Encyclopedia > Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

  Article Content

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

Stuff is deleted by administrators. Generally these decisions are correct, in accordance with policy, 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.

This page exists for people to challenge deletions that they feel were incorrect, or did not go through the proper process, or where the authors were not kept informed. It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged.

Having this page does not allow sysops to ignore the rules set out in Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages. The undeletion process remains painful, so care should be taken.

The process is: if you wish to undelete an article, list it here. A sysop will then undelete the article, and list the article on wikipedia:votes for deletion. Further discussion can take place on the votes for deletion page, and after a week the undeleted page will either be deleted again, or left undeleted.

Hint for sysops: You may want to add /w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Undelete&target=%s to your bookmarks as a Mozilla custom keyword (http://www.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords). This allows you to bypass the currently impractical undeletion interface. If you don't use Mozilla, you could still hack a bookmarklet, or just copy and paste the URL with the "%s" replaced by the page title. Remember to use the title in its canonical representation, e.g. "Main Page" becomes "Main_Page". Note that the page will not be undeleted until you click "Restore!", so you can view individual revisions without undeleting them.

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 Flintsone. 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.


Table of contents

Votes for undeletion

did not give any reason for the deletion. page was never listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

not by 24.

not by 24

  • 03:19 30 Jun 2003 Eloquence deleted "Wikicide" (idiosyncratic junk)
    • It had only been up on "votes for deletion" for two days. People who demonstrate that they can't be trusted to follow the rules should be struck off as administrators, in my opinion. GrahamN 04:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • "Wikicide is the malicious destruction of wikipedia pages in pursuit of imposing some sort of absolute frame of reference one-sidedly seen as 'neutral' point of view." This meets my definition of "no useful content"; see Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages. --Eloquence 04:47 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • To Graham: you mean struck off as developer, I think. Eloquence is one of the 6 highly trusted users with a developer account, and the only one who is also an active editor. -- Tim Starling 04:51 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Forgot to say: the proponents of this idea can resurrect it in meta or in the user namespace -- those are the proper places for personal views about the nature of Wikipedia. There's not much point in undeleting it when you have the entire text quoted above. -- Tim Starling 06:29 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  • JT has deleted 2003 in sports and replaced it with the same content, apparently to remove DW/etc from the history. Is this strictly legal? Isn't there a requirement for authorship to be acknowledged? Evercat 12:16 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I've undeleted it so that a discussion can take place. Martin 15:45 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm afraid that the GFDL won't let us violate even DW's copyright. -- Toby Bartels 16:04 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

done. user:Anthere

  • Right Back, Long Beach Dub Allstars
    • Undeleted, listed on VfD, now redeleted. Anyone for another round? -- Tim Starling 03:31 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus to delete these, and I put some work into verifying these entries that is now lost. Please restore them. Martin 09:09 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll take that as a yes. (Note that Martin didn't see my comment above until after he wrote his). -- Tim Starling 13:37 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes on both counts :) Martin 08:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


As I understood, it existed on the english wiki, an article named Law of Eristic Escalation. It has been reported to me the article was deleted. I certainly do not want to claim this article has to be restored, but I would be interested for it to be for a little while. We are heading, I think, toward troubles on the french wikipedia, on ultraliberalism and macroeconomics matters, and I think this article could be a reference to understand some of the points in discussion. If there is no discussion page, I would be interested if somebody knowledgeable could explain why it was deleted.

Incidentally, I would also appreciate if someone with understanding of liberalism, ultraliberalism and libertarianism check these articles and indicate if there might be trouble on them. Thanks. I might report these somewhere if needed. User:anthere

I can't find a page called "Law of Eristic Escalation" or anything similar in the list of deleted pages. There's a link to it from anomie, but as far as I can make out, the page has never been made. --Camembert 15:16 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See [1] (http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/eristic_escalation). It's a discordian concept... Martin

Thanks :-) I think this should help (hum...) the conflict. ROFL ant

  • 06:20 1 Jun 2003 Eloquence deleted "User talk:Administration[?]" (banned for good)
  • 06:20 1 Jun 2003 Eloquence deleted "User:Administration" (banned for good)
    • I object. These pages are by an annoying vandal who has created dozens of nicks, they are useless and confusing because they will show up in a user search for "administration". --Eloquence 23:31 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • This is an argument. Where are the references of the discussions which lead to the first ban ? On these pages, or elsewhere ? If this person comes back under another nick and is said to be "administration", would these pages then be undeleted ? Or would the person be banned without further discussion, or were the reasons for the ban saved somewhere else ? ant
        • The original nick of the user was "The Stick", and he came back under various permutations. He vandalized hundreds of pages and was banned and reverted repeatedly; see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. There's no valuable information on the above pages. Please sign your comments, Anthere, and if you are so interested in how the housekeeping process works, I suggest you apply for sysop status. I'll set you up right away. --Eloquence 00:04 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
          • I trust you when you say there is no valuable information in these pages. No need to undelete these pages then. Thank you for your answer Erik. I know for the sysop stuff. I am just not yet decided...but the idea is making its way, no fear ;-) (eh, I cleaned up a anom Michael edit this evening). Ant

  • 21:17 May 1, 2003 JohnOwens deleted "War of the Pacific" (banned user trying to sneak back in) full text: "The War of the Pacific was fought between Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. Chile gained substantial land, with rich nitrate fields from both of the other two countries."
    • This is a one-two sentence stub that I think could probably be restored. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I just re-created it by making it as a new page rather than an undeletion, just so we don't have "its" name attached to it. Just feels cleaner that way. If you really want the old history, I think it can still be undeleted and the histories will be merged, if I understand correctly? -- John Owens 09:03 26 May 2003 (UTC)


Images deleted
  • 20:32 May 1, 2003 Infrogmation deleted "Image:Baboon.jpe" (Banned user)
  • 03:15 Apr 30, 2003 Zoe deleted "Image:Babboon.jpg" (deleting banned user's contribution)
    • Deleted images can't be undeleted or viewed by sysops, and I can't recall the nature of this image. You'll have to ask Zoe or infrogmation for their reasons. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm almost certain that these were pictures of a monkey in a dress that Zog was adding to pages on civil rights activists. Deletion seems more than reasonable if so. --Camembert 19:39 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
      • Those were some of the pictures of monkeys/apes that Zog uploaded and was putting on the Martin Luther King and/or Rosa Parks page(s) as their picture. Admittedly, there's nothing wrong with the picture itself, but since it wasn't even being used on the actual baboon article (if there is one, dunno yet), just for the vandalism, I figured removing it would be slightly more effective than editing the article where he would just revert it almost as quickly as I could. -- John Owens 19:43 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
        • there is no picture in the baboon article. It would have been worth keeping it. Anthere
    • The photo was uploaded by a user I percieved as a vandalizing troll up to deliberate mischief, who was inserting the photo in artiles on prominent African Americans with captions like "Young Rosa Parks". I deleted the photo as part of an attempt to minimize the damage the vandal was doing. The vandal didn't state where the image was from; I doubt making sure it had no copyright problems was among the vandal's conserns. I don't see any good reason to undelete the photo; if we need a photo of a baboon, we should find a public domain one or one we can otherwise use without fear of later finding out it is copyrighted. -- Infrogmation 01:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Recently undeleted Most recent at bottom.

  • 07:15 May 11, 2003 Zoe deleted "User talk:Zxcvb" (banned user) (Martin undeleted, because the reasons for a ban should be kept)
  • 07:15 May 11, 2003 Zoe deleted "User:Zxcvb" (banned user) (Martin undeleted)
  • 19:28 May 2, 2003 Zoe deleted "User talk:Zog/ban" (banned user) (Martin undeleted for acountability)
  • 21:17 May 1, 2003 JohnOwens deleted "Aymara" (banned user trying to sneak back in) (Martin restored it as history only. full text: "A common language amongst highland Bolivians and Peruvians. Considered an official language by both nations.")

  • 22:42 May 13, 2003 172 deleted "Thats how a nigger goes" (a racist copyright violation by banned user Zog, much of whose work has already been deleted, added to the votes for deletion) (I undeleted this - it was a valid redirect)

  • 10:00 Apr 27, 2003 Maveric149 deleted "Open Campaign" (Article by banned user 142.177 (content and links to disinfopedia prove this)
    • Open Campaign, however, talks about a Greenpeace definition, and fails the google test (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Open+Campaign%22+Greenpeace&meta=), so I think it can stay deleted. Martin 16:56 24 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I listed it on VfD Martin 18:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)
    • VfD folks decided not to delete it, after Anthere worked on it a bit.

  • 17:42 31 May 2003 Kils deleted "User:Viking[?]" (project of my children - deleted after threats)
    • This was a history only restore, so I did so. I'll mention it to user:Vikings and ask them if they want to list the page on VfD... Martin 00:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • listed on VfD and deleted by consensus, following Vikings request. Martin 19:45 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  • 17:41 31 May 2003 Kils deleted "User talk:Viking/ban[?]" (project of my children - deleted after threats)
    • This was already undeleted by Brion.
    • listed on VfD and deleted by consensus, following Vikings request. Martin 19:45 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Deletions recently upheld Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. Most recent at the bottom, generally:

  • 21:17 May 1, 2003 JohnOwens deleted "Santa Cruz, Bolivia[?]" (banned user trying to sneak back in)
    • This was a zero content stub: text ~ "city in Bolivia", and deletion probably justified on those grounds alone. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

  • 00:38 Apr 2, 2003 TUF-KAT deleted "St. Anger" (nothing to roll back User:Weezer's non-contribution to)
    • Since someone has recreated this article by reposting the content, I undeleted it, so it's in the history. At the time of deletion it had zero content - "non-contribution" is accurate. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)



All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

 
  Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!
 
 
  
  Featured Article
Great River, New York

... 11.9 km² (4.6 mi²) of it is land and 1.2 km² (0.4 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 8.91% water. Demographics As of the census of 2000, ...

 
 
 
This page was created in 36.8 ms