Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for requesting undeletion of a page. It is for discussion of the Requests for Undeletion page. Please request undeletion of a page on the main UND page.

Speed up archiving?

What's the archive rate on this page? Can we speed it up? Right now there are 120 undeletion requests on the page, most of them have been addressed, and the oldest one I see (without a new response) was last responded to eight days ago. Can we get these moved off the page sooner once completed? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially"

One of the standard administrator response at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Administrator instructions states:

Not done – this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may...

However, it's not true that "Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially".

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion states that it is "a process intended to assist users in two cases":

The first case is restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted
In the second use case, this page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be "userfied"

I read the second case to be an intended and available route to draftify or userfy an article that was deleted through AFD. Is it not?

So it's rather annoying to be told to take a non-BLP, non-"sensitive", non-copyright-violation draftification request to WP:DRV instead, and hit with a stock response telling me that "this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially", when I'm following the page's directions to get a draft or userspace "REFUND".

Template:UND does contain success templates for the Draftified and Userfied actions:

Draftified – the page has been restored to the draft space at draft:pagename.

Can we please have Not Done stock responses for Draft and Userfication requests?

And remove the incorrect statement that "this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion."?

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some flexibility. If the delete was a long time ago, and the requestor says why things have changed, then a draftify makes sense. If the requestor is trusted and knows how to improve to acceptability, then it might be accepted. If the AFD just closed, and the requestor already placed their argument at AFD, then the request should be knocked back, as nothing changes that fast. Some deleting admins say they don't restore and leave it to refund, so then admins can make a decision for them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supporting or opposing userfication/draftification here? The statement Can we please have Not Done stock responses for Draft and Userfication requests? suggests you are opposing. Jay 💬 05:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I generally support userfication/draftification of content, however I recognize that there are cases where it should not occur. Deleted BLP articles or other sensitive or troublesome articles, etc. In those cases the admin message should indicate that this is the correct venue to request a draftification, however the request was not granted for X reason.

I definitely think that WP:UND should be the venue to (attempt to) have AFD-deleted content userfied/draftified, rather than pointing users toward WP:DRV for that. The admin messages should reflect this, even in the Not Done cases.

PK-WIKI (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You want Not Done templated responses for userfication/draftification. Such requests we get are very few, and they should definitely not be replied with templated responses meant for restoration. If you are seeing such responses, the concerned admin should be first asked to stop using such templates for userfication/draftification. Jay 💬 07:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is regularly used to respond to requests for drafts or user drafts.

Three from the current page, added by three different admins.

Userfication / Draftification doesn't seem like a particularly rare request and this is often/always the template used to handle them when they are declined.

This Not Done template implies that WP:RFU is the incorrect venue for these kind of requests, it would be great to have templates that instead tell you why it is being declined without saying it is the incorrect process (which it isn't).

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So these are from two admins.

Qasim Ali Shah: Good call by Graeme Bartlett for an article that went through 3 AfDs. This was not a request for draftification although there was a G13-deleted draft (which was a one-liner) and not what the requestor was looking for.
Judith Sewell Wright: Proper response by UtherSRG. The article was deleted at AfD only a week prior to the request. The expectation is that the requestor check with the deleting admin, and the template covers this.
Don Branker: Proper response, as after the templated text, UtherSRG mentioned the issue with the ~8 years old page, and suggested a course of action, which the requestor acknowledged.

Jay 💬 12:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image revision deletions

I opened requests for File:The Yellow Death.jpg and File:The Zaarden Brothers.jpg, but they got archived before receiving any response. Could someone take a look at those, or should I be reopening new requests for them? hinnk (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hinnk: I have actioned it now. Not sure how I failed to notice your request, as I do check earlier requests in the queue. In general, yes, just post your request again if it got ignored. You can also ping me or ask on my talk page for these sort of uncontroversial requests. But best on the request page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thank you! hinnk (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinderella (Disney character).png

This file was previously deleted due to the image being replaced with a screenshot from the movie. However said image is likely to be deleted, so in that case I'm going to want to have this file restored so I can place it back in the Cinderella (Disney character) page. Davidng913 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So when you actually are ready to use it, you can ask on Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Because if it lies around unused it would get deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk)

Dymaxion Geographic Encoding · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This article describes a novel geocoding system based on the Dymaxion map projection. It is not promotional but an objective description of a potentially significant development in geographic information systems. The content is verifiable, maintains a neutral point of view, and contributes to Wikipedia's coverage of spatial data representation techniques. I request undeletion to allow collaborative improvement of the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. —NickSpiker (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Requests for undeletion page for requests. This talk page is to discuss the Requests for undeletion page or its process. Jay 💬 06:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on success rate?

Do we have any sort of statistics on the proportion of drafts restored pursuant to this process that then go on to be approved to be moved to main space, or for articles already in main space and prodded or soft deleted go on to be uncontroversially maintained articles? I would expect that a draft that gets deleted for which someone bothers to request a refund would thereafter have a higher percentage chance of being improved and moved, but I don't know if we have any data to substantiate this. BD2412 T 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, most refunds are because the creator gets an email notification saying the draft has been deleted. The requests come on the same day of deletion, usually within a few minutes, or hours after deletion, indicating the creator is acting on the notification, and nothing else. This most of the time (90% maybe) does not translate into the editor or any one else, trying to work or improve the draft. Editors who request refund of long deleted drafts are the ones interested in working on them, and I have seen few (less than 5% maybe) getting immediately converted to articles (without waiting for AfC approval). Jay 💬 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I placed the refunded pages on my watchlist, and many are worked on, and a big proportion are then submitted. Some are speedy deleted for advertising, or get AFD'd once becoming articles. Pinging the requesters gets more action. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistics for my 52 undeletes in October: 2 were deleted; 21 drafts with no edit; 11 drafts edited; 5 drafts submitted and declined; 5 drafts became articles; 7 non-drafts survived without deletion nomination; 1 kept after deletion debate. So that is more than half "success" and over 10% resulting in more articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that 10% by itself justifies the small amount of work needed to restore a draft. BD2412 T 22:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response symbols

Currently we have a green tick or a red cross, and perhaps a question mark. But should we have an intermediate symbol, for where no action is required such as when a page was moved; or redirected, or where a page exists and is not yet deleted, but just tagged. A red cross is too sever, as the requestor can still access the page, and a tick is not right either as nothing was restored. Perhaps a blue dash is appropriate. What do you think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. But I also like to see green as Resolved / Attended / Answered, rather than Restored. Jay 💬 09:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]