Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brockert (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 8 January 2005 (→‎[[André Nilsen]]: I'm about to delist). 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)

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)

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)

December 28

High Tauern

There used to be this page which I created on November 5 on the basis of the one in the German Wikipedia article([5]). The page seems to have just dissappeared, without me noticing, even though I was watching the page and still am. I couple of pages, including a redirect, are linking to it. I fail to see a reason for deletion. Martg76 23:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • How odd, could we have a temp undelete to see the english article? --fvw* 13:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Undeleted. Looks like it was a mistake during dewillification. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

André Nilsen

There are lots of wiki-links to this person - from 'Oxford Council on Good Governance', 'Norway Scholarship', and 'Norway Model United Nations Society'. Given all the organizations he has set up and all the policy areas in which he is active, it would seem apposite with a brief mention. He is certainly more notable than many other people with a short bio here. Cheers, Erik

This was added at 01:55, Dec 28, 2004, so it expires at 01:55 Jan 7, 2005. It is currently 02:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC), so I am delisting it from this page. Since the proposed undeletion lacks 3 supporters and a majority, the page remains deleted. —Ben Brockert (42)

Keep deleted

  1. keep deleted. "lots" is a wild exaggerration. Mikkalai 22:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Keep Deleted, the wiki links are only there because someone, possibly Andre himself, has been editing them into lots of articles. In most cases they are not relevant to the article and can be safely deleted; If you think removing of the content shouldn't happen, just remove the [[ ]]'s from the link. --fvw* 02:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  3. Keep deleted and delink. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Keep deleted. Content of deleted article recreated (and redeleted) at A. Nilsen today. Part of a persistant promo campaign for the Oxford Council on Good Governance. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Keep deleted. Andris 16:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Keep deleted. There has been no new evidence since the VfD to suggest that the consensus to delete should be invalidated. SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Keep deleted: DCEdwards1966 21:31, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Keep deleted. Incidentally, a Google search for "Andre Nilsen" turns up decidedly unpleasant results, so don't click "I'm feeling lucky." [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ugh. We should keep this article undeleted if for no other reason than to steal the top google spot from that crap. anthony 警告 22:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Keep deleted. VfD is in the normal place: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/André Nilsen jni 17:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Keep deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 09:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Keep deleted. And encourage Erik to get an account, they're free. —Ben Brockert (42) 07:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Nope. Keep deleted. Especially since "Charlotte" recreated the article right before voting here. And she talks about respect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Keep deleted. Valid VfD process. RickK 21:49, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Keep deleted. CryptoDerk 00:23, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Undelete

  1. Undelete; he is clearly important to the context of several other articles. --Ryan! | Talk 16:19, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Several" is wild exaggerration. The article about him says that he is leader/organiser of two student organisations, which are barely notable by themselves, on a brink of VfD. He studied in half-dozen of schools. Still studies in Oxford. Good for him. Mikkalai 22:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Undelete. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 11:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep undeleted. anthony 警告 14:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Undelete. GRider\talk 18:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Before doing a google search, I suggest you learn to spell. Here is the result for André Nilsen. As you can see, he is more than deserving of a Wikipedia entry, returing 43,000 hits. Undelete. Dan100 08:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let he who is capable of formulating a search give the first google link. this is more like it, at less than 10k hits. Exclude wikipedia articles and you're left with 5k hits, the majority of which are about other André Nilsen's. Even I score more google hits than that. --fvw* 09:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
      Comment: I have noted that many previous google tests have not used quotes. I did not use quotes for reasons of fair-testing and consistency. Dan100 09:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comments and anonymous votes

  • Comment: Erik, unfortunately wikipedia is not consistent between what is here and seems to set a precedent, and what will actually survive a Vote for Deletion. I'm sorry if you time has been wasted, but I won't vote because the (broken) procedure appears to have been followed. Kappa 02:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The deletion policy suggests that an article that is many times re-created and deleted should probably exist. Apply the policy. In any case, there is absolutely nothing in our policy that suggests that you have to be a world leader in your field to be "notable".Dr Zen 23:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That suggestion is only a suggestion and not a policy to prevent someone from forcing an article's existence by continually recreating it. If several different people, at different times, create an article on Thimble, then maybe we should have an article on thimbles. If one person continually recreates an article that was deleted by VfD, that is vandalism, and not a suggestion that the article should exist. SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I have actually followed the history of this article and if you bother checking you will in fact see that a number of people in several different countries have contributed to and recreated this article. Don't talk with your head in the sand. Cheers, Erik
        • Erik, the head is up and the eyes wide open. I did check before making that statement. I saw that the recreation of the article was the same text as what was deleted by VfD. So it was by different IPs. No difference. If that's all it took, no article would ever stay deleted. "See, we've recreated it several times so now you have to let it stay." That is clearly not the intention of the caution (which, BTW, does not apply to content deleted by VfD). Reposting content that was deleted by VfD is grounds for speedy deletion, not a way to force undeletion. SWAdair | Talk 23:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That does not make much sense. First, if you disregard the recreation of an article from different IPs, then you make it impossible for the policy to work, which cannot have been the intention of those who wrote it. Second, if the policy says that recreation of deleted articles should be taken as evidence that the article should be allowed to stay, then by definition that policy applies to articles deleted by VfD - what else could it apply to??? This is a good policy, so please pay heed to it. Peter, Oxford
  • Comment: Where is the VfD for this? I have been through the available archives and found nothing. I'd much appreciate it if someone could find it for me! Dan100 09:13, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. A lot of people in several countries have over the past month either repeatedly restored this article or voiced their support for it being allowed to stay. Unfortunately, a bunch of wikipedia-dictators who themselves admit they base their decisions more on emotions than reason keep deleting them and protecting the pages against recreation. According to the wikipedia deletion policy, constant recreation of a deleted page should be taken by the community as a sign that an article should stay. Please respect this. Charlotte
    • The reasons of deletion were presented. Emotions are expressed not towards the article, but towards numerous voters who engage in word games instead of improving the article to the level that would be acceptable for restoration. Mikkalai 19:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think for a lot of people (including myself), no article no matter how nice would do until his notability had increased. --fvw* 20:08, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Looks interesting. Notable enough. How do I get an account here by the way? Sienna
    • You are acting both obtuse and insulting. There is a link to Create an account or log in on every page on Wikipedia. Further, you are the same editor as "Peter, Oxford", which is easy to see in your IPs and contribs. I expect that if I check the other contribs, I will find that you are also "Charlotte" and "Erik". Does your real name sound like André Nilsen? —Ben Brockert (42) 00:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry to disappoint you but did it ever occur to you that in a university with several thousand students and faculty quite a few people will actually share the same first numbers in an IP address? No? I thought so. Don't worry. You know it now.
        • It is very unlikely that two different users would have their edit histories mesh so well. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:34, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Given the lack of consensus, the article should be allowed to stay. Peter, Oxford
    • Also note, both unsigned votes above came from 163.1.160.* CryptoDerk 00:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The article should stay. Koovah:3M
    • YA-UselessAnonVote.
  • Undelete this article. Can someone please restore the original version - the longer one? Per Arne
  • Undelete. Rafael
    • That's odd, a month ago you were called christiane. --fvw* 02:26, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Liquid Democracy

Jimbo received an in-person question about this one at the conference he's currently attending, so I undeleted it for its stay here to help he and his questioner find out what was happening - helping him to present a good impression seems worthwhile. Jamesday 21:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liquid Democracy. Mikkalai 00:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Unlike those who voted to delete, I'm familiar with this. The concept exists and is distinct from the concepts in the see also section. If you do a google check, do remember not to exclude every page which links to the Wikipedia page explaining the concept the page is talking about...:) Jamesday 21:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Same, undelete. Danny 21:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, still a non-notable neologism. I'm fine with the temp-undeleting for VfU though, perhaps we could always do that? --fvw* 13:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Undelete. --Ryan! | Talk 16:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. GRider\talk 18:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: I agree that a temp undelete might be usful for the VfU process. Any temp undelete should probably be protected. DCEdwards1966 21:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Protecting a temp undelete is sometimes acceptable (although protecting a page which is listed on VfD isn't). Destroying the page first, then protecting it, isn't acceptable either. anthony 警告 21:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Legitimate article, cannot see any reason for deletion. Dan100 09:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep deleted. No proofs of notability of concept. Of two ext links in the article, one is one-guy phylosophy, the second one is blog that discusses the first one. Mikkalai 20:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This page has been "temporarily undeleted" for a week now, and Anthony decided to move the temp VfU header to the talk page to make it more obscure. Can we redelete it now, since the votes are clearly to Keep deleted? RickK 21:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • No. See Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Mikkalai 23:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this vote violates the policy, since there was no notice at the VFD page, see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. Doing this now and request the extenstion of the term (nonexpired anyway.) Mikkalai 23:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your cooperation. Since the Undeletion request was not done appropriately, as you clearly indicated above, this undeletion is inappropriate, and I will re-delete it. RickK`
        • A rather unexpected interpretation of the word "cooperation", I must say. :-) Mikkalai 00:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Works for me. But if a proper VfU comes up, consider this a keep deleted vote. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=9192242"