Wikipedia:Deletion review

[[:|WP:VFU]]

Articles and multimedia are 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:

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.
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.

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

December 13

Martin Oei

Someone abuse the deletion process and this case involve racial discrimation. --Martinoei 04:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted. This was a by-the-book deletion that did not, to my knowledge (and I'm the one who deleted it) involve any form of racial discrimination. —No-One Jones 04:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 7

Frost War

Deleted out of process. The community should decide whether articles are "too useless" to be kept, and they should have a proper opportunity to do so. Speedy deleting them is an abuse of the process.Dr Zen 02:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Obvious speedy. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Under which criterion? I didn't see "Neutrality says so" in the policy page, so perhaps you had one of the others in mind?Dr Zen 06:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep undeleted (just long enough for us to vfd it). Currently, if there is enough coherent substance that is not nonsensical on its face, it's not a speedy. The article is then subject to the usual notability test, which is a vfd procedure. Postdlf 06:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just curious — how are we supposed to intelligently vote on an article we can't see (because it's deleted)? Michael Ward 20:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

05:49, 12 Dec 2004 SimonP deleted Frost War (listed on VfD, votes 22-1 in favour of deletion)

The article was undeleted for the duration of the VfD (as far as I know). -- Cyrius|✎ 20:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the indentation I assume Cyrius is responding to me. If so, I was referring to this vote, not the original vfd. It seems pointless to even have a vote here if new voters can't see the issue in question. See WP:VFU#Purpose_of_this_page. Or, are you disputing Zen's contention that proper process was not followed? Michael Ward 00:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Ambi 22:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just take it for granted that you feel that anything that has been deleted should stay that way?Dr Zen 23:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 5

George Elliot Clarke

I see no good reason for why it was deleted, and can't find a record of a VfD vote page. Niteowlneils 00:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temp restored. Snowspinner 00:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

From the deletion log: "00:46, 5 Sep 2004 Bearcat deleted "George Elliot Clarke" (article already exists at George Elliott Clarke)."

This page should be restored, merged, redirected to George Elliott Clarke. - SimonP 05:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Simon explained it well. JesseW 06:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unprotect. anthony 警告 04:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Andre (talk) 20:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to George Elliott Clarke. Postdlf 20:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note that if this wasn't protected one could easily have created the redirect by now. Instead we have some annoying message that tells us nothing. anthony 警告 13:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Restore, merge, redirect, why was this deleted? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 00:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 3

Curious (perfume)

Discussion moved to Talk:Curious (perfume) (article was never deleted).

November 30

Ummo

In the beginning this article was created without information (substub), but after that, I replaced the content with a valid article which only needed to be improved and checked. Unfortunately, it was deleted without checking because it was in the speedy deletion list. I ask for the page to be undeleted and restored to the last version. Graffity 13:48:, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't really understand why it was deleted. It looks like a fine article to me. Undeleted. Everyking 14:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait, this went through VfD? I undeleted it thinking you meant it had just been speedy deleted, which seemed absurd. But if it went through VfD, you need to make that clear. Everyking 18:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like it was speedied as a recreation before the VFD was finished. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ummo. anthony 警告 19:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The history of this article as a deleted article goes back even further than that VfD. See Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/Jan to Apr 2004, especially Template:VfD-UMMO. It was deleted then, and therefore its recreation is speediable. I'd asked if it was the same original text that was deleted, or a new work. Geogre indicated that it was the same. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 23:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

An article listed on VFD is only speediable if the content is identical to the originally deleted version. That is not the case here. anthony 警告 01:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have done what I hope will become standard procedure in undeletion debates. I've undeleted the page, and used the newly created Template:TempUndelete to blank the page, then protected on that version. You can see what you're voting on now by looking in page history. Snowspinner 19:25, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Wait, when the hell was it decided that you could do that? Adam Bishop 19:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait, when the hell does there need to be a decision on whether a user can try to be bold and improve a broken process? Snowspinner 19:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

When you got to use admin privileges to "improve" that process. anthony 警告 20:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now that is a good idea, at least in some cases anyway. I trust that admins will use their discretion as to whether a deleted article should be temporarily undeleted using this procedure. Do we need a parallel revision of the protection criteria? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blanking an article isn't a good idea in general, and it's an especially terrible idea in this particular instance, because the article was improperly speedied in the first place. anthony 警告 20:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a nice informative article that was accidently deleted to me. Let's get it restored ASAP. Kaldari 22:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Underinformedness is as much a sin in the undelete process as it is in the delete process. See Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/Jan to Apr 2004 and Template:VfD-UMMO. The article was speedied as a recreation of a previously VfD'ed article, well within the policies for speedy deletion. Try again. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 23:31, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Which was the recreated article, the stub or the final article? Can we unprotect this so that we can recreate a different article? Unprotect, revert, and delete, at the very least. Protecting a blank page is unacceptable. anthony 警告 01:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, thank you Snowspinner for doing the new process of temp undeletion, thereby allowing viewing of the page history. This is a very good idea for any article put up on VfU unless the previous VfD specifically stated that it should not be undeleted as it's history is dangerous in some way. Good policy.

Regarding the specific page, I can't tell when it was deleted(because that doesn't show up in the page history). Specifcally, was it deleted between the version on 4:34, 24 Nov 2004 and the version on 06:25, 26 Nov 2004? The most recent VfD debate seemed to be for KEEP, but George said it was a copy of UMMO, which was deleted as patent nonsense in April. I'm leaning toward undeleting it, unless someone can show me that the current text(the long, encyclopedic looking version) has been VfD for DELETE on it's own merits. JesseW 03:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the content of deleted articles was preserved somewhere. If so, the deleted content of UMMO should be reviewed and compared with the most recent content-having version of Ummo. Otherwise, the next best thing would be to try and drag the VfD voters on UMMO into this and ask them to compare the current text with the previously voted-on text. FWIW, Geogre seemed to think it was, and he went ahead and speedied. Now, by the looks of the April VfD on UMMO, especially the comments by User:Lucky 6.9 and User:Ihcoyc, the definition of "patent nonsense" used there was not of the "random characters" variety but the "this is all BS" variety. Which leads me to believe that the article voted on then was also one of content, but content rejected as fantasy. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with JesseW. Andre (talk) 20:30, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

November 26

Lil Jon

This page was listed for deletion by Fvw on the grounds that it was nonsense. Gazpacho replaced the content with a valid article about this notable DJ/mixer. RickK deleted the page with utter disregard for process. He states that it has been created as nonsense four times, which would be reason to delete it, I agree, had Gazpacho not fixed it. I ask for the page to be undeleted and restored to Gazpacho's version.Dr Zen 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. Gazpacho 11:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. I created a version of Lil Jon in May 2004. now on my User Talk page [1] This article more than established the notability of Lil Jon as a recording artist and producer and I don't know why it has gone missing. For the record, Lil Jon is a notable artist and producer of crunk music. MTV News said that his latest album debuted at #3 in the Billboard 200 album charts as at November 24 2004 selling 363,000 copies of his album Crunk Juice. [2] According to his website, his Kings of Crunk went double platinum [3] According to All Music Guide, he has had several albums and singles make the charts. [4] He won three awards in the Source Hip-Hop Music Awards in October including Producer of the Year and for his collaboration on the #1 hit by Usher Yeah which he produced and appeared on. 5 A Google search shows over 883,000 articles for Lil Jon 6 including pages on MTV 7 and VH1 8. A Google News search 9 shows 325 articles indexed under Lil Jon. I and other users such as Gazpacho will hopefully work on restoring the Lil Jon article to an appropriate condition. However, we would be grateful if Rick K would withdraw his threat to delete and ban legitimate users who upgrade this pafe so that we can get on with restoring this article. I appreciated that this page has obviously been the target of vandals and RickK's commendable concerns on this account but it will allow us to create an encyclopedic article on a noteworthy musician. I vote keep and I will work to restore it with other legitimate users over the weekend.Capitalistroadster 12:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Undelete - the contents were

"Lil' Jon (also known as Lil J, John Will, J to the Lizzle, L to the J, Litthy Boo) is an African American rapper with one of the most highly distinctive styles of the 2000s. His talent as a musician made him one of the most well-known members of the successful 3 man rap group Lil Jon & the East Side Boyz and an influential force in both rap music and the modern hip-hop culture." (with some wikilinks and an image)

Looks notable enough to me. What did VfD say? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- ALoan: This is the problem. It was listed for votes for deletion today when administrator Rick K deleted it and threatened to ban anyone who edited it unless they could convince him it was notable. In my view, this would have sailed through Votes for deletion once the facts had been established, This is an artist with the #3 album in the US un the week to November 24 adn a mean who has produced two number one hits this year in the US. Yeah by Usher and Goodies by Ciara. All Music Guide Ciara page This article should have been cleaned up rather than preemptorily deleted. Capitalistroadster 13:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Vfd discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lil_Jon . The issue seems to be that several different versions of the article have been re-created and several generally acknowledged to be outright fabrications. RickK said "I intend to delete it each time, and ban the person who creates it each time, until somebody says something to indicate that the content is valid."

Whether or not it was fair for RickK to set a specially high bar for this article, the most constructive thing that could be done to get the article back most quickly would be to assemble evidence that would convince people who are not knowledgeable about the rap scene that Gazpacho's version and/or Capitalistroadster have accurate information.

RIght now, the puzzle for me is that Capitalistroadster does seem to have "have said something to indicate that the content is valid". We need to find out whether User:RickK is aware of Capitalistroadster's citations and, if so, why he doesn't accept them. I'm not so sure this should be treated as a VfU issue, but rather as a content dispute between User:RickK, Capitalistroadster and Gazpacho.

In the meantime, versions of the article are available here (above) and... umm... the link which Capitalistroadster gave, [5], isn't working for me, could you give us a good one? Wait, it's here: User_talk:Capitalistroadster#Text of Lil Jon article [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. An absolutely legitimate subject, though it has a problem with getting vandalized. Samaritan 18:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping the current version, so long as it no longer says that Lil Jon is a little Swedish boy who, with his recording partner Ol' Dirty Bastard, rescued somebody who had been hit by an asteroid in Prince Edward Island. Do note that the article keeps getting recreated by vandals on successive days, which is more than suspicious. Rick K 23:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Undelete and possibly vprotect. There's some real revisions sitting in the deleted history. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Understood. I will add to my watch list to try and circumvent the vandals who have been playing havoc with this page. On a machinery issue, how long is the matter considered for votes for deletion and is it possible to create a temp page for this artist in the interim so that Gazpacho and I and other interested legitimate users can work on this in the meantime. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - That is the wiki way to fight vandalism, not to delete problem pages. If the latter were the way, we'd have George Bush on VfD.Dr Zen 00:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George Bush or the article about him? CheeseDreams 20:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)