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:
- 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.
- 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
 | This Wikipedia page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and Wikipedia:Deletion review and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
To nominate a page for undeletion:
- Place the page title on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry. (~~~~)
- Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with policy after being listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion should not be listed unless new information has come to light. If the article was deleted 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 the page was deleted via the Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion process rather than something that was speedily deleted, place a notice on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion with a link to the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion heading for the article.
If, after five days have passed, at least 3 people (including the person who proposed it) currently want to undelete and a majority are currently in favor of undeletion, the page may be undeleted by a sysop. If ten days elapse and the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, then the page remains deleted (to avoid rapid re-deletion since deletion requires a two-thirds majority).
When undeleting an article:
- List the article on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Further discussion can take place on the votes for deletion page, and after about a week the undeleted page will either be deleted again, or left undeleted.
- If the deletion was not via VFD, notify the deleting admin that you undeleted the page.
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. If you wish to only view a deleted article, list it in the temporary undeletion section 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 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.
Temporary undeletion
June 9, 2005
I like this image, and was able to save it thanks to the cache. However, I would like to know the licensing information, if any - thus I am not asking for an undelete of the image (which is impossible) but an undelete of the description. Thanks. --SPUI (talk) 18:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Votes for undeletion
June 16, 2005
[1] has a huge audience and had a good original article (before the second delete). If there's a way to revive the article before the first delete, then this would be desirable. --Hoovernj 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - article was legitimately deleted using vfd process - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Digg (2) -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - Valid VfD - no need for more adverts. - Tεxτurε 22:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. The original article has been recreated so many times that the redirect is now protected. I see no reason to open up this can of worms again. --Deathphoenix 02:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Valid VFD which was marred by a brigade of sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised recently to find this article was deleted and the discussion was closed. The archived delete page showed that the main reason was a lack of Google hits for the term. Yet this is incorrect. Google actually shows more results for variations of the term: 169 for Ameriphobia, 112 for Ameriphobic, 208 for Americanophobia, 333 for Americanophobe, 58 for Americanophobic, 914 for Americanphobia
That totals 1794, and that is just what google has in their cache (which is not even half of the entire internet by the way). Just checking Wikipedia's "most recent articles" page, one can easily find terms that show low Google counts:
679 for "Spanish Second Division"; 782 for "Extinct Australian animals"; 577 for "Vampire lifestyle"
Yet none of these are deleted, presumably because even if these terms themselves are not widely used, they may related to larger themes which are important or popular. I say the same goes for this article. The theme of Ameriphobia is extremely widespread and up for debate. Deletion of this article is obvious partisan and political. My guess is a lot of the Leftists who monopolize Wikipedia are intolerant of divergant political views being presented on Wikipedia, where only fringe stuff like "9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory", "9/11 conspiracy theories", and multiple pages of the like are permitted to be posted. Nice POV double standards.
In sum: 1. This term is common in college circles and among conservatives. 2. Banning the term would be de facto POV, ie. excluding some kinds of discrimination but not others. 3. The main arguments against it were that it didn't have enough Google hits --which I proved was false, and that it was too POV. But POV topics are not forbidden on Wikipedia, just POV content. This article and any article can be presented in a NPOV way. 4. Why can't people who object to content for poliitical reasons simple edit the articles instead of automatically deleting everything??? 5. Why is crap like 911 conspiracy pages and the like 1) not considered "too POV" 2) not considered "unencyclopedic"? It's obvious that partisan political motives mean that anything that isn't anti-American enough will be banned.
I don't appreciate the "when in doubt, delete" philosophy. What a waste of time and effort, and simply because of partisan political bias.
- Keep deleted. No, it's when in doubt, keep. That's why a "no consensus" result means Keep. VfU is not the place to express your views on why the original article should be kept; it's a place to discuss articles that were deleted out of turn. This went through a valid VfD with an overwhelming consensus to delete, and therefore it was not deleted out of turn. --Deathphoenix 19:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Over whelming consensus??? You mean like the 4 or 5 "deletes" with no reasons given? Then comments like "I'm confused by your comment. If it's a common term, why shouldn't Wikipedia document it, even though its usage is POV? If it's common, how is documenting it using Wikipedia as a soapbox? ... So redirect to Anti-Americanism, which it doesn't seem to be any different in usage from.) Nickptar 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" and "Certainly the word deserves documentation. ... ---Isaac R 23:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC) " "Weak delete. ... So my feeling is, no big deal either way. Andrewa 18:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)" Again, I can't find a real argument, outside of supposed (and false) Google hits. By the way, if the term is too POV, then Islamophobia should be deleted, right?
- Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process, see the discussion. Only one keep vote, nine deletes (including the nomination). Interestingly, at least two of the deletion votes were cast by users who are not only experienced sysops, but who in my experience adhere punctiliously to the rule of "when in doubt, keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Wiki faqs on this state that it is not a democratic vote. So number of votes is not the determining critera. It should be the legitimacy of the arguments. But the main argument has been questioned -- that Google hits are not a rule at Wikipedia, and that this was essentially made up.
- Keep deleted. I see nothing improper about the deletion process. --Carnildo 21:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - VfD vote was valid. - Tεxτurε 21:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. It may be too early to suggest placing this article on WP:PP as an article protected against recreation, but if the identical article keeps getting recreated and speedied this would be the logical thing to consider. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. RickK 05:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. In any case, should the entry exist, it would have to be a mere redirect to Anti-American sentiment. Rama 08:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete- it appears once again that invalid argument is being used. All of these votes merely say that the process was "valid". Yet someone yesterday acknowledged that the argument used in nominating for deletion and for the majority of the delete votes was weak -- ie. that Google hits determine if it is a real term or not. But google hits are not a legitimate criteria. So can anyone offer up a valid argument for the deletion? One problem with this supposedly "valid" process is that it is very quick. Not everyone is on Wikipedia on a daily basis. So does this mean that a one-side debate means that something is permanently deleted with no recourse if the delete process (but not the arguments) are "valid"? This process seems highly irrational, ie. logical arguments are not the basis, merely a baroque political process. In sum, I still have been unable to get an argument why it was deleted, other than not enough Google hits (which I proved is false).
- Unsigned vote from User:217.184.67.137. Anonymous votes do not get counted under the rules for undeletion. --Kiand 09:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What happened to my article? I created it at Lucky Ticket Casino.
- To the anon, 67.185.106.33, who posted this query. You have the right to make a formal request for undeletion of this article, but I strongly suggest that you not bother. The article certainly looks like advertising to me.
- Articles are sometimes "speedy deleted" (i.e. simply deleted by a sysop without discussion), or they may be "nominated for deletion" in which case they get a review and a discussion on the Votes for Deletion page. Yours was "speedy deleted."
- Advertising is a valid reason for deletion. But, technically, it is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. So if you were to request undeletion, you would probably get a majority vote to undelete. But the article would then automatically be nominated for deletion, where it would receive an overwhelming vote for deletion as advertising.
- Whatever you do, do not simply attempt to re-create the article.
- People often get the idea that they can use Wikipedia as a way of promoting their product, service, or website, but this idea is mistaken. If this is what you're trying to do, don't try; it will just get you and a lot of Wikipedians irritated. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
====Nicholas Stern (Titan Eagle)==== As the initial page was first suggested to be deleted on basis of noteriety, which was argued against, the second and I'm assuming effective reasoning for its deletion was that it took up the space of a former Economist which had been deleted prior to this article. The more apt title (now being free) was then pasted into by the (Titan Eagle) Nicholas Stern. As the sparse economists page has now been restored, I see no reason for the other Nicholas Stern page to be "speedily deleted" as long as the qualifier of "Titan Eagle", as he is AKA, is included in the pages title. In addition I will include a redirect for the econmists page, as was first included in the previous article and qualifier. In regards to noteriety its hard to defend an "outsider" musician as they are typically not well known or liked by the masses, however I feel that Nicholas Stern (Titan Eagle) is a personification of outsider through his awkward machismo and obliviousness to common music style. He has been featured repeatedly in outsider literature and outsider pages including this fresh page as of last week... http://www.trickmanterry.com/slapshotrock.html
Aside from general noteriety, I've also noticed many pages being deleted on the basis of "google searches" which I find kind of ridiculous. But if there is to be such a thing, I feel its only fair to have a finite amount known to people before they post, so that before they write the article they can check beforehand to see the amount of hits, and that these hits measure up to Wikipedia standards. Aubin 21:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - Valid VfD vote on original article under the name "Nicholas Stern" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nicholas Stern - Tεxτurε 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Which vote for the original were you talking about? The vote for noteriety or the vote for taking up the space of the economist? Aubin 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted Small number of voters, but still a perfectly valid VfD. I don't think we'll ever have a finite amount of Google hits to keep an article, as you request. For one thing, it's pretty wasy to cheat at Google. Most of the time, anything under 500 hits or so is considered pretty low. However, a high Google score does not guarantee that something will be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Then why use it as a basis? It just seems kind of strange that it can be used as validation for deletion, but if there is a standard applied to it that would require the knowledge of a google count, then that can't happen. Aside from that, I don't understand the rational behind a site for learning about things saying that if the knowledge isnt already widely known, then it can't be learned. Aubin 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Valid VfD process. Arguments such as notability are arguments for VfD, not VfU (which is only for stuff deleted out of process). --Deathphoenix 02:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What are some valid arguments for VfU? Because the pro-keep deletion is referencing the same arguments from VfD. Aubin 03:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Generally speaking, either the original VfD or decision to delete itself have to have been procedurally invalid; or circumstances must have substantially changed in such a way that renders the original grounds for deletion inapplicable, such that a recreation would not be at all subject to the defects complained of in the original article. Both of these reasons are construed very narrowly (especially the changed circumstances argument), and the burden of persuasion is on the one requesting undeletion. Postdlf 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Original VfD was valid, and nothing stated above undermines the conclusions of the voters as to the subject's nonnotability. The google test is used on a case-by-case basis—it is not an absolute threshold that a subject must meet. It helps to make comparisons of notability within a particular subject matter, and take some account of the attention a subject has received. I think it's particularly apt to use for musicians, because that's a subject matter that you'd expect there to be plenty of internet coverage of, through fan pages, album and concert reviews, and online sales of albums, tickets, and merchandise. A contemporary musician that has made no inroad into the WWW can't be said to have left much of a mark yet. Postdlf 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And of course a musician with no albums that weren't self-produced, and who has no more claim to fame than a review posted on a do-it-yourself website about a public access television performance, has truly left no mark. Postdlf 04:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. However if he does end up becoming more notable in the future is there a possibilty of another review? Aubin 04:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, as long as he manages to meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Postdlf 04:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
June 14, 2005
On June 13 I moved the New York Tongs, as well as the San Francisco Tongs, from the List of street gangs onto a separate list, as explained on the page history; however it seems to have since been deleted. Although it was admittedly a scant list, of which I had thought another user with a bit more knowledge of the topic might expand it, I can't find a record of it on the Votes for deletion log. 209.213.71.78 19:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Could an admin take a look at the content? According to the deletion log, this article was deleted in 21:08, 13 Jun 2005 because: (nonsense). --Deathphoenix 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm..that's odd. It was a fairly organized list, although a bit incomplete, so I'm not sure how it could have been mistaken or confused for patent nonsence (at least as defined as random characters, etc.). 209.213.71.78 20:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe it was deleted (not by me) because it was simply a list of red links with no real context. --khaosworks 21:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - "This is a world list of Chinese Tongs." then a list of 9 random names (some didn't even seem like names: "four brothers tong") - no context given. - Tεxτurε 21:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Texture, while I certainly agree with your reasoning (particularly with someone with little knowlage of the subject), these are legitimate groups. I suppose had I been given a bit more time to expand the list I could have provided references and a more descriptive introduction. Given there are at least a few mentions of these Tongs on other articles, such as the Tong wars, Little Pete, or several entries in the Timeline of organized crime, I hadn't anticipated it being deleted so quickly. 209.213.71.78 23:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with this article was lack of reasoned content. Nothing in this list gave any context or reason for the article to exist. Might I suggest if this is your starting point that creating an article on your user page would give you time to make it into something worthwhile prior to releasing it as an article? Since there is both no context and no linkable article for each entry, this idea in progress should not be an article as it stands. - Tεxτurε 14:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Texture, while I certainly agree with your reasoning (particularly with someone with little knowlage of the subject), these are legitimate groups. I suppose had I been given a bit more time to expand the list I could have provided references and a more descriptive introduction. Given there are at least a few mentions of these Tongs on other articles, such as the Tong wars, Little Pete, or several entries in the Timeline of organized crime, I hadn't anticipated it being deleted so quickly. 209.213.71.78 23:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Content was:
* New York
o Four Brothers Tong
o Hip Song Tong
o Kim Lou Wi Saw Tong
o Low Hee Tong
o On Leong Tong
* San Francisco
o Bing Kong Tong
o Jung Ying Tong
o Suey Don Tong
o Suey Ying Tong
All of them were red links. To an English speaker, it does sound like nonsense. Why don't you start by creating articles on each of them, and then when the links are blue, you can try again? Keep deleted for now, but I might change my mind if there are real articles. RickK 22:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- That may be true however I don't think I'm qualified to write more then a general stub. The purpose of the list, which was to differentiate from the list of street gangs, was to encourage someone who might be better suited to write on these articles. You might want to consider merging it with the main Tong article or at least revert the street gangs list in any case. I'm sorry for the trouble and thanks for the help. 209.213.71.78 23:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Thanks for the content, RickK. Some of those names sound vaguely familiar, so I wouldn't classify it as nonsense, but a bunch of red links does not an article make. If some of these articles were to be created in the future, I'd support such a list, but I would much prefer an English translation followed by the Chinese phonetics. For example (completely fictitious), Vampire Tong (Geung Si Tong). Such an entry would seem less nonsensical to the non-Chinese reader. --Deathphoenix 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Article has 2 copy vio deletes.
First delete was wrong because the material was PD and still is. I wrote it myself but I cant proove that so nevermind the first copy vio. Or the canadian government is violating copyrights. [2]I am not arguing to restore this one because..1)I have already written the page2)I dont care
The second copy vio is nothing close to the alleged page. Hence a copy vio cannot be the case. The page was declared a copy vio and was deleted in 5-10 minutes of this. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Undelete --Cool Cat My Talk 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)- The version dated May 3 has direct word-for-word copies from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm, just as the copyvio boilerplate indicated. That version is nothing like http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html. There is a stub now. If you want to rewrite it in your own words, please do so. Keep deleted. RickK 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Look I am sick of dealing with this I wrote the article with my own words from scratch and that was declared copy vio. I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd. I want the later version restored. No copy vio is the case. I dont enjoy writing same articles to be deleted without being read. COMPARE the latter version please. There are two copy vio cases. First one, I ma not discussing. Second is definately not copy vio. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The version dated May 3 has direct word-for-word copies from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm, just as the copyvio boilerplate indicated. That version is nothing like http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110393e.html. There is a stub now. If you want to rewrite it in your own words, please do so. Keep deleted. RickK 00:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Copyvio. Gamaliel 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Can someone give a quick comparison between the two deleted versions and the two web versions? --Deathphoenix 13:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It would appear that User:Coolcat has unilaterally restored the last version that was removed as a copyvio. Should be deleted again unless copyvio case is cleared. — Davenbelle 07:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
June 12, 2005
Useful and encyclopedic treatment of a form of joke, used as a reference in at least one newspaper article. Talk:Your mom; inbound links. No VfD for the article links to it nor can I find it in a deletion log... was this a speedy against policy? Samaritan 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. Samaritan 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say undelete without even seeing reasons, really. Talk page implies complete enough article, cited as media source, common usage, and so on. --Kiand 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy undelete, it probably got vandalised, at which point User:Filiocht forgot to check the history and speedied it. --W(t) 19:08, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
- Undelete I remember this one, it was quite decent - even listed at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Grue 19:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Took a few minutes -- system kept timing out, busy little wikidroids today I think -- but I've undeleted it. Indeed, it was a mistake. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Eh, can I ask where this has gone AGAIN? --Kiand 19:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User:Malcolm Farmer seems to have speedied without checking history or talk. It was vandalised at the time. --Kiand 19:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
June 8, 2005
I see no justification for the addition of a speedy delete tag and then deletion of this article. It was previously 3 short but factual paragraphs on this comic strip character, the protaganist of a nationally syndicated strip for about a decade. -- Infrogmation 21:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There was really only paragraph which had any meaningful content:
- Castor Oyl is Olive Oyl's brother. He was the main protagonist of Thimble Theater for years before the first appearance of the Popeye character. Castor Oyl continued to be an important character in Segar's Popeye strip, but played little (most usually no) role in the movie and animated cartoon Popeyes produced first by Fleischer Studios and then by Paramount Pictures.