Wikipedia:Deletion review

Stuff is deleted by administrators. 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 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 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 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

Votes for undeletion

Add new votes at the bottom.

Full Nice Handbag Co

• This article was deleted after a long debate (the deletion diff is here). The reasons I am nominating for undeletion are as follows.

• 1. The vote was too marginal to be called consensus - 12 keep, 8 delete, 1 neutral (as long as I can count right). Further one keep vote might be discounted because he said he voted to delete largely because I vociferously voted to keep.
  2. I responded to many of the delete votes, suggesting their invalidity, but these concerns were not always addressed.
  3. I believe the article didn't meant criteria for deletion as according to the deletion policy.

Pcb21| Pete 16:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If my count had matched yours, I would have kept the article. However, I count 7 keep, 13 delete, 1 possible delete, 1 possible keep, 1 neutral, and 1 "Let's see if the Chinese have heard of it". I added in the short discussion from zh:, where no one had heard of it, and went for deletion. The debate is archived at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/June 12#Full_Nice_Handbag_Co, along with a copy of the zh: comments. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Undelete. No consensus to delete. Everyking 20:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:11, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please let us know why you think this. Pcb21| Pete 07:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is (was) no evidence that the company is notable: none was supplied in the article; a Google search didn't find any; User:Wikisux asked a friend who lives in Hong Kong and she thought he was joking; and people from the Chinese Wikipedia hadn't heard of it. Given that, the article can function only as an advertisement for an otherwise unremarkable company, but WP is not the yellow pages. Furthermore I don't see any procedural problem with the voting process. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 18:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Undelete. Voyager640 07:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, it would be good to know why you think this. Despite the name of this, a discussion of the issues is better than pure numerical votes. Pcb21| Pete 07:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep it deleted. Obviously no one cares enough to have made a bunch of new users to vote on this to keep it around. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 01:23, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I reviewed the debate and the content. The content was a brief ad. The debate reveals that other than Pete, Everyking, and a user called Wikisux whose opinion I disregard entirely based on username alone, there no significant support to retain the article, though there were some other lukewarm "keep" votes and some "neutral" votes. Most of the "keep" voting was based on anti-deletionist rationale that is not accepted policy. I conclude this article was deleted properly on the merits of the article, and according to procedure and consensus based on the debate. UninvitedCompany 02:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Not encyclopedic. -- BCorr|Брайен 12:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Am in Hong Kong, and have never heard of it. Companies like these are a dime a dozen. Fuzheado | Talk 16:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 13:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete. No consensus to delete and the article probably should have been kept anyway. Guanaco 04:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I too have had a look at the deleted article and can see nothing worthy of keeping in it. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete. I appreciate the vote of confidence from UninvitedCompany. Wikisux 07:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There's absolutely nothing worth keeping about this. Ambivalenthysteria 08:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Articles about non-notable companies are nothing more than free ads. Postdlf 05:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete. An article about a little known company is likely to be of little value to most people. It may be neither notable nor significant. However, all value judgements are subject to the biases of the judge.

There are three criticisms that any encylopedia may be constantly subjected to:

1. There is too much useless information
2. There is too little information available
3. The information is unreliable or inaccurate

The first two questions should be ignored, as it is impossible to determine where a line could be drawn or even if a line should be drawn. The third would be the end of any encyclopedic project and so should be the only criterion used in nearly all cases. Arevich 18:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By your logic, an article contianing the entire contents of a phone book would be acceptable. This is not sound. The entire contents of a phone book would be "too much useless information". - UtherSRG 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, even the third question above is subject to line drawing and value judgments. Determining credibility of a source inevitably bears at least a degree of subjectivity. The only way to temper the effect of personal judgment and biases is to make content subject to the approval of the community, both through peer editing and through deletion votes.

There is another issue at hand that is probably the most common reason why articles are deleted—the academic integrity of the project. Though typically any article that one posts about themselves, their company, their ideas or research, etc., could also be dismissed because of inability to verify, the notion that anyone would use wikipedia as a venue for self-promotion—to spread information about themselves or their creations for whatever reason—is highly offensive and a misuse of this site. The more that an author who has written about himself or his creations protests alterations or deletions of those articles, the more that we become distrustful of his motives, not to mention the content of the article. There was a long dialogue on VFD a few months ago involving an artist who insisted that he was neutral as to whether an article about him should be included, yet he took great pains to defend his "notability" and to spread mentions of himself to other articles. In such cases, the subjects of the articles would do best to sit back and let others argue for the value of the information, because getting too involved smacks of self-promotion, however little that may be intended. Hence, the frequent cries of "vanity." Postdlf 21:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. As it stands wiki policy states that non-notability is a perfectly acceptable reason to delete and I agree with that. The vote took place and I believe consensus was fairly reached. Also, in responce to pcb21's comment, the fact that some voters choose to ignore your responces instead of engaging you in a debate doesn't invalidate their vote. VFD is not a moderated debate, it seems only fair that they are free to cast their vote as they see fit. --Starx 00:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The reasons given above, and on the original VfD, for deleting this are far more compelling than those given for keeping it. People have done their research and also contacted the Chinese Wikipedia and found this to be an unknown company. The information is not verifiable beyond what the company's own web site says about it. This deletion decision should not focus on a pure count of the number of votes made. These might suggest a lack of consensus, but those voting "keep" are not giving valid reasons that this should be kept. Many people have explained how this is not encyclopedic. It is therefore violating the policy of what Wikipedia is not. There simply isn't any reason to undelete it, or for this conversation to remain here any longer. I suggest it is archived unless "wikisux" et al have any further explanations as to how on earth such a thing is encyclopedic or worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Angela. 01:14, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete. As far as I understand, it doesn't seem this article meets the criteria for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy of Wikipedia. If we are to abide to the rule of law, then shouldn't we delete an article only when it does violate the deletion policy? In my opinion, the voting system is not meant to be a platform for everyone to express their own suggestions on what the policy is and then judge an article according to their own preferences. Instead, we all who vote here are, so to say, "juries". Juries only decide if the facts of the case are in violation of the law, but do not decide the law. The law is as it is! Many people in this discussion have suggested reasons of deletion/undeletion, albeit valid ones, that have nothing to do with the deletion policy as it is currently practiced by Wikipedia. We definitely appreciate valid suggestions for changes of the deletion policy, but these good suggestions should be made only against the policy itself, but NOT against individual articles. So long the policy is there, we have to judge each and every article according to the current policy.

Last but not least, let me draw your attention to the importance of strict practice of the current policy. When Wikipedians write or edit articles, they do so with only the deletion policy in mind, but not the criteria, good or bad, from other people. Is it not unfair that after these wikipedians have voluntarily taken their effort and time to write/edit, their contribution is judged by some criteria that the authors/editors might have never thought of?

In conclusion, I appreciate that our judgments may validy differ, but the criteria which we base our judgments on must be the same, namely in accordance with the current deletion policy. If you want to suggest your own criteria you should only do so towards the policy first, not to an individual article.

P.S. I doubt, without deciding, if we should really count votes that obviously have nothing to do with the deletion policy? (Loklok 02:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC))

• • Speaking of policies, one we follow is ignoring the votes of any user without an edit history. But my, what a passionate argument for keeping an obscure handbag co. article to find on such an esoteric page, from someone who has never contributed to wikipedia before. Postdlf 03:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

This is so obvious a case, it's hard to believe it's being debated. This should be deleted and kept deleted.

1. In Hong Kong or China, these companies are a dime a dozen. Nothing special about this company whatsoever.
2. We have polled Chinese Wikipedia users and no one thinks it is notable or worthy of keeping
3. And as the last unscientific and marginal voice, here in Hong Kong and both my colleague and I find it non-notable.

I don't agree with User:Arevich above. We cannot dismiss points 1 and 2. According to your criteria, as long as something is verifiable, it should be included here. We dismissed that notion a while ago. Otherwise this would be the WikiYellowPages. Fuzheado | Talk 06:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aldeism

From WP:SD: —listed on VFD (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Aldeism), unanimous consensus to delete, reposted today by sock puppet of original author. Postdlf 13:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• First, I appologize if this is not the correct forum to dispute the decision of Postdlf. That being said, a review of the discussion at (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Aldeism) shows that the decision to delete was not at all unanimous. In fact several users asked specifically that the page not be deleted. See comments by User:Lucky 6.9 who requests that the page be kept, and User:Andrewa who suggests that the Aldeism page be kept but that the Allan Revich, and AllanRevich pages be removed. The votes for deletion by User:Postdlf reads more like a personal vendetta than like a reasoned response, while this view is admittedly subjective it is bolstered by his reference to the original author a sock puppet. -- User:Arevich
  • Discussion shows Lucky's vote to be "delete all as just about the ultimate in vanity, maybe even nonsense". Andrewa was agnostic on deleting Aldeism. Looks unanimous to me. - UtherSRG 14:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Plus any agreement on a page's deletion does not have to be unanimous; it merely requires a two thirds consensus either way for a page to be deleted or kept. This consensus was quite clearly reached in this case. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Add new votes here:

Undelete

• Aldeism exists. People look for information about it. Should be reason enough. But I also agree with Postdlf. Aldeism will continue to exist independently of what a few power-obsessed sysops and their self-important cronies do on Wikipedia. Arevich 14:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The degree to which you are taking this personally and resorting to ad hominem attacks illustrates one of the main reasons why we frown upon an author writing about himself or his personal achievements. Postdlf 17:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted

• Keep deleted: no evidence of notability -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. - UtherSRG 19:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If it has truly had impact, then it shouldn't need its creator to write about it. Postdlf 21:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I never said that this should stay unless I was being sarcastic. Nothing new regarding these delete votes, at least in my case. - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. - Kenwarren 21:57, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Other

(Please keep comments or discussions above this section).