted this valid article instead of reverting vandalism. The article did contain text, but the text was public domain US government writings. Recent deletions of Infrogmation might need to be looked into, as this deletion was done without regard of the rules for speedy deletions. Alexandros

As far as I could see it was not a vandalized valid article, but rather a single edit by an unlogged into user combinging found reasonable text with silly nonsense. One paragraph read "The memorial stands in West Potomac Park, between the Tidal Basin and the Potomac River, right down the street from yo' mama's. At the front entrance is an information area and a bookstore, where she works. Tell her I appreciate everything she did for me and that she couldn't make that pie any sweeter. " This was what I based my deletion desision on; while it might have contained some valid text, I thought we were better off starting the article from scratch. -- Infrogmation 16:46, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It looks like we already have a better new article there now than whatever salvagable content was in the article before, so I think this is a moot issue. -- Infrogmation 16:53, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It does look like nonsense. I can't see any reason to undelete it but don't oppose it if anyone thinks it should be. Angela. 23:27, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

01:58, Dec 4, 2003 Delirium deleted "Hertz doctrine" (obscure neologism not in common use -- listed on VfD 6 days, opinions 6-1 in favor of deletion, including my vote (The Cunctator opposing))

1. Delirium, unless I am mistaken, made no effort to preserve the content that was listed on that page at what he considered a more appropriate title.

2. If the consensus is that the content needs to be listed under a different title, Hertz doctrine should be made to be a redirect to that page. --The Cunctator

please do not add articles to be undeleted below that line

Most recent at bottom. See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted for older ones.

The article was posted on October 9 and deleted on the same day. In the deletion log it's said that "Evercat deleted "Finding child pornography on the Internet" (content was: 'Listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion')", but it definitely is not there now and in any case it wasn't listed there for 7 days. The article does not fit any of the 9 criteria for speedy deletion, so it should be undeleted.

While the article is definitely controversial in topic, this is not a sufficient reason for deletion. The article also contains some useful and rare factual information. The article itself is also completely legal is most countries (confirmed by a brief comment from a professional lawyer) and activities described there are legal in at least some. Deleting an article in violation of Wikipedia procedures only because some people are not comfortable with the topic is not good. This article should be undeleted. Paranoid 22:20, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have undeleted this in order that people can see the content and discuss it. But I'm uncomfortable with leaving this in the article mainspace, so I have moved it to User:Cyan/Internet child pornography. -- Cyan 22:54, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article has been moved to User:Paranoid/Internet child pornography. -- Cyan 22:45, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seems like in started as, and continues to be, an advocacy piece. Delete. orthogonal 19:16, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Delete. It links to pages with nude children. I won't argue that for those pages to have those non-sexual images is wrong, but we shouldn't link to them, only mention them. - Arthur George Carrick

Probably illegal. Stay deleted. (Illegality should also be reason enough for speedy deletion) DJ Clayworth 17:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have put the article back into the article space, at Internet child pornography. This was extensively discussed at the time, and there was not only no consensus to delete the article, but in fact majority support (in the opinion poll on the talk page) for keeping it. -- Oliver P. 01:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Biographical article deleted without being listed on Vfd. -- Oliver P. 08:31, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• It might have been better to raise this with Jimfbleak as it would seem more a difference of what is classed as suitable for instant deletion rather than an ordinary undeletion request. Anyway, I've undeleted and listed it on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements for a week. Angela 08:44, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The hundred or so articles that used to be listed at Timeline of Canadian history. They were listed on VfD for only a few hours before being deleted. The new articles are already too long, and they contain at most 10% of the content that I am preparing to add. The articles are also much less useful in this new form. - SimonP 05:36, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

• Done. Good luck with working on them. :) -- Oliver P. 07:01, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perfectly valid-looking article deleted by User:RickK without listing on Vfd. Such blatant abuses of sysop powers are really starting to annoy me now. I might start making formal complaints. -- Oliver P. 01:24, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, please do complain. You'll notice that the article even mentions that the school will no longer exist soon. Let's please not keep creating these bogus articles. RickK 01:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. If the reason for deleting it was that it soon won't exist, that's not a good reason (other things that no longer exist include Beethoven, Atlantis, and the Roman Empire). It needs work, and it needs to be deorphaned, but it's fine to keep. --Camembert

That's your opinion. There are a number of users who feel that high schools don't need their own articles. I've listed it on VfD. RickK 01:34, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whether or not we should keep the article is a matter of opinion, and seeking those opinions is precisely what Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is for. Whether or not sysops are allowed to delete articles without following the deletion policy is a separate question entirely, and as far as I am aware there is still a consensus that they are not. -- Oliver P. 02:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

nod. Martin 03:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also deleted without listing on Vfd. -- Oliver P. 02:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The policy states that if something is deleted out-of-process it may be instantly undeleted, which imo is what you should have done. This page is not the place to air your differences of opinion with RickK. Angela

Does it? Oh... I thought we were meant to list here, even if we felt they were out of process. Maybe the intro to this page needs fixing? Martin 02:25, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well I thought it did but I can't find it now. Should it? Angela

No idea. I love conversations like this for highlighting how much we're making it up as we go along. People must come to us, now with more market share than slashdot, expecting big things and incisive comment and decisive action and organisation - but we really are just a bunch of amateurs... it's funny.

What if I think a deletion was in-process and you think it was out-of-process? That's the worst case, imo. Martin 02:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well there's no such thing as a professional deletion policy writer is there? Anyway, I rewrote the policy to make it look like I was right all along. Comments, reverts etc welcome there. :) Angela 02:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Discussion is talking place at Talk:Santorum.

On 17:58, 26 Nov 2003 Kingturtle deleted "Hertz doctrine" (voted for deletion. 2 votes to keep, 8 votes (including mine) to delete)

1. The entry listed on Votes for Deletion was Hearst doctrine, not Hertz doctrine.

2. After Hearst doctrine was listed on Votes for Deletion, I created the entry Hertz doctrine and significantly editing the content that had been at Hearst doctrine.

3. Kingturtle, unless I am mistaken, made no effort to preserve the content that was listed on that page at what he considered a more appropriate title.

4. If the consensus is that the content needs to be listed under a different title, Hertz doctrine should be made to be a redirect to that page. --The Cunctator

• • Keep deleted. The "Hertz doctrine" is made up term that hasn't been picked up. There are 12 Google hits for the term, including a cached copy of vfd. Changing the name of the page is not a reasonable reason for it to be undeleted, since both the Hearst and Hertz doctrines don't exist. Having a page on the supposed "Hertz doctrine" ('we're number one!') would fall under original research. Maximus Rex 20:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I undeleted "Hertz doctrine". But it should be placed on Votes for Deletion. Kingturtle 20:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Votes:

• Keep deleted. (1) vote was nearly unanimous (2) The NPOV content is already well covered elsewhere. Daniel Quinlan 04:07, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This has already been through VfU once before. Both times it was listed on VfD it was decided to delete it. Angela. 04:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This has already been decided upon before. Maximus Rex 04:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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.