Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
*******The article was created anew, '''as a different article'''. It was not a recreation because it was not the same article. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
*******The article was created anew, '''as a different article'''. It was not a recreation because it was not the same article. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete'''. From looking at the old article and the new one, they're very clearly different. Additionally, BanyanTree has admitted it was a mistake to delete it. Unfortunately his attempt at rectifying the situation has been held up. Even if you wanted to look at the old VFD, the delete votes were because the article didn't establish notability and the new article does that. [[User:CryptoDerk|CryptoDerk]] 23:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete'''. From looking at the old article and the new one, they're very clearly different. Additionally, BanyanTree has admitted it was a mistake to delete it. Unfortunately his attempt at rectifying the situation has been held up. Even if you wanted to look at the old VFD, the delete votes were because the article didn't establish notability and the new article does that. [[User:CryptoDerk|CryptoDerk]] 23:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) |
||
**They are '''''not''''' clearly different. They are about the exact same band. The original VfD was about the band's notability, not about how well the article was written. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Just a note - I have posted an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK|RFC on RickK]] about these and other similar actions. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
*Just a note - I have posted an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK|RFC on RickK]] about these and other similar actions. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
||
**RfC because you don't know how to follow policy? I refuse to participate. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===[[April 23]], [[2005]]=== |
===[[April 23]], [[2005]]=== |
Revision as of 04:11, 25 April 2005
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:
- 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), 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.
How to use this page
If you wish to undelete an article, follow the procedure explained at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. 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.
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
If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of Template:TempUndelete.
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.
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
April 24 2005
Elf-Only Inn
Webcomic deleted for lack of notability. The deletion debate and the article failed to mention its best claim for notability, namely that it had a several page crossover with Penny Arcade. Not the most important article in the world, but it's still a webcomic of non-trivial note, and I'd like to get the chance to expand the article with some more information and let it go through another VfD debate in its modified state. Snowspinner 17:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. The crossover makes it more notable than many of the webcomics we have articles for. Gamaliel 19:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 20, 2005
Daniel C. Boyer
In 2004, he told us he was scheduled to appear in the 2005 Who's Who in America. What ever happened with that? 24.4.127.164 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Considering how the last IP to make this comment on here [1] turned out to be a sockpuppet of Mr. Boyer [2],[3], I say we disregard this desperate plea for attention. Bugger off. Postdlf 04:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A quick look at 24.4.127.164's contribution history shows a variety of (irregularly spaced) contributions, mostly of the housekeeping type -- in marked contrast to the diff you cite -- so your off-the-cuff accusation strikes me as markedly unfair to 24.4.127.164. Strikes me as an obvious question to answer, though I'm skeptical of the notoriety a Who's Who listing really shows.
- I think you owe 24.4.127.164 an apology. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Obvious keep deleted this is either a very clumsy attempt at sockpuppetry, or perhaps a somewhat clever stealth attack against Boyer. In any case, a Who's Who entry, even if true, certainly does not show notability for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Radio KoL
Well, I fail to understand what happened. User:Jinian closed the vfd for Radio KoL with consensus to merge (IMO, there were no consensus to merge, but that's not the interesting part). After merging the content, he then attempted to delete it (but it couldn't be deleted due to block compressing bug). If he succeeded then all history would've been destroyed, which is not appropriate when articles get merged (the proper thing is to leave the redirect). The article is protected now and I can't fix it. Grue 15:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As I see there were other articles that he deleted after merging. I suggest they should also be undeleted and left as redirects to preserve history. Grue 15:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I believe we must make some "Merging Awareness". Regularly, things that should be merged get put on VfD - apparently it is rather unclear to new users how a merge actually works. Radiant_* 13:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Hello? Please Undelete This One Already. Grue 07:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 22, 2005
Falling Up (band)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Up_%28band%29 was deleted by a VFD apparently around April 9th, unknown to me. I never knew a falling up band article had ever been created, and I wrote an entirely new one. The main reason given for the band to be deleted was that they had made only one CD independantly and were therefore non-notable, whereas in reality they were signed on to BEC recordings, a major Christian label that also produces for big Christian Contemporary names like Jeremy Camp, Kutless. (Take a look at http://www.becrecordings.com/front.php). As well, there is a precedent for single-album Christian Contemporary bands on the wikipedia--for example, Casting crowns. To summarize My article was different from the article deleted and should, at the least, get a separate VFD. The reason for the VFD (independant release and therefore non-notability) was untrue since they were signed on to BEC. Please put my article back :) -Cookiemobsta
- Agreed that a separate VFD is needed if it wasn't a re-creation of the old one. Can an admin verify this? --SPUI (talk) 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. The first version (that went through VfD) simply stated that Falling Up was a Christian rock band and then listed its members. Comments in the VfD mentioned the lack of notability. The latest version, while a stub, is more informative and offers at least a basis for notability. I don't know enough about the labels to make a call on that basis, but I wouldn't consider this version a recreation of the deleted article. SWAdair | Talk 05:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. VfU is not to be used to try to get VfD votes redone. RickK 21:30, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Unless the article is a re-creation, rather than a new article that was created, deletion policy clearly states that it must be separately VFDed. This at the very least prevents me from writing a substub that says "Stephen King was a man. He was not a dragon-man." and taking it through VFD, and then using that as a rationale to delete any article on Stephen King. You've done this before and you're doing it again. Please stop trolling. That has to be what you're doing, as you've been informed before that the deletion policy clearly protects articles like this.
- Is there some way for both the old and new revisions to be undeleted temporarily? Like a full history undeletion rather than just the most recent article? It would be nice to verify that in fact the two articles were different. --SPUI (talk) 21:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, this VFU is not for trying to redo the VFD. It's for trying to undo what seems to be an improper (though possibly well-intentioned) speedy. --SPUI (talk) 22:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak undelete. They are listed on allmusic.com but have no written entry. Gamaliel 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, this reason may be invalid, since it treats this like another VFD on the subject. The main issue here is whether the recent speedy was valid. According to the nominator, it was not the same article; good faith is the only thing to go by here, until we have some other evidence either way. --SPUI (talk) 22:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, making my vote clear - undelete unless we have evidence that the two articles were the same. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have undeleted my original deletion. I sincerely apologize to Cookiemobsta for the confusion. I gave improper weight to the given speedy reason of VFD recreation and did a hasty and insufficient scan of the content without properly comparing the two versions. I will be more careful in the future. - BanyanTree 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete - an article is only considered a reincarnation subject to speedy deletion if it is the same (or substantially so) to the article that was VFD'd. Since this article was different, according to several posters, it should have gone through the standard VFD process, not been speedied. Firebug 04:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same article. The only difference has to do with how extensive the verbiage is. The original VfD had to do with notability, not about whether or not the article was skimpy. There were three delete votes, no keeps, and all three had to do with the band's notability, not about the size of the article. RickK 05:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I urge you to reread deletion policy, and stop second-guessing the policy when it doesn't jive with your view of things. --SPUI (talk) 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please point to the deletion policy which allows an article to be recreated after VfD, to be listed for one day on VfU, to be recreated after being on VfU for one day, to have its listing be deleted from VfU after being here for one day, and not being listed on VfD after having been recreated, in violation of the policy on this very page? RickK 19:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The article was not recreated. The listing was removed because the article was speedied in error, and the deleter fixed his error. --SPUI (talk) 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean, the article was not recreated? You mean that the VfD was for an article that never existed? Or that once the VfD had passed its time, it was never deleted? Sorry, the history proves otherwise. The article was not speedied in error, it is Wikipedia policy to delete recreations of articles which have been voted for deletion. RickK 23:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The article was not recreated. The listing was removed because the article was speedied in error, and the deleter fixed his error. --SPUI (talk) 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please point to the deletion policy which allows an article to be recreated after VfD, to be listed for one day on VfU, to be recreated after being on VfU for one day, to have its listing be deleted from VfU after being here for one day, and not being listed on VfD after having been recreated, in violation of the policy on this very page? RickK 19:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I urge you to reread deletion policy, and stop second-guessing the policy when it doesn't jive with your view of things. --SPUI (talk) 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's exactly the same article. The only difference has to do with how extensive the verbiage is. The original VfD had to do with notability, not about whether or not the article was skimpy. There were three delete votes, no keeps, and all three had to do with the band's notability, not about the size of the article. RickK 05:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete. From looking at the old article and the new one, they're very clearly different. Additionally, BanyanTree has admitted it was a mistake to delete it. Unfortunately his attempt at rectifying the situation has been held up. Even if you wanted to look at the old VFD, the delete votes were because the article didn't establish notability and the new article does that. CryptoDerk 23:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a note - I have posted an RFC on RickK about these and other similar actions. --SPUI (talk) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
April 23, 2005
Paul Bouche
I still think it's a vanity page, originally by Mr Bouche himself, though this anon may or may not be Mr Bouche, but he doesn't seem notable, but I'd like someone else to have a look. see talk:Paul Bouche; also anon comment that follows Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- \Did u see? the links that are enclosed in his article? I am familiar with Paul Bouche. How many of your listings have won an Emmy award? As a matter of fact I was searching for him after Discussion and presentation by him @ Miami International University of Art and Design.
- He has been arround for many years and has been an inspiration for many young hispanics as myself. I guess you are not familiar with the field of spanish media. That is ok. But know I also searched The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, La Opinion (Los Angeles Main Hispanic Paper), Even Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Hispanic Business magazine have featured articles about him. Perhaps you should too. I don't see anyone on the list of comments that strike me as Hispanic or Latino. Ask arround. Even though you probably know no hispanic americans.
- Just because you dont know someone doesn't mean they are not relevant for our community 35 million in the US and 400,000,000 arround the world. (end anon comment)