Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grue (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 11 March 2005 (→‎[[Universist Movement]]: undelete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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. A deletion management redesign may address many of these issues, but that is some way off. 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 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.
  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.

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

March 10

Universist Movement

This page was deleted back in December 2004 at which time the Universist Movement consisted of not much more than a website created by Ford Vox. Since then the movement has grown to over 7000 members and has received significant mainstream media coverage. While Mr. Vox may or may not be notable at this time, Universism has become quite notable and is having a noticable impact in the American religious community. allan

  • Undelete allan
    • User's first edit was March 9. RickK 06:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I have made several edits in the past couple of years, but I have not made any since August 2004 at which time I used the User Name arevich. As I do not frequently post to Wikipedia I had not realized that I had accidentally set up two user accounts on Wikipedia. I would welcome your help Rick on figuring out how to consolidate them. Allanrevich
  • It's grown by that much in a couple months? Keep deleted. May reconsider if proof of these assertions is given, and if it does meet notability and verifibility standards. -R. fiend 03:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete The article was deleted in December for not being 'notable' enough. Then a week later Universism made The New York Times. That's irony. Allan's post is incorrect on status in December, it has grown steadily since November 2003 when the first group started in Birmingham, Alabama. Universism consisted of 5,000 members in December, but the news coverage hadn't started. Universist 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit was March 9. RickK 06:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted this was re-VfDed yesterday and was unanimously voted for deletion again. Undeletion should not be used to circumvent valid VfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. In the original VfD from December, the vote was about 30-4 in favor of deletion. It's highly unlikely that the movement's notibility and importance has grown that much in less than three months. Carrp | Talk 03:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Carrp a look at the original VfD shows that the vote was much less decisive then you acknowledge in your comment. It was actually closer to 36-31 in favour of deletion. I understand that many of the voters were anonymous or new, and as such were suspect as possible sock puppets, but the IP#s are all different so unless the sock puppet was Superman, it is far more likely that most of the votes were from sincere newbies rather than sock puppets. Allanrevich
      • Not true. There were only 5 valid Keep votes. All others were by anons or people who created User IDs for the sole purpose of voting on the VfD. RickK 06:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the article's discussion page Andrew. The person who started this article (myself) and Allan are unrelated. It was a coincidince that I started the Universist Movement article the day after Allan's Universism article was deleted, which I did not know about. Most importantly, in reading your discussion of yesterday, it is clear that the article was deleted for incorrect reasons. "It's highly unlikely that the movement's notibility and importance has grown that much in less than three months." - do facts not matter to you at all? You could visit http://universist.org/news.htm and find out the truth. Universist 03:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, facts do matter. But so do policies. Please read Wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD. In particular, please note #4 "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." The notability, number of members, press coverage, etc. is not up for debate here. This article has been validly up for deletion twice now, including yesterday. There was overwhelming consensus to delete both times (again, including yesterday). As such, this article is a valid candidate for speedy deletion, as per overwhelming consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • First of all, I abstain from voting because I am a member of the movement and I do not wish my bias to affect the outcome. However, I'd like you to check your facts. The article up for deletion is a new article; it is not reposting. The author of the second article did so without any prior knowledge of the first. mindbender
      • Andrew, please read the Wikipedia policies again until you understand them a bit better. Here is just a bit of what admins are expected to consider before deleting, Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it. When in doubt, don't delete. Allan Revich
        • What on earth does "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" mean? I marked the re-created article for speedy deletion as re-created deleted content, which is fully within policy. You removed the speedy delete notice claiming that the notability has since increased. I put the speedy delete notice back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Andrew, the statement that you ask about (What on earth does "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion" mean?) is taken word-for-word from the Wikipedia Policy advice to Admins at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators! I think that I know what it means, but since you are the admin, it is much more important that you know what it means! Allanrevich
          • Well that's certainly interesting, as I did neither nominate it for deletion (it was BM the first time, Scott Burley the second time) not did I delete it (that was Rossami the first time, RickK the second time). False accusations are not appreciated here. Furthermore, I'm not an admin on Wikipedia, so you definitely need to get your facts straight. And, as a final note: you're the one who removed the speedy notice from the article, not to mention tossing obviously unfounded accusations around, and you're saying I don't understand Wikipedia policies? I sincerely hope for your sake that an apology is forthcoming. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed, I do apologize for believing that you were an administrator. As for approriate comments in this forum, your comment above that, "I sincerely hope for your sake that an apology is forthcoming." sounds rather like a threat. Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words? And yes I do believe that you would benefit from a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. Arevich
        • So an article that was validly speedy-deleted yesterday was re-created today, less than 24 hours later, totally independent of and unrelated to the one yesterday? Hmm. That, my friend, is one amazing coincidence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • But coincidence it is. This whole thing rests on misunderstandings just like yours about that Starblind. There were never any sockpuppets in the original Universism VfD back in December! Universism has been significant since approximately last summer! As for policy, that is why Allan put it on the undelete page, this is how you get something undeleted - as per Geogre's instruction on the article's talk page. Universist 04:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It is indeed a coincidence. However, I don't blame you for not believing it. If I were in your position, I'd find it rather hard to swallow as well. Maybe a comparison of the articles is in order? If the two parties are telling the truth and second author had no prior knowledge of the first, the articles themselves would likely be dissimilar in composition. - mindbender
          • To be honest, I don't think it's 100% a coincidence. Both people probably got the idea of doing an article after someone started a thread named something like "Why isn't there a Wikipedia article on Universism?" in a forum visited by many universists.--82.76.81.56 14:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Recent overwhelming VfD vote, no indication that anything has changed since then. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This movement is much more encyclopedic. --Ryan! | Talk 03:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators Allanrevich
  • Undelete. I would like to see this article restored. In the original VfD for the previous article, I voted to delete, but that was before Universism got a significant mention in The New York Times (among other developments). The orginal issue was notability, and I think that Universism is now sufficiently notable to warrant a brief article. If Universism is denied an article based on notability, there are hundreds of articles that will need to be examined on the same grounds, including some I have edited myself. These guys have a chat scheduled with Richard Dawkins, for crying out loud. If the orginal VfD were today, I could no longer vote to delete with a straight face. --Nat 04:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment No vote yet. Please give the citation for the New York Times article, I'd like to read it. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The NYT piece wasn't "about" Universism; it was an op-ed piece about new religions and several of them were mentioned. Because Universism was mentioned in the lead and about 25% of the piece used Universism as an example, universists always describe this as the NYT piece "about" Universism. It is a bit in the vein of "any publicity is good publicity" because the actual content was slightly sarcastic. --BM 11:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine, but I'd like to read it for myself.
  • Keep deleted. Legitimately deleted with an overwhelming consensus in a vote marred by a series of personal attacks by Universists. This will just be troll and sockpuppet bait like it was last time. This NYT article came up during the vote as well, and was presented as a significant news story about Universisn, which was a lie since it was an offhand, one or two sentence reference in a rambling multiple-page opinion essay. This 7000 member thing is nonsense too, as anyone who visits their webpage and can sign up as one of the 7000 strong. I signed up during the vote and I'm still on their mailing list (and can't get off!) and counted as part of their movement. Gamaliel 05:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I vote that the article be restored if for no other reason than the sake of knowledge. Those unfamiliar with the term will be interested in learning what the movement is about, and even if United Universism is still a fledgling movement, it ought to be referenced somewhere, and Wikipedia, the go-to site for relatively esoteric terms, is ideal for the task in my opinion.
  • Keep deleted. Valid VfD vote. Anons and new users' votes are generally not counted. There were only five valid votes for keep in the December VfD. Somebody recreated the page, I have just speedy deleted it. Please note that, in the original VfD, Ford Vox counted anybody who filled out their form on their website as a member. Anybody can fill out a form, it doesn't make them a member of anything. I'd also like to point out to others who would like to recreate the article, that Ford Vox said in the original VfD vote that he would prefer there not be an article about Universism on Wikipedia because he would not be able to control the content. RickK 06:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted. By the way. I put a lot of work into the original Universism article that was deleted in December to NPOV it, while it was on VfD. Ford Vox (User:Deist) and I went around several times during the week on that article and some other people were involved also. It turned out to be a waste of time because the article was deleted, which (of course) was fine with me. Ironically, in the VfD, Ford Vox ended up calling for the deletion of the article during the VfD vote, apparently because he realized he would not be to control the article if it was kept. However, I read on the Universist forum that he described the final state as a good neutral article (amusing, because he was complaining about it here). If this topic is going to be resurrected, I would greatly appreciate that the starting state be the one at the end of the *FIRST* VfD vote, so that we don't have to start from scratch with NPOV-ing it. --BM 11:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I want someone to give me a reference to the New York Times article so I can read it for myself. Valid deletion in process on December 2004. Would appear to be open-and-shut case of re-creation of material voted for deletion. In fact, it was not simply speedied, but went through VfD again on March 10th. What's bothering me though is the assertions of supporters that the religion has become notable since December. The second VfD discussion does not seem to discuss this. Supporters refer to "all the press coverage" but, oddly, the re-created article contains no references to any press coverage. Google News currently contains no hits on "Ford Vox" or "Universism" and one irrelevant hit on "Universist". I've read dismissive descriptions of the New York Times article by opponents. My library has a search service, which is currently down, that gives full-text access to the New York Times back to the late 1800s. When it comes up again I want to check out the article(s). So, please: the date on which the story appeared in the New York Times. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hopefully someone will give you an exact reference. But, IIRC, it was in the Sunday edition immediately following the week of the first VfD. I recall that Ford Vox (User:Deist) made a big point of going around crowing about what idiots we were for deleting the article as soon as the NYT piece came out, and there might even be something at the tail end of the old VfD about it. Come to think of it, he crowed on my Talk page, and you might see a link there. I seem to recall that a couple of weeks later NYT published a letter to the editor from Ford Vox about the piece, and he went around Wikipedia bragging about that too. --BM 14:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P. S. Boston Globe archives have no references to "Universist" or "Universism" or "Ford Vox". Dpbsmith (talk) 14:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The universist website has a scanned-in copy of the NYT piece here. [1]. SlimVirgin 14:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. 1) There are many people following the Universism Movement. It's been presented on websites, newspapers, radio shows. Even if it wouldn't have been, encyclopedias aren't about what is popular or not. How many people will it take until you accept Universism as an article? 10000? 100000? 1000000? Are numbers the only aspect important to Wikipedia users or admins? 2) The article will only benefit wikipedia. We universists are not an evil cult of weirdos. We're rational people that are trying to make the world better. If you don't even support this, what do you support? In any case, I have seen many articles far more useless, that no one tries to VfD. I suspect many of people voting are christians that want to stop anything that contradicts their holy beliefs. 3) Stop using "it has been already rejected once" as an argument. Is a successful VfD equal to "article banned for EVAR"? This is what universists really dislike: people that have made a decision they're not willing to reconsider even if it could be wrong. And hurry up Rick and point out that I'm not registered or an old member or something like that, because I see that for you it's not the actual opinion or argument that matters, it's only the time that someone was registered on Wikipedia.--82.76.81.56 14:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) Ford Vox started an article on Universism at the very same time that he started Universism. It clearly wasn't notable a week after it started, was it? If you're complaining that Universism isn't getting the benefit of the doubt, thank Ford Vox for being such an "insanely active promoter" (in the words of his supporters) that no one can distinguish the actual notability of Universism from the appearance of notability he goes to lengths to manufacture. 2) For someone who complains about ad hominem later, you sure are quick to play the religion card. You also make the mistake, common to many run-in voters that "makes the world better" == "encyclopedic". Even if it wasn't a POV opinion that Universism "makes the world better" (what movement has not claimed that about themselves?) it still doesn't amount to notability. 3) What point would there be in making a decision once if someone who didn't like the results could simply unilaterally force the decision to be "reconsidered" endlessly? Do you see this in the court system? Do you see the prosecution saying "Well, the jury found him not guilty, but we still think he's guilty, so we're going to try him again on the same charges?" That's a little thing called "double jeopardy". Likewise, an appeal can't be filed on the grounds that you just don't like the fact that a judgement went against you. 4) It's only your vote that is given less weight because you have only five edits. Your opinion and argument, like those of any Wikipedian, are given weight proportional to the understanding you show of Wikipedia's aims, practices, and rules. So if your argument about "Universism should get an article because we MAKE THE WORLD BETTER" is falling on deaf ears, perhaps you should blame ... the fact that it isn't a very good argument. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Feldspar, a little bit of honesty goes a long way. I have already said that I created the article on Universism without any prior knowledge that Ford Vox had written another article called Universist Movement. You might also take a closer look at both the mission statement of Wikipedia and the deletion policy until you actually understand it. Arevich
  • Keep deleted. I've looked at the VfD, as well as at the NYT article, the Talk page, and the comments made above, and I can't see any legitimate grounds for overturning the original vote. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me that there are agendas other than the best interests of Wikipedia evident in the voting against inclusion of Universism, and similar articles (e.g. Aldeism) that do not reflect Evangelical Christian dogma. Editors and administrators of the encyclopedia need to work much harder at elevating themselves above this type of prejudice and bias. Clearly there is significant interest in the inclusiveness of Wikipedia, and contrary to some postings here, the people writing the articles are not interested in self-promotion, only in providing people with access to ideas. Arevich
  • Comment: I can't believe someone deleted the article already while this discussion is being carried out. Here it is for those who would like to know what they are voting about: http://www.faithless.org/wikipedia.htm Additionally here is the news page of the Universist Movement which describes its activities: http://universist.org/news.htm Universist 15:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have seen a couple of people above claim the NYT article is insignificant and just a passing mention of Universism. You can ask the author yourself: http://www.johnhorgan.org and he will tell you the article was about Universism. Or you can ask the NYT Editorial page, which printed Ford Vox's reply the following Sunday as the first letter: http://universist.org/newyorktimes.htm Also someone claimed that the NYT piece was discussed in the December VfD. It was not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Universism The piece was published after the VfD was over & posted on the dormant VfD talk page and the talk pages of several admins who championed deletion. And if you don't like the NYT try the Birmingham Weekly: http://universist.org/cover.htm Universist 16:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is borderline, but I'd say it's notable enough for an entry. They claim to have been mentioned by the BBC and Fox News, and they've been mentioned by the New York Times, albeit only used as an example of new religious movements. The page as it stood [2] was POV and would have to be heavily edited, but there seems no reason not to have an entry of some description. SlimVirgin 16:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that somebody has once again created an article, this time a poorly written sub-stub. Surely the Wikipedia administrators can see by now that this type of activity is inevitable until a properly NPOV article is included in Wikipedia? I really do not understand why there is so much resistance to having an article about Universism. Honestly, I can think of no reasonable explanations for this resistance besides ego blindness or religious bias. Is an article about a new and growing movement really going to damage the integrity of Wikipedia in any way> Arevich
  • Undelete now they're notable. To Arevich: it's almost impossible to get the article undeleted once it went through VfD (even if it was a year ago). Probably because this page is attended only by hardcore deletionists. Grue 16:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 5

List of notable schools in the United States

Well, there are so many things wrong with this vfd:

  • The nominator was anon
  • The nominator haven't proposed deletion, thus hasn't provided any reasons to delete (misuse of VfD)
  • Neither had any of those who voted delete.
  • Similar articles like List of schools in Singapore were kept. Now tell me why schools of Singapore deserve a place in Wikipedia while American schools do not.
  • Anon votes were discounted for no apparent reason.
  • The main concern about the article was its title, but it was originally at the proper title and moved in November, 2004.
  • There are many redirects to that page and there is no way to trace them unless the page is undeleted.

Propose restoring article and discuss splitting on its talk page. Grue 18:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I see plenty of reasons to deleted from those who voted such. Please note the word "notable" in the title of the deleted article, and not in the titles of the kept articles, making the page inherently POV. And note also that anonymous votes are regularly discounted and/or ignored. —Korath (Talk) 20:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • So what was wrong with moving article to the right name as many, including me, suggested? Now the information is deleted and there is no way to restore the article and its history except undeletion and moving. Grue 07:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Grue seems to be inventing a number of rules here. There's nothing wrong with an anonymous nomination, since nomination just opens the discussion. Anonymous votes are usually ignored by most sysops. Since the nominator didn't propose deletion, the nomination shouldn't be counted as a "delete" vote. (Since the nominator was anonymous, arguably if he had proposed deletion, his vote should perhaps not have been counted). In my opinion, voters should give a reason for deletion, since votes without stated reasons don't contribute to the discussion or help form consensus. However, votes without stated reasons are valid. Had I been the acting sysop, I would have based my decision on 9 votes to delete (NOT counting the nomination), 2 to keep (James F. and Grue), and 1 to merge (Neutrality) and would have considered there to be a rough consensus for deletion. I see no problem here with CSTAR's judgement. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. VfU is not the place to bring rebuttals to completed VfDs. RickK 23:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • What is it then? The result of this VfD is clearly out of sync with other similar nominations so we either have to delete the other or to undelete that one. I find it easier to do the latter, but if it fails I'll relist all lists of schools on VfD. Grue 07:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This article was properly deleted. This is undeletioncruft. Carrp | Talk 03:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's an attempt to bring consistency to Wikipedia. Grue 07:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Consistency has never been Wikipedi's forte. Among the various ways in which Wikipedia could be improved, consistency is one of the least practical and least worthwhile trying to address. It is hard to see how it could be achieved in an all-volunteer effort. Consistency is the strong point of command-and-control environments. Everyone notices the excessive weight in coverage of popular culture, but there are many other systemic biases just as great if you look for them. For example, mathematics is much better treated than biology. Fairness in treatment of individuals is worth fussing about. Consistency in treatment of articles isn't. I believe Ralph Waldo Emerson once had something relevant to say... Dpbsmith (talk) 10:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep delete. What RickK and Carrp said. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Process was followed, and title is flawed anyway as pointed out by Korath. Something needs to be done about the dead redirect at List of schools in the United States, however. --Michael Snow 05:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Like undeleting the article and moving it there? Grue 07:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So is it okay if I bring other Lists of schools that were kept for deletion? I find it totally inappropriate that some lists of schools are kept while others are not. Grue 07:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I would recommend against doing that wholesale, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. School lists are a problem situation generally, though, because I don't think we have a consensus on how to deal with them. I'm tempted to agree with Carrp's comment on the VfD, which is that they should be handled through categories, not "List of schools in..." articles. I think this would be more acceptable to the people who object to trivial list articles that implicitly encourage people to add unencyclopedic content, while not suggesting that we just shouldn't have any articles on schools. --Michael Snow 07:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"(cur) (last) 06:31, 5 Nov 2004 Mikkalai (List of schools in the United States moved to List of notable schools in the United States)"

So the article was originally at the proper title. Unfortunately the full history is not saved so there is no way non-admin could restore it. Grue 14:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted To answer your question, although Singapore is a country, like the US, it is a very, very, very small country, about 15 or 20 miles wide, if I remember right. It's basically a good-sized city, maybe one-fifth the size of Rhode Island, the smallest US state. Therefore, a list of schools in Singapore (of which there are maybe 30) is inherently more workable than a list of schools in the USA (of which there are tens of thousands). Most of the time, "if X gets an article, Y should get one too!" is a very poor argument. It's almost always like comparing apples to oranges. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's a valid argument. There is no reason why there should exist list of schools in UK (example of larger country) but not in US. There are also oter reasons that you missed. Grue 05:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted - none of the reasons to undelete are particularly good. Daniel Quinlan 23:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Surely you haven't read all of the discussion. Grue 05:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, because the list would be by far too large to be useful (as Starblind suggests). Also, WP articles shouldn't be a mere collection of (internal or external) links. Radiant! 10:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects and incoming links are listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/List of notable schools in the United States. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed all references in that list that were in the main namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 3

Colonel Paul Wentworth

I'm not sure if I should add my request for undeletion here – of my "1750s Deaths" article entitled "Colonel Paul Wentworth (1657 - 1750)" that I posted at about 3:40 PM PST - or above.

I was posting from an extremely secure server, and you may have got the boot, I'm not sure.

The article was short and unfinished, but I did provide an external link to a very detailed website located at [3], and I did promise to update.

I am not a "spammer" and I am not advertising anything for, or accepting any money or contributions to, some sort of an organization; so I'm not sure as to why the page was speedily deleted and isn't even listed under history.


The deletion log does not show any such article being deleted in the month of March. Perhaps you clicked on "Show preview" and never clicked on "Save page"? -- Curps 07:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


March 1

Wikipedia:Historical disputes between users

Can I see this page, at least briefly? -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

  • The penultimate version read:
Autobiography (album) has been a candidate for feature status, between two of the users with the highest status, User:Ambi (on the Arb Commitee) and User:Everyking
  • It has been implied that Everyking has been being a revert warrior, by not allowing changes of the Autobiography page from User:Tony Sidaway
  • In the ultimate version Everyking erased the bullet, with the comment (i would appreciate it if someone would list this garbage for deletion) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Does not appear to be a speedy deletion candidate. Please restore this. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. Was created as a personal attack against one user. Snowspinner 20:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. What Snowspinner said, and pointless besides. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted. Personal attack magnet. RickK 07:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. People should be able to see this. The Recycling Troll 11:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that the above troll's apparent raison d'etre is to follow me around and make oh-so-tiny edits after I edit an article. RickK 23:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. The content here was counterproductive and did not serve the purpose suggested by its title. I think if anyone wants to actually write a real history of Wikipedia disputes, that should go to Meta anyway. For now, the archives of RfC and arbitration should be sufficient. --Michael Snow 19:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • undeleteAcusilaus 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Account with public password, vote stricken. --Michael Snow 16:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Pointless POV article created to attack Wikipedia users. Jayjg (talk) 07:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep deleted Raving Loony 09:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Invalid vote, this user does not have suffrage in VfU. jni 11:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, inherently POV, and almost inherently incivil. Radiant! 10:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Manipulation check

Was speedied, but I think we need it back, with a {{cleanup-context}} tag or something. It looks like an important concept in experiment design, gets 11,200 hits [4]
Content was: 'Manipulation check is a measurement, in addition to the dependent variable, that determines whether each condition of the independent variable had its...') Kappa 08:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • So just write it up with some context; as it was, it was pure dicdef. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that would be easier for someone who understands it. Kappa 19:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You could add it to Requested Articles? Btw why was this deleted? Radiant! 10:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


February 26

Red Harlow

Are main characters of games speedy deletion candidates now? Can't even be merged with the game? Content was: Red Harlow (content was: 'Red Harlow is a character in Rockstar Games Red Dead Revolver game. He is the main character, and makes his living in the American West as a bounty hu...') Kappa 08:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this was wrongly deleted. I've created it as a redirect and put the information from the deleted article in the article on Red Dead Revolver. CryptoDerk 09:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete don't see why this would be speedy material. Loads of fictional characters have articles, including many game characters. If it was really so bad it should have been VfDed, but not speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:01, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cryptoderk's decision for now. When the game has enough information that a spinoff article is warranted, make one then. Snowspinner 02:20, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Valid undeletion. RickK 07:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion. If this were presented on VfD I'd probably vote for merge/redirect, rather than deletion. Radiant! 10:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Deleted Raving Loony 11:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Invalid vote, this user does not have suffrage in VfU. jni 11:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ossian Sweet

This guy [5] at least deserves a chance at a vote.
content was: a black doctor from Detroit, in the shooting death of a member of a white mob. The mob of at least a 1,000 people had gathered outside Swe...') Kappa 18:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Why was it deleted? Radiant! 10:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)