Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpbsmith (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 5 August 2005 (→[[Breathanach]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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:

  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 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.
  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.

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.

July 28, 2005

Efed

The article was deleted by User:Hedley with no initially apparent reason given (on the Efed talk page, or anywhere else), nor was there any VfD process, requested merge template added, nada, zip.

Following a request on the Help Desk, a helpful administrator informed me that 'According to the deletion log: User:Hedley deleted "Efed" reason given: (Deleting as a clearly better, more NPOV article exists already at e-wrestling)'. Hedley has worked extensively on the e-wrestling article, and so may indeed feel this is the case. I did note that he didn't even bother to have Efed even redirect to the e-wrestling page.

It would be very helpful for the Efed article to be restored, in order for all salient and non-duplicated information to be merged, instead of an arbitrary deletion. The article could then be removed without a lot of people's work being tanked at the whims of one admin. Proto t c 09:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updated - a user has now put a redirect on the Efed page, however, the history of the article is still inaccesible. Proto t c 09:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I haven't worked extensively on that article. I undeleted Efed's history earlier but it didn't seem to work. Then, when I gone to try again, it said it has no history. I don't know what's happened. :/ Hedley 21:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outagraph

Surrealist technique invented by Ted Joans. In case claims of vanity are made here, request made in response to suggestion by Classicjupiter2. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To what location are you asking for the history to be sent? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary undeletion

5 August

Breathanach

Discussions about an overall policy on including conlangs are ongoing at Wikipedia:Conlangs. This page should be restored pending the outcome of those discussions. Pete Bleackley --132.185.132.12 13:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Breathanach for the vfd debate related to this article.

  • I support this. 11D/9K can hardly be considered consensus, and before deleting cases like this one I think we ought to await the results of the discussion over there. --IJzeren Jan 13:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - look at the consensus again, I have updated the header to illustrate why I believed there was consensus to delete when I closed the discussion. I don't believe a temporary undeletion would be appropriate if community consensus is to delete the article anyway. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted No need to wait for proposed policy; article was voted on its own merits. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Even if the policy decides that many conlangs arenotable, that certainly does NOT invalidate every previous conlang deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete The closer counts this as 12D/6K, which is exactly 66%, the lower limit of consensus by most standards I ahve seen. But the closer discounted several Keep votes. Two of these had under 50 but over 30 edits. There is no suggestion that these are sock puppets or accoutns created to game the VfD system, nor accounts that do little or nothing but vote on VfD. One of them is said to edit mostly on articles related to Conlangs, but I see no reason why a topic specialization should disallow a voter. If those two are included, we have 12D/8K, or 60%, which seems rather low for deletion consensus. Particualrly in view of the ongoing general policy debate mentioned above, undeletion seems warrented by these facts, although it is a close call. Note that I have no opnion on the merits of the article itself, this is solely an opnion about process. DES (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted without prejudice against recreation if it is determined that this conlang meets the inclusion criteria for conlangs after they are completed. I'm puzzled why this discussion was initiated before consensus is hammered out on inclusion. android79 15:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Because, pending a policy decision, I would think it better to give the article the benefit of the doubt. That's why I voted to undelete the two languages below, even though one of them seems to be a jokelang, and probably unlikely to make the cut once policy is decided. While there's an ongoing debate about criteria for inclusion within a particular field, preempting that debate by deleting articles within that field before a consensus has been reached seems like a bad idea. Pete Bleackley

1 August

DiLingo and Aingeljã

Would someone please be so kind as to undelete these articles and move them to my userspace? The person who closed the VfDs had a personal stake in their deletion, and I intend on creating articles on both of these languages in the Interlingua wikipedia. I'd need the original English text to translate them, and the history function to show who edited what (with the GFDL and all). Almafeta 01:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this proposal. Actually, I don't think these two articles need to be moved to anyone's userspace for the time being. Since currently a discussion is going on about objective criteria for establishing a conlang's notability (See Wikipedia:Conlangs), I propose that we restore the two pages in question and keep their VFDs open. Once we decide upon notability criteria, I'm ready to reevaluate any conlang represented here.
For the record, I think the person who closed the VFDs not only had a personal stake in their deletion, but manipulated the votes in a very subjective way, way below the dignity of an administrator (See User talk:Wile E. Heresiarch#Deleting DiLingo and Aingeljã. This deletion should never have taken place at all! --IJzeren Jan 11:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the talk pages referenced by the two editors above and don't see any context indicating that the deleting admin had a personal stake in their deletion other than the assertions of same by IJZeren Jan. I didn't vote on these articles' deletion, but it looks to me like IJzeren wants to reap the benefits of Assume Good Faith without extending the same courtesy to Wile E. Heresiarch. Do you have any real evidence that Wile has some axe to grind other than that he deleted something you are interested in based on a majority vote, or are you just flinging accusations at him in the hopes that something will stick? Nandesuka 12:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all assuming Bad Faith on Wile's part. I'm only saying that is abuses his capacities as an administrator to push his own ponit of view. Look: he has a history of issuing VfDs, and that's fine with me. He is entitled to vote in VfDs and to give his opinion, and that's also fine with me. That in the case of constructed languages he does so by uttering insults at the address of both the conlangers and the wikipedians who write the articles in question is less fine to me, but there's no law against rudeness. What really bothers me is that he first participates in every discussion as the most radical deletionist, and then steps forward as the administrator who concludes the vote. As I pointed out, his way of counting votes (discarding votes of anyone with less than 100 edits) is manipulative. Because really, no one would consider an 8 to 12 vote "rough consensus", and even if you discount two voters who joined áfter the vote was started. In the past, articles have been preserved with a smaller minority for keeping.
Like I said, I'm not assuming Bad Faith on Wile's part. I just noticed a few oddities and tempted him to justify his actions. Sadly, all he could come up with was restating his own personal views. --IJzeren Jan 12:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you referred to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators in your comment on Wile's talk page, I'm sure you're very well aware that that page explicitly warns administrators not to delete pages that they nominate for deletion. Which clearly indicates that there is absolutely nothing wrong with an administrator deleting an article whose deletion they voted for. Basically, I read your comments as saying that you're irritated that Wiley is an active member of the community who has opinions that differ from yours, and edits boldly. I haven't followed the conlang discussions at all: it doesn't really interest me. But at least in terms of this vote for deletion and undeletion, the only person I see "uttering insults" is you. In your comments you've been absolutely unable to go three whole sentences without being insulting. If you are not trying to imply Bad Faith on Wile's part (what else do you mean by the phrase "beneath the dignity of an administrator"? You'd like to ask him out to the Prom?), then I am the Queen of Spain. Nandesuka 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I haven't been as subtle as I am used to in my wording; if so, that is because I am genuinely irritated). I surely didn't mean to insult anybody. Anyway, the problem is not that Wile's opinion is different from mine. The problem is the way Wile concludes the VfD, not his voting behaviour. Indeed, I read the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, and one of the things I saw there is that the administrator in question is supposed to be as neutral as humanly possible. I also read the page about Good Faith, and my conclusion was that the only reason to discard a vote, even an anynomous one, is when there is a very good reason to assume Bad Faith. I asked him to confirm or deny this, but like I said, all I got in reply was his personal reasons for voting delete, not for his way of concluding the vote. Any administrator should at least be able to explain his actions. I didn't mean to insult Wile, but his own wording is insulting not only to all conlangers, but only to a fair number of fellow wikipedians. --IJzeren Jan 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To which I want to add one thing: you write that I am the only person you see uttering insults. Have you read the discussions at the various VFDs? Before they had even come to my attention, Wile had already written plenty of insulting stuff on them. Quote: "Destroy all micronations and their conlangs", "vanity, advert, nonnotable" et sim. It is of course utterly childish to start a discussion about who started what, but before you start attacking me, please be at least aware of what happened before. And for the record: the word "vanity" is insulting, at least to me! --IJzeren Jan 18:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DiLingo and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aingeljã. Attempts were made to skew recent votes on conlang articles by recruiting voters from various forums [1] [2] [3]. To forestall these efforts to game the vfd system, I discounted voters (both keep and delete) with fewer than 100 edits; note that most of the discounted voters had many fewer than 100 edits. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there you are! Hello to you too! So you do assume bad faith after all, right? Sorry, but what is wrong about bringing a VFD to the attention of a group of knowledgeable people? The arguments of a knowledgeable person bear a hell of a lot more weight to me than the empty slogans of someone ignorant who just skims through all VFDs on a daily base (for the record, that is nót meant to be an insult). Myself, I have a wife, children, a fulltime job, friends, hobbies and plenty of other stuff to attend to, and I simply don't have the time to check all VFDs constantly. Since not every article that interests me is on my watchlist, I rather appreciate being notified about a VFD in some other way, within or without WP.
Anyway, you are right that these VFDs were brought to the attention of the conlang community (but link #3 is just a mirror of link #2). So what? For the record, I think only three, perhaps four people joined the discussion because they were recruited, and at least one of them voted for deletion. And these people used arguments, Wile; instead of just counting their edits, you could also have responded to those. But the sad truth is that I still haven't heard a single argument from you, only vague generalisations about non-notability and accusations about vanity, adverting and promoting.
Apart from that, how somebody is notified is irrelevant. Relevant is whether or not somebody can be considered a real wikipedian, or just a sockpuppet or someone who only came to manipulate the results. Honestly, I wouldn't blame you for discarding the votes of those who created their account áfter the vote had started, or the votes of anonymous voters, or even the votes of those who already had an account but used it in these VFDs for the first time. But several others did have an account and a number of edits on their name. A number of high-quality edits, I should add. Some people, including myself I hope, simply don't have the time for thousands of edits, but when they dó contribute something, it's either a full-blown article (never a stub) or a valuable addition. By the way, you already started counting edits before anyone had tried to notify anybody. I wasn't the only one annoyed by that. So what is all this edit-counting really about?
But here comes my point: how on Earth can a vote be legitimate if the edit barrier is only established a posteriori? Why 100 edits, and not 50? Or 500, for that matter? Sorry, but don't be surprised if you come accross as manipulative if you a) express your negative opinions about conlangs in a rather aggressive way; b) push yourself forward as the neutral administrator who closes the vote; c) raise an edit barrier of 100, a number that was never mentioned during the entire discussion; d) were in quite a hurry delete two articles where a clear majority (60% or more) was in favour of deleting, but didn't even think of closing the vote in four closely related VFDs, where an equally clear majority was in favour of keeping.
If you can't come up with a better justification of your behaviour, then please do us a favour, undelete the pages and move them to Almafeta's userspace. Mind you, I have nothing to do with both conlangs, so accusing me of promoting anything would be silly.
Regards, IJzeren Jan 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, that's all well and good. But may I please have them moved to my userspace, so I can translate them? I don't really care what justification you used to have them deleted here, since that's what you set out to do, but the standards at ia: are somewhat different. Almafeta 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes undelete along with history at least long enough for Almafeta to copy them. Maybe reconsider them (or at least Aingeljã) in September, when or if the draft policy being discussed at Wikipedia:Conlangs becomes official, and depending on whether its final content. I'm not sure I understand Almafeta's reasons for wanting the history or Tεx's reasons for not wanting to undelete it; if either of them offers reasons, I'll consider modifying my vote. (I shouldn't be surprised if we eventually want articles about one or both at eo: as well, though I don't care strongly enough about them to translate them myself. The fact that Aingeljã has a significant corpus of text in the language probably makes it just interesting enough for eo:.) --Jim Henry | Talk 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

30 July

Ronald Molina

The Ronald Molina article was deleted as vanity, and probably rightfully so. Unfortunately since the creation of that article, the editor who created the article, Ronald20 (talk · contribs), has been doing a bunch of problematic edits—some good, but most of them nonsense. I'd like to see this article to see if I can find any clues that would help me keep this editor from getting banned permanently from the Wikipedia. I'd also like to see the edit history for the article to see if my suspicions about some IPs might be confirmed. BlankVerse ∅ 06:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article went through a number of different versions (18 edits total), all without any true meaningful content even as a vanity page. The most complete one had the entire text of: "Ronald Molina (b. 1988) is an Hispanic American, based in Los Angeles, who has been the longest-running School." I don't know exactly what "been the longest-running school" means, it might be some sort of athletic accomplishment reference, or that his school is the oldest in its area, or something to do with attendence. In any case, nothing that would affect any rulings regarding a ban one way or the other. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. That does confirm my suspicion that the editor is a teenager in the LA area. I was hoping for some more biographical info, but that will have to do. Could you provide a list of all the editors who edited the article? One editor is probably the IP 204.108.96.10 (talk · contribs), but I think this editor has been using other IPs, and maybe even another user name. BlankVerse ∅ 15:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for undeletion

August 4, 2005

The Salon

Twas a meaningful stub. --SPUI (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Neves and any other American Idol contestants later deleted

One of many new American Idol articles we should have. Created on a gut decision and deleted in a quick consensus. All contestants shown on the show meet at least standard #4 in the WP:MUSIC category: Has been prominently featured in any major music media. I only know that the Emily page was created, but more might have quickly. In my view, that was forgotten when it was debated in VFD. CrazyC83 05:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted I cannot fathom the point of having articles on every American Idol (and Canadian Idol and Mexican Idol and...) who failed to make the cut, especially when thge producers are going to do it all over agin next year and the year after that and so on. Ten years from now, who is going to care, except maybe the contestant, assuming they even know there's an article on them. Denni☯ 05:30, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. It is a valid VfD, 5 delete votes to 0 keep (both keep votes were unsigned, so they have to be discounted). VfU votes have to be taken in a case-by-case basis, so the "and any other..." approach doesn't work. By the way, there's no "Mexican Idol". It's called "La Academia." ;) --Titoxd 06:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. In six months no-one will remember them. If any information is needed people will go to American Idol. David | Talk 09:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep Deleted (though I do think that redirecting to the show is fair enough). American Idol and its variations are basically game shows, and game show contestants are not normally kept. You surely wouldn't expect every contestant on Star Search or The Price Is Right to get an article. Besides, there is a strong precedent toward deleting n Idol contestants... they almost always get VfDed, except for the small handful who later became "famous" for other things, like that Justin to Kelly movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. Valid VfD. These are essentially vanity articles. Andy Warhol was more right then he ever could have known. android79 11:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Question: How many of the 47 people in Category:American Idol contestants deserve their own article? Should we start VfDs on the non-notable ones? Maybe we could have articles such as Season 1 American Idol Contestants, with a paragraph on each person. NoSeptember 13:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, valid VfD. These guys deserve maybe a paragraph in a list page at most (the above article that Andrew mentions could be retooled for this purpose). --Deathphoenix 15:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep deleted. I am not sure why Titoxd says the keep votes are unsigned, they have signatures after them. I do not think they need discarding, with the exception of User:Badgers07 who has 3 edits. So I count 6d, 2k, 3m (including nom, and not using the condition in Starblind's vote). Simple counting is no consensus for any of the three. There is, though, consensus the "article should not standalone", and there is consensus to delete among the remaining 9 votes, but barely. It is difficult to say whether Starblind's condition is triggered. -Splash 16:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This definitely is a confusing vote, though there's a clear consensus against keeping. The 2 Keep votes are from Megan1967 and The Recycling Troll. Megan1967 is currently blocked (for unrelated reasons) but was once a prolific VfD regular, so her vote counts. The Recycling Troll, on the other hand, was a troll (it's even in the name) who placed "keep" votes on lots of VfDs without comment until eventually being blocked by Jimbo Wales himself(!), believe it or not. I think it's safe to say that most closing admins didn't count The Recycling Troll's votes. So I count 8 del, 1 keep, 4 merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • How did I not see the message on the troll's userpage? I probably just went along my firefox tabs clicking their contribs blindly. So you count your vote as a delete? -Splash 18:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - valid VfD - Tεxτurε 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Wile E. Heresiarch 04:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, but definitely keep all contestants who make the final 12 in a season. Snowspinner 05:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

August 3, 2005

The Vines Public House, Liverpool

5 delete votes to 3 keeps at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Vines Public House, Liverpool - no consensus. Kappa 00:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABDL

A VfD was started by a user who deleted vast sections without proper discussion in the talk page before hand and conflicts on other articles are on going. The vote came out 3-4, three votes for redirect, four votes for do not delete. I believe this article was deleted in an incorrect manner and would like to see it undeleted or atleast the vote restarted. Future conflicts will hopefully be handled through mediation instead of premature VfD. --OrbitOne 08:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted (or Redirected), valid VfD. Keep in mind that VfD does not necessarily work by strict mathematical principles, it is up to the closing admin to determine consensus and the ultimate fate of the article. There were several "do not delete" votes, including ones from an anon IP and an unsigned one. Since "do not delete" is not a standard vote (e.g. keep, delete, merge, redirect, etc.), the closing admin gets to make the call whether to count such votes at all, and if so how they may be counted (as "not deleting" is not necessarily the same as "keeping", after all). Another admin may (or may not) have interpreted differently, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole VfD, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Err, this wasn't deleted. There's a redirect in place now, but the article's previous history is all there. android79 13:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


How do I get to the article history? --OrbitOne 11:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 2, 2005

Irish-American Mayors

No vote. Anonymous user 64.108.212.56 asserts that the article was deleted without consensus on the VFD. User further asserts that many of the votes to delete were made out of personal spite. I personally disagree, but don't see the harm in listing it for a VFU.

The anonymous user may also be content with a temporary undeletion, for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the deleted content, but appears to be using a dynamic IP, and I do not know how best to contact him. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Valid VfD here. An anon in a similar IP range (Ameritech Electronic Commerce located in Illinois, Chicago) made comments in the VfD, so I believe the anon is fully aware that there was a valid VfD made. --Deathphoenix 15:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - valid VfD - Tεxτurε 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The vfd was valid, though if the anon user would like to email me using the link from my user page I can send the deleted content across on the explicit understanding that it doesn't get reposted here. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 12:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If the nominating anon is the same as 64.109.253.204, then he or she is perfectly aware of how the VfD ran -- even haranguing me on my Talk page for having the temerity to vote "yes" -- and pretty much specializes in complaining about being put upon (see here for a typical example. --Calton | Talk 00:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Valid VfD. (I might have voted a weak keep on it but the fact is I didn't vote). I see no evidence at all for the claim that the delete votes were made out of personal spite, and I think that's a somewhat malicious claim. The article's contributor probably put a reasonable amount of work into compiling the list. I agree with Francs2000 both that he should be sent the deleted content if he foolishly failed to keep his own copy of it, and that this should be done only if he promises not to re-create the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Rivera

  • Undelete. It appears that someone wrote an article on a different (and somewhat more notable) Victor Rivera a day before the VfD closed. If someone doesn't think that the wrestler (rather than the bombing victim) is notable, it can go through VfD again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list on VfD per usual procedure. Phatcat68's article on the wrestler is a completely different article from the one that was voted for deletion and there's no reason to think that the new article was noticed or considered during the VfD discussion. Don't know enough about professional wrestling to guess whether people will judge a 1-Time WWWF World Tag Team Champion to be notable, but it certain sounds to me like an arguable claim of notability. If Phatcat68 had created the article just after deletion nobody would have judged it to be a re-creation of content voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Old content was one sentence naming a suicide bombing victim. Phatcat68's new content consists of the following text (omitting blank sections) plus a picture of the wrestler:
Victor Rivera was a professional wrestler.
Championships/Accomplishments
  • 1-Time WWWF World Tag Team Champion (with Dominic DeNucci)
  • 1-Time NWA America's Tag Team Champion (with Raul Reyes)
  • 1-Time NWF Heavyweight Champion
  • 1-Time CCW Heavyweight Champion
  • 1-Time NWA "Beat the Champ" Television Champion
Dpbsmith (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 31, 2005

Democratic Ideals

Deleted without consensus After rewrite the vote was 2 deletes and 4 keeps (including the rewriter). This does not reach consensus. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 14:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I nominated this for VfD. Although the rewrite was needed, I was not really persuaded that it was not still original research, and so I did not change my vote. However, I cannot recall if there were references and things included in the rewrite, and so I might possibly change my mind. I think probably keep deleted, but if undeleted, relist on VfD. As an aside, to discard all votes before the rewrite seems a little harsh, as it's not unreasonable to suppose the voters were watching what happened. -Splash 15:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I don't like the article much, but for some reason I couldn't get to the VfD debate earlier. It is clearly no consensus as SPUI points out. But given the very different nature of the new article, it should return to VfD. -Splash 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)See the (current) bottom of the conversation. -Splash 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. I'm sorry, but there were 5 delete (nominator voted) and 4 keep. I don't know where your idea of only 2 delete votes came from. Looking at the VfD which is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Democratic Ideals, I was right in closing the VfD as consensus was there. I don't class after-rewrite only votes as being the only ones counted. Why do people have to keep voting to undelete VfDs I close? No wonder no-one wants to do it. :/ Hedley 01:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not the same as a majority. 7 to 6 should never lead to deletion; it is no consensus and thus keep by default. --SPUI (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SPUI on the no clear consensus bit Kim Bruning 16:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly undelete. Majority is not consensus - even if the majority were unquestionable. I agree with the comment below - except that this is not borderline. Please reread Wikipedia:Consensus before closing another VfD. Septentrionalis 19:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count the VfD above as 5D and 4K. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators cites the need for a "rough consensus" and gives no numerical stanards to measure one. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Decision Policy suggests a standard of 2/3rds but says soem insited on a higher ration to achieve consensus. i have certianly seen votes closed as "No consensus" that seemed to ahve a higher preponerance of delete votes than this one did. There seems to have been a rewrite during the VfD, and it is not clear whether the early voters reaffirmed their delete votes after the rewrite, at least to me. This looks like a rather borderline case. I thought the rule was When in doubt, don't delete for the closing admin. DES (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per DES's comment. --goethean ॐ 17:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, we have no problem getting articles deleted by consensus, we don't need to start deleting those without a consensus to delete, like this one. NoSeptember 00:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete No vote. I concur, 5d-4k is a no consensus at the very least, but actually closer to a keep. --Deathphoenix 16:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (changed vote) 6d-3k if Texture is correct in his analysis (one of the keep votes was from a new user, but I count the "rewritten" comment as voting to keep since the guy rewrote the article). 6d-3k is just on the border IMO, but there were enough questions regarding the original VfD for me not to vote keep deleted. However, as a non-admin, I can't look at the original content, nor do I really have the time this afternoon (anymore ;-) ) to look at further details in this VfU, so I'm just going to remove my original "uninformed" vote and wipe the slate clean on my part. --Deathphoenix 20:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I see 6 delete and 3 keep votes (1 "rewritten" comment but no vote). (Wile did not bold his vote.) - Tεxτurε 19:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try yet again. I see User:Hamster Sandwich, User:Renata3 and User:Xaa as very new users. I personally would discount Xaa's vote — they'd only been around a day, and their wandering comment shows they hadn't got the hang of things yet. I would keep the others: they were made in good-faith and the editors were not brand new when they made them, and they had both made enough edits with enough variety to convince that they are not meatpuppeting or blind-voting. That gives me, including the rewrite as keep (considering the editor's later comments): 6d, 3k. That's knife-edge enough, given the rewrite, to undelete and relist on VfD. -Splash 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6d/3k may be borderline, but it is well within bounds of policy and precedent. I see no reason to doubt the good faith and ability of the closing admin, and therefore keep deleted. Radiant_>|< 08:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • undelete: Apparently not a strong consensus for deletion. As a fundamental concept article (like that of moral compass, in comparison to the less noteworthy moral panic), particular care should be given before allowing deletion to be finalized. Ombudsman 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't there an article at moral compass? --goethean ॐ 21:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. And, of course, relist on VfD per our usual process. I'm not sure exactly how to count the votes, but if there were a clear consensus it wouldn't matter. The sysop's call was reasonable. Stirling Newberry's challenge is reasonable. So... let's run it through VfD again and see what happens. I don't like the article. Well-written but vacuous. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Rewritten during the VFD debate. Should get another chance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=20344496"