Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wile E. Heresiarch (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 10 January 2005 (→[[Dumbrella]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

Articles and multimedia are occasionally deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a decent reason for deletion. 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 undeletion 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.

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

Temporary undeletion

Votes for undeletion

Admins - please review the deleted history of these requests and provide the most complete version for discussion here.

Add new article listings below here

January 7

Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause

Update 02:30, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC): These templates were created ten hours before the injunction took effect. They were improperly deleted. Please be reminded that their content is not relevant, it is their improper deletion which is the issue. - Vague | Rant 02:30, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have restored these as they were indeed improperly deleted. The debate on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion will probably end in their deletion, but they ought to be debated properly. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These templates were deleted because User:CheeseDreams has a temporary injunction from editing articles: [1]. A template is not an article, and these two templates should not have been deleted. They were, at the time of deletion, on TFD: [2]. The TFD process should be allowed to be completed, and as such these templates will need to be restored. - Vague | Rant 10:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: Is this vote valid/legal if the original vote has not ended? These templates are still being Voted for Deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause [3] for a number of reasons and NOT just because the user who created them was facing an Injunction [4]. The templates in question were not brief but contained long POV statements (not approved by anyone) that contributed to the user's history of editwarring. IZAK 11:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted.IZAK 11:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Hopeless POV templates that can only cause lots of strife. Also created by a user User:CheeseDreams/User:Cheese Dreams/User:Cheese dreams who has been given a temporary injunction order to temporarily cease editing any article relating to Christianity due to her extensive POV-warring. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted! I don't care about the injuction against the templates' creator, I'm only concearned about their content. As religious NPOV issues are not exclusive the Bible, these two templates are highly discriminative against biblical religions. Please be reasonable. Etz Haim 16:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Hopelessly POV, and in my opinion creation of these templates, by a sockpuppet, was an attempt to do an end-run around the injunction. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Mischievous, can do nothing but cause trouble. Stating that an article is NPOV is sufficient. Giving a specific reason why it is NPOV is itself inserting a POV. The NPOV notice itself should be as neutral as possible. The details should be hashed out on the article's talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. 172 17:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and let voting continue un-interrupted on WP:TFD. There is no clause in the deletion policy nor the specific arbitration that allowed this to be deleted. CheeseDreams is banned from editing Christianity articles, not templates. Punish the insertion of the template into articles, but leave template deletion discussion where it needs to be. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    • Let me add onto my vote this comment- in their current deleted state, non-sysops cannot see the content, and so cannot properly evaluate either this vote, or the still-going one on WP:TFD. Request immediate undeletion on these grounds. -- Netoholic @ 21:06, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) 18:21, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. That our procedure here be regular is important. In my opinion, Netoholic is right. "Punish the insertion of the template into articles, but leave template deletion discussion where it needs to be." ---Rednblu | Talk 20:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Personally, I am of the opinion that a common bias occurs in bible religion related articles. Adding the NPOV notice and then adding comments to explain why it has NPOV issues, when each comment is basically the same complaint - that the text, which supposedly describes factual opinion, actually appears to describe opinions based on faith and not on academic study. Needlessly repeating the same text seems silly, and as this is a common issue, there seems a point to creating a template. CheeseDreams 00:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Content of BPOV is:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
It is alleged that this article currently assumes the accuracy of, or concentrates only on the account according to, the Bible.
A more critical interpretation, or alternate account, may exist and should be incorporated if it does.
Content of BPOVbecause is:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
It is alleged that this article currently assumes the accuracy of, or concentrates only on the account according to, the Bible.
A more critical interpretation, or alternate account, may exist and should be incorporated if it does.
A rough description of the more critical interpretation or missing alternate account is: {{{1}}}

{{{1}}}

That should take care of any discussion needs. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I love the way it is now "POV" to suggest that an article is biased, but not "POV" to bias it in the first place. Of course it's POV! Everything is an POV! NPOV is about adding in all POVs, not pretending that there aren't any!Dr Zen 03:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DrZen, in that case please add the opposing viewpoint to the template. (Which, by the way, is that the word of God is inerrant). Something like "However, there are Christians who believe that the word of God is inerrant and is complete". That will make the template more NPOV. Of course, it will also make the template useless, but at least it will add in "all POVs" into the template and satisfy your view of NPOV. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I promise to do so if it is undeleted. What you are saying is not actually the counter to what CheeseDreams suggests. The correct wording would be "However, there are some Christians who believe that because the Bible is inerrant, it is indisputable on this subject". I'll add that if it is undeleted and I will join you in preventing CD from POVing it.Dr Zen 07:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note, that since the templates {{BPOV}} and {{BPOVbecause}} ALSO effect the faiths of Judaism and Islam that are rooted in the Bible, therefore, to include comments in a template that will mention only Christianity,will lack in accuracy and completion and not make sense as a "NPOV" template. Therefore, these templates should not be allowed to exist at all, and we should all learn to live with the standard Wikipedia {{NPOV}} template with any needed added comments on relevant Talk pages. IZAK 15:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dumbrella

The article was removed due to incorrect VFD procedure. Voting was going for only 2 days with two keeps and 5 deletes. Then it was delisted from vfd and 2 weeks later the article mysteriously disappeared. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dumbrella. Grue 07:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • From the log: 04:17, Dec 29, 2004 SimonP deleted Dumbrella (listed on VfD, votes 5-2 in favour of deletion) Can you provide a link to the "improperly combined vote"? 5/7 is "rough consensus" in my book, so keep deleted. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue brought up wasn't the tally, it was the length of the vote. I see it was listed on VfD at 06:29, 2004 Dec 21 and was listed until 21:11, 2004 Dec 27. Seems in order to me. -- Netoholic @ 09:03, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
But isn't it suspicious that most of the people who vote on VFD on a regular basis completely missed this nomination? I'll blame Christmas for that - maybe the people who vote "keep" on everything had better things to do during that time. Still, I think it was a proper article (you can see no one gave a good reason to delete it, "not notable" doesn't count) which was created long ago, and if it was listed at another time, I'm sure the consensus would be to keep. Grue 10:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it wasn't suspicious. I vote on VfD on a fairly regular basis but I vote selectively. My best reason for voting is when I actually have some special knowledge bearing on the topic. I have other less commendable reasons for voting, but I certainly don't attempt to vote systematically on every debate, particularly on obvious deletes whose outcome does not seem to be in doubt. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No obvious or significant violation of process, probably no violation at all, and nothing about the article suggests that the outcome was inappropriate. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Deleted content consisted of a single sentence, a list of six members of Dumbrella, and a link to http://www.dumbrella.com. Single sentence was: Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Dumbrella is an alliance of webcomic artists who promote one another's sites, travel to conventions, and sell merchandise together.
    • Well, Keenspot is 4 sentences, a list of members and some links. I don't see how it is a better article. Any kind of information is useful in Wikipedia and having these 6 comics in one place would've been very handy. Grue 19:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Properly deleted according to process, no compelling reason to undelete. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There was no compelling reason to delete it either. Grue 18:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I know nothing about the article nor about the Vfd arguments, but the fact that it was deleted following process means that it cannot come up again for undeletion just because you don't like the results. RickK 23:13, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The process was obviously faulty, 7 votes is way below average, and 2 days vote span is ridiculous. Grue 06:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. No problem with the vfd process, & no new evidence of notability has come to light. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 6

Taikyoku sandan

A karate exercise, currently the only red link in Shotokan karate. It's the last of a series of 3. #2 in the series, Taikyoku nidan, is in VFD at the moment, and appears to have a near consensus to merge. From the deletion log, the contents were: Third (and last) of the Taikyoku Shotokan kata series. Same layout as the two first ones (1,2), b... Kappa 00:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be undeleted to be merged; I'll just give you the contents. Is that sufficient? —Ben Brockert (42) 03:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well OK, I merged it with Taikyoku shodan, the first in the series. Thanks Kappa 06:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is a violation of the GFDL to copy/paste content without attribution. anthony 警告 00:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I removed it from this page. The article it was merged into was written by the same IP as the deleted page, so there's attrib there. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

January 5

Jam 1575

This is an article about a UK student radio station which is listed in List of UK radio stations. Please have a look at this list before commenting on this undeletion request. I would like somebody to give me a valid reason why this particular radio station should be deleted while others on this list should not. The station broadcasts on AM, like many other stations in this list, and is a community radio station, like many others in this list - it is no more 'unnotable' than them. This article was also much more detailed than the articles of many of the other stations in the list.

There is no Wikipedia policy on radio station articles, so rather than telling me whether or not the VfD was legit, I would like someone to tell me the reasoning behind why someone cherry picked this particluar station for deletion out of the many which are listed and have articles on Wikipedia. This list was becoming a comprehensive guide to UK radio stations, a small and very useful part of Wikipedia which people should be proud of. Instead, people whith little apparent knowledge of this part of Wikipedia seem intent on taking parts of it away, without respect for the comprehensiveness or usefulness of this list. Please restore this article so that it can exist alongside other articles for other stations which are just as notable as this one. PJBeef 01:59 5 January 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably notable. Best to be on the safe side. Undelete. Tim Ivorson 10:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The article hasn't been deleted so this is not a matter for VfU. But if you want an explanation for the VfD: It's a small university radio station with nothing to make it special or out of the ordinary. That level of notability mandates a small mention in the university article at best. --fvw* 11:08, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • The article is now only a redirect page with the history wiped and all the information deleted. To me it is notable simply because it's a radio station. Do you really think it's right to go through List of UK radio stations and delete some articles because you think they're not as big as the others listed?
  • The history is all there now. Either it was undeleted or it was never deleted. The VfD can be seen at Talk:Jam 1575. The version nominated to VfD deserved to be deleted. I support the VfD process (it's less than 2 watts! My computer speakers are more powerful), but if I was PJBeef, I'd wait a couple weeks, then put up a better version of the page in place of the redirect and see if anyone complains. —Ben Brockert (42) 23:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

January 4

Defunct Games

I created a article for Defunct Games yesterday, and it seems to be missing, there is no VfD history or anything... and i looked at the description for speedy deletion, and it doesnt seem to have violated any of those rules.

Defunct Games is a NPO, and was not put in here for advertizing... I figure if you have Burger King, Pepsi, and numurous other companies, then why not Defunct Games... if you want a better detailed description, let me know, I can supply anything that would make it a valid entry

  • This was deleted as a self-promotion. It looks to me like a grey-area speedy for that reason, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and restoring it for now. Honestly, though, unless this company is truly notable, it's liable to be deleted at some point anyway. My advice would be for you to do your best to establish notability as best you can. – ClockworkSoul 08:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted it because in tone and presentation it really felt like a vanity page. Apparently that was not the case, and I apologize. I agree with ClockworkSoul though, if you don't establish notability it likely will end up on VfD. Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 1

Sex Diet

I created a Sex Diet article. It was deleted for being an advert, which is ridiculous. My only guess is that the person who deleted it was not educated on the subject. I know the name is "sensational", but a Sex Diet is actually recognized by members of both the American Academy of Clinical Sexologists and the Female Sexual Medical Center at UCLA School of Medicine. If you speak to a sexologist about a Sex Diet and sexual nutrition, chances are pretty good they are familiar with it.

I'm guessing that the "advert" claim is because of the link to the book site. I only put that link up because it is the only current comprehensive book on the matter. It would be just as easy to take the link down but I think it's helpful for anyone who wants to learn about it (I'm not going to sit here and type in all 150 pages of a copywritten book). Heck, if you don't like what I wrote, research it for yourself and edit it, but don't delete it. (above from User:Lovelyrita)

  • I undeleted this; it looked like an invalid speedy to me. "Looking like an advert" is not a cause for speedy deletion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Good call, I'll probably VfD it unless it gets serious cleanup and improvement soon, but it wasn't a CSD. --fvw* 17:03, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Lovelyrita: I recommend you read wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view, since you may be the best person to rewrite the article to conform with it. Kappa 20:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bolivarian Revolution

and Revolución Bolivariana seems to be a talk page on this but no actual article - is this normal? The talk page has some very anti-chavez sentiments on it ... Is this the reason the Bolivarian revolution links don't work in Hugo Chavez? I would like the article (if there is one) reinstated and linked to Hugo Chavez cheers, user:max rspct 20.56 1st jan 2005 (utc)

December 31

Medical Specialist Centre

There was this article and I recreated it. However, many opposed to the deletion, although a few wanted to keep it. Reasons why the article should be here:

  1. No reasons why Hospital articles should be deleted. There are many other Hospital articles, see [[category:Hospitals and List of Hospitals There are a lot of Hospitals, and many people opposes to the existence of the article. However, many other Hospital articles were not vfd and I tested one of them, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and everybody agreed to keep the article. The Medical Specialist Centre is also a Hospital article, but why should it be deleted since others are not? I didn't mean that I was jealous, but I vfd the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario simply for a comparison. Why should decent hospitals be deleted?

For your information, the article was deleted by Gtabary

If anyone thinks that the article should exist or not, please vote.

Thanks. Chan Han XiangChan Han Xiang01.18, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

  • Clarification: The article was not deleted by Gtabary, who is not an admin and thus could not do so. The article has now been deleted three times; once following a VfD; the other two times on the Dec. 29th and the Dec. 31st, after having been recreated by the author. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Legitimate hospital article. Undelete. anthony 警告 19:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Was deleted within process. Also, in the VfD of the very notable hospital mentioned above, User:Geogre put it best: "Medical Specialist Centre" was subliterate, misnamed, and established no notability of the thing at all. Its author is now peevishly VfD nominating things in revenge. Chan Han Xiang's recreation of this article after it was deleted multiple times is a waste of time and misuse of the Wiki process. CryptoDerk 19:39, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Question; where is the vfd debate? Dunc|☺ 19:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - VFD seems in order - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: DCEdwards1966 21:33, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Legit article. Dan100 08:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Deleted after valid VfD, re-created twice in abuse of VfD. Jayjg | (Talk) 09:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. VfD was legitimate. Mackensen (talk) 17:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Though VfD appears to have been legitimate, creator seems to show a willingness to create a new stubby version, and edit for NPOV. If restored article needs editing, edit it — and label it as needing cleanup. Gavin White 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (PST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=9245027"