Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are articles listed on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion that were undeleted.
See the history of Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion for attribution of these discussions.
This page is preserved as an artifact of an optimistic time, and is not being updated. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05
26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 07:15 May 11, 2003 Zoe deleted "User talk:Zxcvb" (banned user) (Martin undeleted, because the reasons for a ban should be kept)
  • 07:15 May 11, 2003 Zoe deleted "User:Zxcvb" (banned user) (Martin undeleted)
  • 19:28 May 2, 2003 Zoe deleted "User talk:Zog/ban" (banned user) (Martin undeleted for acountability)
  • 21:17 May 1, 2003 JohnOwens deleted "Aymara" (banned user trying to sneak back in) (Martin restored it as history only. full text: "A common language amongst highland Bolivians and Peruvians. Considered an official language by both nations.")
  • 22:42 May 13, 2003 172 deleted "Thats how a nigger goes" (a racist copyright violation by banned user Zog, much of whose work has already been deleted, added to the votes for deletion) (I undeleted this - it was a valid redirect)
  • 10:00 Apr 27, 2003 Maveric149 deleted "Open Campaign" (Article by banned user 142.177 (content and links to disinfopedia prove this)
    • Open Campaign, however, talks about a Greenpeace definition, and fails the google test, so I think it can stay deleted. Martin 16:56 24 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I listed it on VfD Martin 18:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)
    • VfD folks decided not to delete it, after Anthere worked on it a bit.
  • 17:42 31 May 2003 Kils deleted "User:Viking" (project of my children - deleted after threats)
    • This was a history only restore, so I did so. I'll mention it to user:Vikings and ask them if they want to list the page on VfD... Martin 00:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • listed on VfD and deleted by consensus, following Vikings request. Martin 19:45 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • 17:41 31 May 2003 Kils deleted "User talk:Viking/ban" (project of my children - deleted after threats)
    • This was already undeleted by Brion.
    • listed on VfD and deleted by consensus, following Vikings request. Martin 19:45 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
done. user:Anthere



  • 08:10 17 Jun 2003 Kingturtle deleted Gaia theory (biology) (unnecessary redirect to Gaia theory (biology))
    • Right. That is a whole article that Kingturtle deleted. I hope it was a mistake from him, and that he will make the effort of undeleting it himself. Thanks. User:anthere
    • I meant to delete Gaia Theory (homeorhic) and Gaia Theory (Lynn Margulis) because they were redirects. Through human error, I somehow deleted Gaia theory (biology) when I meant to delete Gaia Theory (Lynn Margulis). I apologize greatly for this mistake. Can we please UNDELETE Gaia theory (biology) Kingturtle 19:47 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I undeleted Gaia theory (biology). -- Notheruser 20:03 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks KingTurtle and Notheruser. Ant
  • 21:17 May 1, 2003 JohnOwens deleted "War of the Pacific" (banned user trying to sneak back in) full text: "The War of the Pacific was fought between Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. Chile gained substantial land, with rich nitrate fields from both of the other two countries."
    • This is a one-two sentence stub that I think could probably be restored. Martin 19:18 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I just re-created it by making it as a new page rather than an undeletion, just so we don't have "its" name attached to it. Just feels cleaner that way. If you really want the old history, I think it can still be undeleted and the histories will be merged, if I understand correctly? -- John Owens 09:03 26 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Right Back, Long Beach Dub Allstars
    • Undeleted, listed on VfD, now redeleted. Anyone for another round? -- Tim Starling 03:31 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus to delete these, and I put some work into verifying these entries that is now lost. Please restore them. Martin 09:09 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll take that as a yes. (Note that Martin didn't see my comment above until after he wrote his). -- Tim Starling 13:37 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes on both counts :) Martin 08:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • JT has deleted 2003 in sports and replaced it with the same content, apparently to remove DW/etc from the history. Is this strictly legal? Isn't there a requirement for authorship to be acknowledged? Evercat 12:16 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Patera
    • Deleted with the comment "Dictionary definition, no indication of context: content was: 'A patera was a broad, shallow was a broad, shallow dish used for drinking, primarily in a ritual context such as a libation.'" This hardly counts as "no useful content" in my book. -- Oliver P. 01:15 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. Undeleted. -- Tim Starling 01:31 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
19:59 22 Jul 2003 172 deleted "Theories of imperialism" (Created by banned user, not linked to a single page, consisting of duplicate text borrowed from another article. )
  • 08:13 16 Jan 2003 . . Hotlorp (wikify curzon)
  • 10:27 4 Jan 2003 . . Vera Cruz ()
Created by banned user? Vera wasn't banned on January 4, and bans are not retroactive last time I checked. The other reasons are a pretty poor excuse for skipping VFD. This is really unacceptable. I've restored the history. -- Tim Starling 06:26 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Subsequently redeleted about a month later - replacement article at theories of the New Imperialism. Martin
  • Adolf Hitlier
    • history-only undeletion, please. I've not looked at the history, because of my limits. Martin 22:42, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Undeleted by Angela. To be kept as a redirect?
        • It is clogging up the orphan page. Do we really need spelling mistakes? - user:Zanimum
        • ? - It's not listed on Special:Lonelypages, if that's what you mean - redirects aren't listed on that page. Martin 19:31, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia Case User:RK - history of user talk:RK/ban, which still exists. Should be undeleted, and the history merged in the usual way. Wasn't listed on VfD, as far as I can tell. Martin 15:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Stevertigo, Anthere. Another serious of weird moves followed, inevitably, but at least EofT can't accuse anyone of a coverup. Martin 19:31, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • user:172, user talk:172
    • Could these be undeleted and blanked? I'd like to be sure I didn't say anything I would regret. Martin 15:39, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Ahh, 172's come back and done this himself. Good. Martin 12:41, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • User talk:172/ban - Could the content please be restored to User:Nostrum/White board were it was originally posted. I moved it to the ban page. I'm sorry, that was inapproprate. However users are allowed to have what they want in their personnal subpages. - Efghij 02:53, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I already moved it, thanks. He doesn't seem to be giving up, however. He's very persistent in his vandalism and trolling, which is evident on the Catholicism page history. 172 02:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Let It Be . . . Naked

Real album - needs POV fixing (IE, delete last sentence). Martin 19:38, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Why not just start writing a new one? The deleted one was barely a stub. Kingturtle 19:40, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • It was a sub stub. I didn't think it would be useful to anyone wishing to write the article. If they were going to write it they would presumably already be aware that it "is the new album by the Beatles. It's a stripped down version of the classic Let It Be album" which was the page's only content. Having said that, I don't oppose Martin's undeletion. Angela 20:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC TAR summary conflict

IPCC TAR summary conflict. Undelete and redirect, please - no need to break this link. Martin 09:14, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's the use of a redirect to the user talk space? This causes problems for those who reuse our data but only download the article pages, not the user pages. Angela 07:11, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, should have specified - I intended to redirect it to IPCC, since the material that was there (and is now in user space) should eventually end up at that article. Martin 22:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense. Undeleted. Angela 22:27, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] King & Spalding

  • King & Spalding - a fairly large and important American law firm - had its article deleted by 172 on 25 Jul 2003 after only three days on vfD. Obviously it needs to be undeleted, but I'm getting a database error when I try to undelete it. -- Oliver P. 18:11 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • done. Ready for your appreciation. I trust your comment. I didnot look at it :-) I think the undeletion pb is due to the & in the title. User:anthere
      • Oh, thanks for that, Anthere. :) Well, this chart shows the company as the 40th largest law firm in the US, so I think it's important enough. 172 might disagree, though... And oh yes, I should have known to replace the ampersand with its hexadecimal equivalent, which of course I know is %26. Oh, all right, I didn't know what it was - Evercat told me afterwards... :) -- Oliver P. 20:06 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • well, I don't know the hexadecimal equivalent either, but the browser does the replacement itself. Cool he ? (well, if I could ever say my browser is neat...) Perhaps we could add a list of comment hexa necessary in this page ?Anthere
    • There should be a list somewhere. - Arthur George Carrick
    • P.S. '=%27

Undeleted by Angela on 6 September.

  • The Chronicles of George - Was listed on VfD and thereafter deleted without a consensus. I liked the page. BL 12:57, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I liked it too. But it isn't a big enough phenomenon to warrant its own article here. -- Cyan 19:21, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I want it to be deleted, but if BL is objecting, then there's no consensus, so it should be undeleted. Martin 09:07, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Consensus does not equal unanimous. RickK 04:04, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • This is now just a redirect. Angela 14:06, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Finding child pornography on the Internet

The article was posted on October 9 and deleted on the same day. In the deletion log it's said that "Evercat deleted "Finding child pornography on the Internet" (content was: 'Listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion')", but it definitely is not there now and in any case it wasn't listed there for 7 days. The article does not fit any of the 9 criteria for speedy deletion, so it should be undeleted.

While the article is definitely controversial in topic, this is not a sufficient reason for deletion. The article also contains some useful and rare factual information. The article itself is also completely legal is most countries (confirmed by a brief comment from a professional lawyer) and activities described there are legal in at least some. Deleting an article in violation of Wikipedia procedures only because some people are not comfortable with the topic is not good. This article should be undeleted. Paranoid 22:20, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have undeleted this in order that people can see the content and discuss it. But I'm uncomfortable with leaving this in the article mainspace, so I have moved it to User:Cyan/Internet child pornography. -- Cyan 22:54, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The article has been moved to User:Paranoid/Internet child pornography. -- Cyan 22:45, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Seems like in started as, and continues to be, an advocacy piece. Delete. orthogonal 19:16, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Delete. It links to pages with nude children. I won't argue that for those pages to have those non-sexual images is wrong, but we shouldn't link to them, only mention them. - Arthur George Carrick
Probably illegal. Stay deleted. (Illegality should also be reason enough for speedy deletion) DJ Clayworth 17:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have put the article back into the article space, at Internet child pornography. This was extensively discussed at the time, and there was not only no consensus to delete the article, but in fact majority support (in the opinion poll on the talk page) for keeping it. -- Oliver P. 01:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian year pages

The hundred or so articles that used to be listed at Timeline of Canadian history. They were listed on VfD for only a few hours before being deleted. The new articles are already too long, and they contain at most 10% of the content that I am preparing to add. The articles are also much less useful in this new form. - SimonP 05:36, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

  • Done. Good luck with working on them. :) -- Oliver P. 07:01, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Clifton Eastern High School

Perfectly valid-looking article deleted by User:RickK without listing on Vfd. Such blatant abuses of sysop powers are really starting to annoy me now. I might start making formal complaints. -- Oliver P. 01:24, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, please do complain. You'll notice that the article even mentions that the school will no longer exist soon. Let's please not keep creating these bogus articles. RickK 01:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. If the reason for deleting it was that it soon won't exist, that's not a good reason (other things that no longer exist include Beethoven, Atlantis, and the Roman Empire). It needs work, and it needs to be deorphaned, but it's fine to keep. --Camembert
That's your opinion. There are a number of users who feel that high schools don't need their own articles. I've listed it on VfD. RickK 01:34, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Whether or not we should keep the article is a matter of opinion, and seeking those opinions is precisely what Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is for. Whether or not sysops are allowed to delete articles without following the deletion policy is a separate question entirely, and as far as I am aware there is still a consensus that they are not. -- Oliver P. 02:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
nod. Martin 03:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Sunset High School

Also deleted without listing on Vfd. -- Oliver P. 02:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The policy states that if something is deleted out-of-process it may be instantly undeleted, which imo is what you should have done. This page is not the place to air your differences of opinion with RickK. Angela
Does it? Oh... I thought we were meant to list here, even if we felt they were out of process. Maybe the intro to this page needs fixing? Martin 02:25, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well I thought it did but I can't find it now. Should it? Angela
No idea. I love conversations like this for highlighting how much we're making it up as we go along. People must come to us, now with more market share than slashdot, expecting big things and incisive comment and decisive action and organisation - but we really are just a bunch of amateurs... it's funny.
What if I think a deletion was in-process and you think it was out-of-process? That's the worst case, imo. Martin 02:40, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well there's no such thing as a professional deletion policy writer is there? Anyway, I rewrote the policy to make it look like I was right all along. Comments, reverts etc welcome there. :) Angela 02:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum

See Talk:Santorum.

[edit] Brianism

Brianism - This article was prematurely deleted. VfD (by my count, I could be wrong) was split 5 for and 5 against. Vote was only 5 days. Discussion was ongoing and productive. - UtherSRG 20:29, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] KPPP

No consensus. [1] Anthony DiPierro 13:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Yellow Pig Day

See also Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted for the first time it was deleted and placed on VfU

Consensus on vfd was to keep. Anthony DiPierro 01:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Undelete! Thanks for catching this, Anthony. Not a reposting of earlier content; I had no idea the page had existed before. Certainly a real day; new information (that many people knew of/celebrated this day) changed opinions about keeping/deleting. +sj+ 19:47, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
Also -- just saw this note on the [former deletion] of the page... sorry that some YP fan was being a punk. It's ok by me if ppl decide again to delete this, but I promise I'm not related to any of those sock puppets. Could we at least put this back on VfD? [Some people] take the celebration [very seriously].
Keep deleted. Was recreation of previously deleted page. --Wik 02:03, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. Everyking 01:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. Given the VfD result, this should not have been deleted. Jamesday 22:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Keep deleted - Texture 05:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. Yes, a recreation of a previously deleted page, but this time we got some verification that this was real and promises to make it a better page. Let's give it a run and see if it turns out worthwhile. —Morven 04:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. YP Day may be a math geek in-joke, but it's nonetheless something with a real following (among math geeks). Robert Southworth 17:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The lack of consensus on the second deletion has not been contested, so I've undeleted this. Angela. 18:59, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

W. Thomas Smith, Jr. was a controversial delete at the time, w/ much discussion on VfD. I believe that he passes the 5000-readers test, which did not exist at the time of deletion. Meelar 22:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Can't be sure without seeing the page, so undelete. Anthony DiPierro 01:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Since I think Anthony's above decision to undelete anything he can't see is inappropriate, I will balance it. Keep deleted - Texture 05:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Let me clarify. Meelar has stated that he believes that this person passes the 5000-readers test. Since I can't verify that claim without seeing the page, I have voted to undelete. I don't want to undelete anything I can't see. Anthony DiPierro 15:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. He is a prominent journalist - and still alive. Not a 9/11 victim - but wrote a book about it... and others that are available on amazon.com. [2] Work has appeared in National Review, USA Today, New York Post, U.S. News & World Report. Davodd 08:21, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete, in light of the above info. Everyking 19:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete, please, at least to put it thru VfD again. +sj+ 13:45, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
    • Undeleted, listed on VfD. Angela. 19:42, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MUD trees

Undeleted. See Talk:MUD trees.

[edit] Richard Genovese

-> Talk:Richard Genovese


[edit] noxious trade

  • this was deleted and I was never informed or given a chance to defend it.
The page has the VfD message added on the 17th January. I can't see when it was actually deleted though, or who deleted it. I don't know why this is. theresa knott 17:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok I found it in the deletions log. "20:34, Jan 22, 2004 Angela deleted "Noxious trade" (listed on VfD and moved to Wiktionary) So it looks in order to me.theresa knott 17:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's here theresa knott 20:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It should be undeleted. The wikipedia should have a list of occupations which are considered to be part of the "noxious trades" Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 02:47, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Question. I wonder if there is an established policy concerning articles that someone wants to write, after a different article of the same title has been deleted. Reposting a previously-deleted article makes for speedy deletion, that much is settled. But what if someone writes a meaningful article on the same topic? In this case it's not clear to me that a meaningful article can't be written about "noxious trade". Not a vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion says that "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy" is a candidate. I don't think the title matters. That's why I've not voted to undelete. If someone wants to make a meaningful replacement for this article, they can go right ahead. anthony (see warning) 18:45, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As Lir had recreated this anyway, I restored the history to preserve earlier author attribution. Angela. 08:00, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kewpie doll

Legitimate stub deleted by Olivier. - Woodrow XXIIIII, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 03:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temasek Secondary School

Deleted after going through VfD with the summary "listed on vfd for six days, consensus to delete", but on the (also deleted) Template:VfD-Temasek Secondary School I see ten votes to delete versus six to keep, which I wouldn't call consensus (if I'd seen the vote in time, it would've been 7-10). Also, all of those votes were made before the article was expanded a bit by Tim Starling, and I see no reason in policy for the page as it was in its final state to have been deleted. --Camembert 15:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After deleting the article I discovered that some of the discussion had been added to the main vfd page and not to Template:VfD-Temasek Secondary School. I would suggest looking at the history of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to get the full tally which was, if I remember correctly, 12 votes to delete v. 6 to keep. -- Graham :) | Talk 15:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out (though I make it 11-6). I'd still like it to be undeleted, since, as I say, all the votes were made before Tim expanded the article (it wasn't by much, I admit, but it turned it from an uber-stub to just a regular one-paragraph stub). --Camembert
Well I don't have a problem with that myself. -- Graham :) | Talk 16:59, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Even if it were 12-6, you're pushing it to say that is a consensus. Taking into account other factors, such as the article having additions made after some of these votes, I'd say there isn't a case for deleting this. I've undeleted. Angela. 19:40, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Donald Adams

Needs to be undeleted so that it can be properly transwikied to sep11 wiki. The page history is missing from that site. anthony (see warning) 23:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. See Sep11:Talk:Donald_Adams. Angela. 01:18, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] All MediaWiki:Vfd- pages deleted by DJ Clayworth

DJ Clayworth keeps pages that had consensus to delete (e.g. Alex Hirka) and then deletes those MediaWiki:VfD pages so that the votes are no longer verifiable. --Wik 19:17, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Alex Hirka deleted per unanimous vote - Template:VfD-Alex_Hirka restored and linked to Wikipedia:Archived delete debates to retain vote. - Tεxτurε 19:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • The content should be moved to the talk page really if the article is being kept. Perhaps the policy needs to be clarified if people agree that is what should be done. Angela. 19:40, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Alex (TorridZone Igloo) Hirka deleted per consensus - Template:VfD-AlexTorridZoneIglooHirka restored and linked to Wikipedia:Archived delete debates to retain vote. - Tεxτurε 19:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Apologies for not moving the contents to talk. My mistake. With Alex Hirka there were two very similar pages. Alex Hirka was unanimous to delete, and I deleted it. Alex (TorridZone Igloo) Hirka was consensus to keep (or at least no consensus to delete), so I kept it. Then, since the title for Alex (TorridZone Igloo) Hirka looked like it wasn't going to be useful, I moved it to Alex Hirka. Either way you now have one copy of text that was voted to be kept, and in a sensible place. (as for why one copy was voted to keep and one to delete, you'll have to ask those that voted). (I also NPOV's the Alex (TorridZone Igloo) Hirka article a little). DJ Clayworth 19:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Wasn't aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Archived delete debates either. I'll move things there next time. Why is it required to have copies both there and on talk page? DJ Clayworth 19:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • As I understand it, it isn't. If the article is kept, the mediawiki link goes on the talk page. If the article is deleted it goes in the archive. theresa knott 20:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • It is optional to keep the MediaWiki link for the talk page or to delete the MediaWiki link and add the votes to the talk page. I prefer to move the votes and delete the MediaWiki link since people see it on their watchlist and don't necessarily realize the vote is over. Deleting it and moving the contents to talk makes it clear to voters. - Tεxτurε 21:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • That makes sense. Will do. DJ Clayworth 20:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Meg White

It was ugly, but I think Fuzheado deleted it without cause. It could have been wikified into an article. RickK 04:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. anthony (see warning)
    • Why? Angela. 03:41, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with RickK - it look like it's been undeleted now, anyway. Martin 11:07, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Moderately notable musician. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:01, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Seems fine, though I can understand someone deleting it if they didn't do a search first to confirm that it wasn't a personal page. Jamesday 02:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rallos Zek

Appears to have been deleted through speedy deletion. Did not, from summary on deletion log, fulfill qualifications for SD. Rallos Zek is in fact god of war in EverQuest, there is a PvP server named after him, etc. Maybe a case could be made for a VfD listing (Though I'd oppose deleting there too), but it was not a case for speedy deletion. Snowspinner 16:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Undelete and restore original before blanking. - Tεxτurε 21:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree this should be undeleted. Angela. 03:41, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, undelete. There are all kinds of gaming articles on Wikipedia. RickK 23:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Seems to have been a victim of too-speedy deletion - helps to give even short pages a week or so to develop rather than deleting them instantly. Jamesday 02:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Koss

It was an accurate sub-sub-stub that was deleted by someone before anyone else got a chance to expand it. --Zigger 16:12, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The entire content was "A company that makes sound stuff". There is no reason to undelete this. It provides no useful information whatsoever and would waste the time of anyone clicking on a link to it. Angela. 02:06, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Keep deleted. If you want to write a real article, nobody's stopping you, but what was there was nonsense. RickK 19:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I accept that it was a valid candidate for speedy deletion on the basis of shortness, but not because of lack of facts or patent nonsense. That short (and short-lived) article was enough for me to want to help expand it. We now have a Koss disambiguation page, and a Koss Corporation stub. I would have liked to provide attribution for the original contributor. If I do get around to writing a "real article" on Koss, thanks for the permission :-). --Zigger 09:57, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
Since a real article exists there now, I've undeleted the original six words to keep the author attribution. Angela. 12:11, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trip Hawkins

I authored an article on Trip Hawkins a while back, but it's been deleted. I didn't see it listed on VfD, it's just gone! As the founder of Electronic Arts and 3DO, I think he is worthy of an article. Does anyone know what happened to it and why it was killed? —Frecklefoot 20:30, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

From the deletion log:-
05:38, 13 May 2004 Dysprosia deleted "Trip Hawkins" (just an external link - content was: '==External links==* [http://www.fuckedcompany.com/ Digital Chocolate website]{{msg:stub}}').
Lee (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

It was a full article at one point. You can see the cache of it here. However, it was ofen vandalized (apparently by a digruntled former employee of 3DO). I suspect the same person trimmed it down to the link and Dysprosia deleted it. The history would have shown the correct, full article. Is there some way to restore it? —Frecklefoot 20:42, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

I expect the deletion was accidental. I've undeleted it now and reverted to an earlier version. Angela. 20:45, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela. Yes, I suspect the deletion was accidental too. I didn't think Dysprosia knowingly deleted a legit article. Now if we could just get the vandal to stop vandalizing it... —Frecklefoot 20:50, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How to learn a language

Keep- The reason given was it belongs in the Wikibooks, (Categorical) if so then the whole How tos should be transferred. The article is not mature yet to be a book. It gives useful advice that people don't normally do. --Jondel 04:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reinhard Hauff

Stubbish article about a German director. RickK 00:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

It's borderline. I don't think Guanaco was wrong to delete it, but I have no objection to it being undeleted. Entire content was "German Film Director Directed and wrote many movies in Germany during the late sixties to early ninties." Angela. 00:56, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
Please recreate. That's more than I knew about him, and this will probably expand eventually. Meelar 18:17, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Undelete. The information is not very extensive but it's enough for a stub. Worth remembering that search engine hits on stubs, even very short ones, are likely to be a significant source of editors for an article, one which isn't going to be present if the article isn't around. Jamesday 16:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Per the undeletion policy I've undeleted and expanded this article, seeing three undelete votes (assuming RickK to be suggesting undelete), one neutral and no opposing votes. The expansion appears likely to resolve the doubts of the neutral voter. Still rather stubby, though. Jamesday 17:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep the expanded and cleaned up version. Guanaco 17:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fairbairn

  • Fairbairn was deleted despite two voters on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#August 6 who think the title is useful for a Dab, vs. nominator favoring deletion. (This would seem to be a precedent for eliminating all Dab pages whose titles are surnames.) --Jerzy(t) 20:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Undelete. - UtherSRG 21:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. RickK 23:35, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Arevich 02:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Undelete - Tεxτurε 15:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Undeleted. Angela. 19:18, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause

Update 02:30, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC): These templates were created ten hours before the injunction took effect. They were improperly deleted. Please be reminded that their content is not relevant, it is their improper deletion which is the issue. - Vague | Rant 02:30, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) These templates were deleted because User:CheeseDreams has a temporary injunction from editing articles: [3]. A template is not an article, and these two templates should not have been deleted. They were, at the time of deletion, on TFD: [4]. The TFD process should be allowed to be completed, and as such these templates will need to be restored. - Vague | Rant 10:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

These templates were undeleted, so that the vote on WP:TFD can be completed. -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Diet

I created a Sex Diet article. It was deleted for being an advert, which is ridiculous. My only guess is that the person who deleted it was not educated on the subject. I know the name is "sensational", but a Sex Diet is actually recognized by members of both the American Academy of Clinical Sexologists and the Female Sexual Medical Center at UCLA School of Medicine. If you speak to a sexologist about a Sex Diet and sexual nutrition, chances are pretty good they are familiar with it.

I'm guessing that the "advert" claim is because of the link to the book site. I only put that link up because it is the only current comprehensive book on the matter. It would be just as easy to take the link down but I think it's helpful for anyone who wants to learn about it (I'm not going to sit here and type in all 150 pages of a copywritten book). Heck, if you don't like what I wrote, research it for yourself and edit it, but don't delete it. (above from User:Lovelyrita)

  • I undeleted this; it looked like an invalid speedy to me. "Looking like an advert" is not a cause for speedy deletion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Good call, I'll probably VfD it unless it gets serious cleanup and improvement soon, but it wasn't a CSD. --fvw* 17:03, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Lovelyrita: I recommend you read wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view, since you may be the best person to rewrite the article to conform with it. Kappa 20:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History only undeletion

[edit] André Nilsen

Please undelete any history from André Nilsen, or let me know that there isn't any deleted history. anthony 警告 14:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't really see any sense in that, the article is deleted, there's merely a placeholder there to prevent vandalism. --fvw* 16:01, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
    • It's currently listed here on VfU, and seeing the history would help people decide how to comment on that undeletion. anthony 警告 16:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • There isn't any deleted history. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Not any more. That's 'cause this request was fulfilled. anthony 警告 21:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Fitzgerald

Can someone please undelete the history of Katie Fitzgerald so I can see it. anthony 警告 21:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • A decent article hasn't been written on Katie Fitzgerald, and won't be as she is non-notable (as determined by VfD). Theoretically, the redirect currently in place should be deleted. There's no reason to undelete the history except to prompt a revert war. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • No reason? I want to see the friggen information. That's the reason. anthony 警告 12:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Deleted articles are non-visible on purpose. VfU is not a way of circumventing that. --fvw* 14:05, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
        • Actually I'd say it's an accident that deleted articles are non viewable. The original programmers just couldn't come up with a better way to do things. I've always been pointed to VfU when I wanted to see a deleted article, and the page instructions specifically say that "this page exists for [...] non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article." I'm a non-sysop, and I wish to see the content of a deleted article. Go figure. anthony 警告 16:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I've undeleted the history. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High Tauern

There used to be this page which I created on November 5 on the basis of the one in the German Wikipedia article([5]). The page seems to have just dissappeared, without me noticing, even though I was watching the page and still am. I couple of pages, including a redirect, are linking to it. I fail to see a reason for deletion. Martg76 23:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • How odd, could we have a temp undelete to see the english article? --fvw* 13:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Undeleted. Looks like it was a mistake during dewillification. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct Games

I created a article for Defunct Games yesterday, and it seems to be missing, there is no VfD history or anything... and i looked at the description for speedy deletion, and it doesnt seem to have violated any of those rules.

Defunct Games is a NPO, and was not put in here for advertizing... I figure if you have Burger King, Pepsi, and numurous other companies, then why not Defunct Games... if you want a better detailed description, let me know, I can supply anything that would make it a valid entry

  • This was deleted as a self-promotion. It looks to me like a grey-area speedy for that reason, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and restoring it for now. Honestly, though, unless this company is truly notable, it's liable to be deleted at some point anyway. My advice would be for you to do your best to establish notability as best you can. – ClockworkSoul 08:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted it because in tone and presentation it really felt like a vanity page. Apparently that was not the case, and I apologize. I agree with ClockworkSoul though, if you don't establish notability it likely will end up on VfD. Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess I dont understand what you want that is notable, we are a gaming website that has been around for 3 years running, we regularly attend E3 and other conventions of the like, we are a registered business with the Department of Licencing, what more is needed. Please let me know, you can contact me via ICQ: 165512867 or email: sryuuza@defunctgames.com

[edit] January 12

[edit] User talk:Arminius

from delete log -- 13:48, 31 Dec 2004 Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius (time to go)

this does not fall under the criteria in CSD. it is inappropriate for an admin to delete the history of their correspondence. it is inappropriate for an admin to delete a page with no supporting policy. it is particularly inappropriate to do so given that page's role in the recent arbcom case concerning Arminius. this admin recreated page shortly after deletion, but with all history missing and has activily continued as an admin since the deletion of his talk page [6]. Wolfman 03:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't fall under CSD. I undeleted the page history and left him a note. But, since the arbcom case was closed, he can have the page deleted under option 7 of "Other pages" on CSD. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. You're saying WP:CSD doesn't allow admins to delete their own user pages, but they can ask another admin to delete their user pages for them? I don't think that necessarily follows from WP:CSD, and I don't think it's common practice either (thought I may be mistaken on that last bit). --fvw* 04:37, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Pretty much. It is to prevent the type of abuse that Wolfman is alleging. If something isn't specifically allowed on CSD, you aren't supposed to delete it. In the same theme, you can't block yourself from editing, but you can ask someone else to block you from editing. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:42, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Two heads are better than one. It's bad enough admins insist on protecting their own subpages when there is no history of vandalism. Deletion of user pages should involve two people. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
There is more info on this at Wikipedia:User page. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:53, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I undeleted his talk page history again. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:59, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
And he redeleted it again. I am referring it to the administrators' noticeboard. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:15, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Specifically, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User talk:Arminius. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:15, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] January 19

[edit] Mycosis Fungoides

Content was: 'A form of lymph cancer characterized by scaly skin patches. It progresses over several years to form elevated skin lesions and then tumors.' Kappa 08:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know the entire content of the article, so you could have just re-created it. I undeleted it, because it's on the edge of "Very short article with little or no context". If it's not improved in 24 hours, it will get VfD'd. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 08:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you're quick. I was about to move the article, but you beat me to it. I listed it on cleanup. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 08:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind did a nice job of cleaning it up. I'll be de-listing this from VfU in the next 24 hours, since it's resolved. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes thank you Starblind, good job. I didn't want to recreate it myself because I wouldn't feel comfortable taking credit for it, and also that would be a violation of the Gnu license. Kappa 05:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] January 12

[edit] Route 128 Station

This was deleted in October 2004. The article fits perfectly into Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations. It's not even a questionable rural station that sees one train a week - it's served by Amtrak's Acela Express high-speed service, as well as the MBTA's commuter rail, and is a major station, if a bit spartan, for people south of Boston. The vote was 4-2, not even really a consensus. --SPUI 23:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete. There's precedent for such articles existing. In cases where an article fits into a greater framework the threshold for notability should be lower. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Agreed. Postdlf 00:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a note to VfD per VfU policy. The question is: if this gets undeleted, would it survive VfD when it got re-nominated? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's my understanding that 2/3 isn't consensus, or it's just barely (I think that number was being thrown around in the GNAA VFD). Anyway, anyone who votes delete should be shot. I'm going to list Greenway (Middle-earth) on VFD right now to get a feel for how inconsistent people actually are. --SPUI 04:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Nominating things that you don't want deleted as an experiment is not a very good idea. If it gets deleted, it's not going to ever get undeleted. From the deletion policy: some do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus". —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:24, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete agree with SPUI on reson for undelete, the station is a major commuter rail station as well as a major station surving the south suburbs of Boston on Amtraks NE corodor lines. --Boothy443 05:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Notable and encyclopedic, just like all other public transport infrastructure. --Centauri 05:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. There's a good argument for keeping it. While 4-2 may be a 2/3 vote, with only 6 votes it's not a strong enough consensus to keep deleted against solid objections. Michael Ward 05:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've undeleted. This was a feeble deletion, and there's plenty of reason for it to stay. 4-2 is not really indicative of anything. I also strongly suggest that SPUI rescind that other VfD, as it's made in bad faith. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] January 5

[edit] Jam 1575

This is an article about a UK student radio station which is listed in List of UK radio stations. Please have a look at this list before commenting on this undeletion request. I would like somebody to give me a valid reason why this particular radio station should be deleted while others on this list should not. The station broadcasts on AM, like many other stations in this list, and is a community radio station, like many others in this list - it is no more 'unnotable' than them. This article was also much more detailed than the articles of many of the other stations in the list.

There is no Wikipedia policy on radio station articles, so rather than telling me whether or not the VfD was legit, I would like someone to tell me the reasoning behind why someone cherry picked this particluar station for deletion out of the many which are listed and have articles on Wikipedia. This list was becoming a comprehensive guide to UK radio stations, a small and very useful part of Wikipedia which people should be proud of. Instead, people whith little apparent knowledge of this part of Wikipedia seem intent on taking parts of it away, without respect for the comprehensiveness or usefulness of this list. Please restore this article so that it can exist alongside other articles for other stations which are just as notable as this one. PJBeef 01:59 5 January 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably notable. Best to be on the safe side. Undelete. Tim Ivorson 10:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The article hasn't been deleted so this is not a matter for VfU. But if you want an explanation for the VfD: It's a small university radio station with nothing to make it special or out of the ordinary. That level of notability mandates a small mention in the university article at best. --fvw* 11:08, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    • The article is now only a redirect page with the history wiped and all the information deleted. To me it is notable simply because it's a radio station. Do you really think it's right to go through List of UK radio stations and delete some articles because you think they're not as big as the others listed?
  • The history is all there now. Either it was undeleted or it was never deleted. The VfD can be seen at Talk:Jam 1575. The version nominated to VfD deserved to be deleted. I support the VfD process (it's less than 2 watts! My computer speakers are more powerful), but if I was PJBeef, I'd wait a couple weeks, then put up a better version of the page in place of the redirect and see if anyone complains. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete other radio stations are listed. Salazar 06:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This page met the criteria for undeletion, so I reverted to a prior edit and re-listed on VfD, per policy. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jam 1575. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 08:58, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] January 24

[edit] Theater of Pain

recreated, unless someone want to delete it again :)

A Mötley Crüe album. Doesn't mention that fact but is linked from that page. Probably nothing more than a tracklist but there are many album pages with nothing more. Kappa 22:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I say keep deleted, let someone recreate it when they have something more than just a tracklist. It didn't even mention Mötley Crüe. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:58, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - starting from scratch won't be any more difficult. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It was actually quite annoying trying to recreate it because I could only find re-releases with extra tracks. Kappa 07:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's what it had: "1.City Boy Blues 2.Smokin' In The Boys' Room 3.Louder Than Hell 4.Keep Your Eye On The Money 5.Home Sweet Home 6.Tonight (We Need A Lover) 7.Use It Or Lose It 8.Save Our Souls 9.Raise Your Hands To Rock 10.Fight For Your Rights." With the extra tracks and re-releases, you have the promise for an article better than the average album "article". —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:42, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK thanks I made a stub. Kappa 09:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 2005

[edit] Glitching

What was in Glitching please, just to view? Kappa 04:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I've undeleted. Geogre said "db|word does not exist and is just an unknown invention, maybe User:Ele9699 even made it up himself". But there are 35,800 Google hits for it, so it does seem to be used. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I've merged/redirected to Glitch where it should be at home. Kappa 09:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I should point out that the "because" was done by the person who tagged it as a CsD. I merely executed the decision. The reason I did so was that it appeared to me to be a neologism in highly specialized usage and an action for which there are no doubt dozens of words. The article as it was said that "glitching" was using a software glitch in an online game for profit. Well, that might be "bugging." It might be "gaming the game." It might be a lot of things, and it's likely not just online games. In short, I agreed with the tagger, but it wasn't my tag. Geogre 22:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. Sorry for the incorrect attribution; I'll look more carefully next time --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Olympia Academy

Can I view the rest of this please? (with the capital A) And BTW where am I supposed to put requests just to view content? Kappa 20:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

{{cleanup-tone}}Einstein was working as a Patent Clerk in Bern, but the cash was tight so he totally decided to start tutoring physics (because he's so good at it - LOL). Well, he tutored a dude who turned into his buddy, and they would totally just chit chat all night about physics and philosophy, so Einstein couldn't really charge him anymore, unless he was going to be an unfair jerk. They got some other buddies together and had regular meetings where they talked about crap. Einstein's woman apparently came to the meetings too, but she didn't talk much or something. The Olympia Academy was probably pretty important for the foundations of a lot of Einstein's personal philosophy, and physics theories. Peace.
-- AllyUnion (talk) 20:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote this on 11 ii 05; it still needs some work (a couple of polishings got lost in the Great Power Cut of '05), and any help would be appreciated. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Maha Jana High School

Solid proof that this school exists is provided at this official Indian National Information Centre site for the Erode elections, which shows that the school has been used as a polling station: [7]. This site was inaugurated by the chief returning officer--who presides over elections in Tamil Nadu.

I was sifting through some of the old deletion debates and noticed that this one was red in spite of consensus to keep (or "no consensus" which is almost the same thing). The debate is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School. Also when I looked at the deletion log I found these entries

  • 14:39, 16 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Maha jana high school" (content was: '{{delete}}#REDIRECT Maha Jana High School')
  • 14:39, 16 Apr 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Maha Jana High School" (content was: '{{delete}}#redirect Erode')

Strange, why would people fight so vehemently over redirects? I suspect that there is something in the page history of Maha Jana which should be undeleted per the VfD debate. Note that I am listing this merely as a policy issue, usually I avoid VfD debates about high schools. Sjakkalle 12:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Undeleted, VfD'd, kept.

[edit] May 10, 2005

[edit] Gustavus Franklin Swift

9 undeletes; 5 keep deleteds, one of which was struck; two comments. A better article on the same topic existed at Gustavus Swift and was moved over the deleted page. The old history was then undeleted under the better page. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May 11 2005

[edit] Achstetten

New stub written, history undeleted.

[edit] A1 (rocket), A2 (rocket) etc

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A1 (rocket). Including A1, A2, A5, A7, A8, A9, A11, A12 as far as I can tell. These were all speedied with "merged" as the reason given. Some still have red links to them. Should be recreated and then redirected, to preserve history. Kappa 06:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Articles undeleted, merged properly, and redirected. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:10, May 26, 2005 (UTC)