Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive 1

2012 requests

Odyssey Arena

The page had just been created, therefore I had little time to add more to and and also simplify it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and moved to a sandbox here: [1] Once you're done simplifying it, feel free to recreate or have it moved back into mainspace. Kansan (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese armour

I did not copy the entire article, just the introduction and a small portion of text which explained the basics of the topic. The article was deleted with no time to discuss or simplify if deemed necessary. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you copied the introduction etc. you should at least tried a bit to simplify it.Receptie123 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not suggest that instead of deleting it right away, what was the big hurry, its better to have some thing that can be worked on instead of nothing.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference in the parts that you copied. Please read our guidelines on translating English into Simple English and how to copy from another Wikipedia. If you need time to translate the material, you can use your userspace as a draft area. Osiris (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say there was any difference, I am saying that the article was deleted before I could make any changes that may have been suggested, in fact I had no time to even reply to the delete request. The article should be undeleted so that I can make the suggested changes. Can you explain what the big rush was to delete, how does that accomplish anything?Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were five and half hours for you to translate it. Since you know that it was tagged for deletion, you had five hours notice to read the quick deletion policy and work to correct it. The policy keeps our articles in the project's language: if we let people copy and paste chunks of text in complex English, the wiki would just become another English Wikipedia. You haven't lost any work here. It's still all there on en:Japanese armour. Use a sandbox page and follow the guidelines before recreating it. If you need help writing in simple English, I'll be happy to help you or you can ask for assistance at WP:ST. If you're translating material from another Wikipedia, you also need to give attribution for copyright purposes. Osiris (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For large translation projects, Special:MyPage/Sandbox is useful, because you can start your translation there without it being deleted. If you want, I can import the page (so you have the contribution history) and move it to your sandbox. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Creol/test

The page User:Creol/test was quick deleted from my userspace per U1 but no request was made. The page had been previously blanked by myself, but that was only to reset it after that current test (the page is my sandbox) so as to not affect categories and/or error reports. While it is not certain past edits there will be needed for future review, my past work can be used to look at how I dealt with certain issues before and help with future work.

Can I have my page back, please. --Creol(talk) 21:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Osiris (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skull fracture

Why was it deleted and especially why was it "Speedily deleted"? And why was I not even given the courtesy of having a chance to reply. Pretty goddamned rude. 7mike5000 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion comment was "Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion: simplify it before you publish it, please, or use your userspace to take your time with it". If you want I can undelete, and move it to your userspace? - Once you are done, you ask for it to be moved back? --Eptalon (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, it's common sense I was going to "Simplify it". Deleting it/undeleting it does not effect me in the least, the rudeness does. With the amount that I have done, yet not even simple courtesy like utilizing the talk page to address the alleged egregious violation of policy. That is exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia in general discourteous, rude and obnoxious behavior, and often times from those far less inclined or able to actually create anything.7mike5000 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I usually give people about a week to simplify pages they "brought over". If after the week, no sign of simplification is apparent, it can still be deleted. Also I know the good work you have done (simplifying) on other pages, so wouldn't have QD'd it... --Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted more than 12 hours after you published it, and more than 10 hours after it was tagged by another editor. It was a straight-up cut-and-paste of a medical article with absolutely none of the text changed. So it wasn't in any level of acceptable state to simply be pasted in and left sitting there. It was perfectly reasonable, then, for the page to be tagged and later deleted as a result of our policies and guidelines — if you think these policies are discourteous, then ask for them to be changed; until then, we all have to stick to them. The work is still available, in exactly the same form, on en:Skull fracture. The mainspace is not for works-in-progress. Use your userspace for anything that's going to take that amount of time. Osiris (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Massey

I was planning to do more research to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.240.199 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never existed here or on the English Wikipedia. -Orashmatash (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjean

I noticed that the article on Benjean was deleted, and I signed up for a Wikipedia account, just to get it undeleted. I find that reams of information can be found on this dog-actress in other Wikipedia pages, and it is completely unfair to her that she does not have a page. She should have a full filmography, etc!!! I have seen a header at the top of other pages that says "this article is brief and may need more info to be accurate" I think Benjean's page should be restored with one of those headers. Obviously the admin who deleted the page just didn't like dogs!!lol Thank-you for your consideration.

This article never existed in the Simple English Wikipedia. I'm quite sure you are referring to it's English Wikipedia counterpart, which was deleted. In that case, you should use this page. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 06:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Testaverde

Vinny Testaverde. I created this article planning to go back and add more. I believe I can improve this article if it is undeleted.

Thank you,

1ravensnflfan (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you want to work on it after about one month since you created it. We delete the page then because people usually forget about it and then we've another complex article around. If you really want to work on it now, I'd undelete it and move it to your userspace, so you can work on it there. Once finished, you can move it back. Would that be ok for you? -Barras talk 13:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK. User:1ravensnflfan

User:1ravensnflfan/Vinny Testaverde. -Barras talk 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Oral}}{{Pulmonic}},{{Bilabial}},{{Central-lateral}},{{Approximant}},{{Alveolar}}

I created them because I need them in every consonants. Although just one page used them, it doesn't mean that you should delete it. I can't create many consonants page at once!--Kc kennylau (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use them on many pages, then I guess that's okay. But you'd also copied them without any simplifying and without giving attribution to the authors. Note that these templates insert prose into the body of the article, so you need to explain technical jargon like "prototypically", "articulated" and "sub-apical". Osiris (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After collaborating over the past few days, the new template {{consonants}} has replaced the need for these. Osiris (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I'd like to see the next edition include mini explans of the three terms at the bottom of the chart, please. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Proverbs

Here is the URL to the existing page that was deleted by UDScott (due to lack of sources): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Portuguese_proverbs I am not the original author of this page. But I am appealing for the restoration of this highly useful page onto wikipedia. This was an extremely resourceful page that had hundreds of Continental/Brazilian Portuguese proverbs/sayings that were also translated into English and other languages. I found this VERY useful for any language enthusiast. Please restore this page ASAP in its entirety as there was a PLETHORA of knowledge to be harvested from this page. If you cannot leave the page, I will understand your respect for 'sources' however I would like to save a copy of these proverbs on my hard drive, would it be possible to either restore this page or send me the data? Thank you! 174.52.128.234 04:16, 23 January 2012

This is the Simple English Wikipedia, not the English Wikipedia. That page has never existed here and we do not have an administrator named UDScott. Try this page. Orashmatash is travelling (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't check that when I moved it. But if it was on wikiquote originally, you'll want Wikiquote:Deletion review. Osiris (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 requests

Flint Dale

2 hours after I created that article, there's nothing but blank, which makes me confuse because I didn't receive any warnings for me to contest the speedy deletion.

Given that in under a 4 hour span you had this exact same article quick deleted on 4 different wiki (Spanish, Tagalog, Welsh, and here) with it being fought over as a CSD on English (and most likely headed to AfD if it fails the QD), I find it hard to believe you are the least bit surprised it got deleted here. Of the 6 wiki you posted it too, only the Swedish wiki hasn't noticed it yet and taken action. The fact that even some of the references you listed in the article went and deleted themselves already doesn't help nor does the self-posted references. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo 5

I told you not to delete! Undelete please!

As the deleting admin, can I request you to give reasons why this should not have been deleted? Since this was almost a total copy/paste from the English Wikipedia, it met WP:QD#A3 and the deletion was correct in my opinion. If you provide a reason or you want to improve/simplify the article, I will undelete the article for the discussion. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think about the people that want to lean about GT5? There is a GT4 page, but no GT5. I overturn the closure, but as it is alredy gone, PLEASE UNDELETE!!!!!

If they want to learn about GT5 then google is their friend. There is no need to have information on absolutely EVERYTHING here! That's what the more complex wikis are for! Barts1a (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a GT4 page? How about I copy/paste GT5 and simplfy some difficult words? --213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art Institute of Chicago

This article is based on the English Wikipedia article. It was deleted by User:Either way on the grounds of ‎QD A3: "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change." The article was not eligible for quick deletion because it was not a case of copy and paste. There was substantial improvement and editing done to the article. The article covers a notable and important subject. The article is on the Wikipedia of 27 other languages. QD A3 was designed to deter people from just copying and pasting articles from other Wikipedia projects. That was clearly not what happened here. Please restore this important article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is still quite a bit complex at some points. I'd restore it to move it into your user space, so you can work on it and simplify it a bit more. This is what we can do now and somehow what the editing restriction fits best. -Barras (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, other than a few minor changes it is still almost identical to the english version. Our version should be almost completely different from the en version. But you are more than welcome to simplify it in your user space. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Djsasso has been misinformed about the "few minor changes." For example, I cut the Afro-American Art section way down and balanced it with a new European Art section. I will try to simplify it further. I do appreciate feedback. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chronology is that at 11:23, 28 July 2011, Either way quick deleted the article. As soon as I discovered the deletion, I filed here on 03:10, 29 July 2011. It is clear that the QD A3 criteria did not apply. Nothing has been done about this problem either to userfy the article or to allow it to be edited in place. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket/Art Institute of Chicago. -Barras (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No...it is not "clear" that the criteria "did not apply." Myself and two others here seem to think it's too complex and not enough changed. So, I don't know where you get this "clear" conclusion from. Either way (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make sure, I will not argue against the deletion, I will just give Racepacket the chance to simplify the article in his userspace. -Barras (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I have no objection to the action of userfying the article. It's the right decision out of this. I'm just commenting on Racepacket's "clear" conclusion out of this when no one supported the article being in the main space in its present state. Either way (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - With all due respect, if you compare the en: and simple: versions of the article, it is clear that one was not just a copy of the other. Please read QD A3. It is an objective criteria, not a "too complex for my taste" standard. Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Visart-stub

Was deleted by Barras this morning even though there was a consensus for its creation at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project#Template:Art-stub Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending discussion on WP:SSP. This is like using a back door. The stub will surely be restored if there is an agreement on the approval page. -Barras (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. No prejudice to it being recreated if consensus is reached at WP:SSP this time around. If there was a clear consensus last time, I would expect we would have had more than one article with this stub template. But, only one article was tagged with it, not the 250+ which SSP sets at the minimum. Either way (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either, you don't have to tag all 250 immediately, just prove that you could get 250 in time. And there are several categories which would be on the chopping block per the 250-right-now statement Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I should have been notified BEFORE it was deleted...something like "PBP, populate this category or I'll delete it"...not just a deletion out of the blue Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refer discussion to WP:SSP. Any restoration should be discussed there. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 requests

Reshipora, Saloora, District of Ganderbal

I'm asking for the restoration of the article, and the deletion discussion to be re opened for five days. The result did not match the discussion. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be restored (Which it has been) and the discussion should be reopened (Which it was). --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Page was improperly deleted, with a lack of consensus at the RfD and no applicable QD criteria. Goodvac (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, and probably going to do so following no further discussion here for the next 2 days. Chenzw Talk 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who nominated the page for deletion, I vote to relist this article. --SEPTA cta MTA 8235 11:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Article's RFD closed without a consensus or a rationale for QD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed: Non-admin closure. Consensus reached to re-list article, which has been done by SEPTActaMTA8235. See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Reshipora, Saloora, District of Ganderbal (2nd nomination). Gob lin 15:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]

Judd Bagley

The page was deleted with the summary "(QD A4: The page does not show notability)", but I fail to see how. The article showed notabiltity and was sourced to a New York Times "What's Online" article. --Theta 314 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the deleting administrator to consider restoring it? Personally, I think the subject could do an deletion discussion. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with with deleting administrator's decision. Exert 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why he made that decision in the first place. Theta 314 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet the notability guidelines. Exert 02:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Will not be restored. -Barras (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic soprano

Didn't give it enough time to simplify...only a couple days, some of which when the article creator was blocked for other reasons. Give it a couple weeks Purple backpack89 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could've deleted it under copy right violation, since it is a copy of the English Wikipedia and thus it is without attribution against law. Especially regulars should know how to attribute articles. Furthermore, there are tags such as {{underconstruction}}... -Barras (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind importing directly to mainspace... if the article can be simplified in 24ish hours. Also, I do userspace articles if it is ging to take too long. Attribution is an issue... so deletion was valid here. Jon@talk:~$ 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No issues here with the deletion. While every wiki is a work-in-progress, you shouldn't add content to the mainspace if you anticipate it taking "a couple weeks" before it's presentable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion; but with the option of using the import tool to userspace. —I-20 the highway 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about importing, but about attribution in general. It is also ok to simply use {{enwp based}} on the article's talk page with a permanent link to the enwiki version of the article. -Barras (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2012

Intially to my userspace. We need to have something on it. I want to start with what we had Purple backpack89 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the content of the page is not worthwhile to restore the page. Just start a new one if really needed yet in 2010. There was just one sentence and two names or something. -Barras ^talk 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete useless page, but you are welcome to have it. Please fix it or mark it for quick deletion, when you decide. EhJJ^TALK 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Hippe

The article is a GA on ENGLISH wikipedia, how the hell can that be unotable?? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable there, but you haven't demonstated exactly why he is notable in his article here. Although he is a real person, any admin could potentially delete an article no matter of its status elsewhere on wikimedia if they see it as not notable and unfit to remain on this project. This is probably why your article was deleted. Nifky^{^} 12:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt Executive Search

Hello. I am requesting Hunt Executive Search be undeleted. Much like the pages within the category (executive search) it is a page defining the organization. The organization is notable based on being a top performer in the industry as ranked by external and independent sources (cited in page). Also, it does not promote or solicit business. Please benchmark against the Michael listing within the category - it too is a fact based listing describing the organization and links of news articles and rankings. Thanks - please let us know what we need to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehunt (talk • contribs)

The deleting admin has undeleted and moved the page to your userspace see User:Hehunt/Hunt Executive Search. -Barras ^talk 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The language used in the article isn't too promotional, but it is too complex for se.wp. Also, there is almost certainly a confict of interest, given the username of the creator of the article (Hehunt (talk · contribs)) and the company's executive (Heather Hunt). This seems outside of our scope, so I'm leaning toward keep deleted. EhJJ^TALK 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect to what I am sure is a fine organization but this firm is certainly not a notable one. Notable (for our purposes) means that it is spoken about in newspaper articles, books, notable magazines, TV programmes etc. The references that have been included in the article are not reliable sources. Sorry but the article is not suitable for us. Please also read our conflict of interest guidance. fr33k man 01:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (obviously, as I originally deleted it) in agreement with fr33kman. Unless reliable sources that appear in third party publications are found and added, this will never go back to main space. Lauryn Ashby (d) 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should never have been undeleted and moved, as it's completely inappropriate for the wiki with the conflict of interest and everything else that has been cited above. Yet more admin incompetance... :| Gob lin 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

I'm so glad that you're here to add such helpful and constructive comments. Really, what would we do with out you? Lauryn Ashby (d) 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-deleted the page in the userpage per the comments above. Not notable, no reliable sources. Also please note a possible conflict of interests. -Barras ^talk 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not done : closed per WP:SNOW & not activity for 5 days now fr33k man 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers in Romania

Ok. This time, I am not going down without a fight. I just want to say that even though we are in a completely different scope than the English Wikipedia, they were not harming anything by existing here. Second, all of them are notable, and I can add references for every single one of the rivers that I added to make them even more notable. Thirdly, the deletion was wrong to begin with because a) You did not notify the user who was the main contributor to all of these articles so that he could have his say, and b) your rationales for deleting them go against every policy that Wikipedia has to offer. You don't just mass delete pages just because they are one-line stubs. You keep them as stubs until someone can expand them. The probable reasons as to why there is not much information about them is because there hasn't been much studies done on them. If other countries are allowed to have their river articles here, then Romania should be allowed to as well. Romania just has a further depth of articles about Romania because there have been people that cared enough about Romania to add them in the first place. I don't care if the consensus at the time was to delete, they never harmed the Wikipedia in the first place by existing, and now that they are all deleted, that was the harm done to this project. Razor flame 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Service link: previous Deletion discussion. -Barras ^talk 11:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And previous undeletion discussion. Either way (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. These were useless micro-stubs that cannot be considered articles. If you truly care about these articles, prove it to us by creating them as fully referenced, useful articles, rather than campaigning for mass-undeletion. Maybe then we would believe you and reconsider selectively undeleting for you to improve. No evidence of this has been put forward, and you even try to justify the stub lengths (You don't just mass delete pages just because they are one-line stubs), so I oppose any such undeletion of these pages. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, write full length articles on them if you want to recreate them. If they are truely worthy of an article you should be able to write more than a sentence about them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just create the ones that are notable. We don't need all of those useless pages.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed: as not restored, re:WP:SNOW and WP:NOT. This story is beyond the scope of the project. It is a work of fiction and thus original research. WP is not a blog. Sorry, Aaron, but take the story to a personal website, not here. fr33k man 06:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christianrocker90/Story

To be quite honest I have no objections for the reasons he deleted it, just the way he went about it, considering how long my story had been on my userpage (2 years+) I think NonvocalScream should have put it through a RfD instead, when I asked him nicely to do so he said no. So Here we are. I would like this story restored as it had been here for, like I said, 2 years+ without objection, some people have even said they liked it there. Please restore it. If it's not at least it got it's discussion about it's existence on here and I can be happy knowing it got it's fair chance.-- † CR ₉₀ 06:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Just because something has been around for a relatively long period of time, doesn't exclude it from quick deletion. Wikipedia is neither your personal web provider nor a social-networking site and the material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Users are given a bit of leeway in their userspace, but this was over the top. I've emailed you the deleted contents, however, so perhaps you should put it on your own website. Cheerio, Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauryn may I remind you WP:NOT is not a QD rationale.-- † CR ₉₀ 06:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I understand the criteria for speedy deletion, being an admin and all. Didn't you say something about wrestling articles needing work? Yet I notice as soon as you're unblocked you head straight to create more drama on something pointless that isn't going to get overturned. We're here to write encyclopedic content, not narratives. Try to remember that. Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A block kinda ruins you're night. But here goes.-- † CR ₉₀ 06:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read this, probably several times. The same guidelines apply to subpages as do user pages. Cheerio, Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right but no matter what you post it doesn't change the page wasn't QDable as WP:NOT is not a QD Rationale.-- † CR ₉₀ 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have entirely missed the point. Essentially your aim seems to be to get something undeleted, so that it can go to RfD to get deleted. Seems a bit pointy to me. Incredibly asinine. Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after reading through the ~~policy~~ guideline, in the end it comes down to thi about the story: Did it hinder your work on Wikipedia? Did it hinder mine? was it hurting anything? Whether or not it can stay is based on the opinion of the community.-- † CR ₉₀ 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. If I wished to have an essay on why <insert name here> is the greatest person in the world in my userspace would it "hurt" anything? Of course not, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. You have a website, put your personal content such as stories and games on that. They do not belong on this website. If you think they do, then you entirely misunderstand what this site is about. Lauryn (u • t • c) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely the point, it up to community on how much leeway is given.-- † CR ₉₀ 07:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia. Is. Not. Your. Personal. Website. Your story had absolutely nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. This deletion is entirely valid and I would strongly urge you to stop disrupting it to make your point. The amount of drama that you cause is quickly starting to outweigh whatever article work that you claim to do. This is going in circles, and I'm tired of trying to explain something to you that you fail to grasp for whatever reason. You have a website. Use it. Lauryn (u • t • c) 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've started an AfD basically, if people don't want to undelete it take that as the "yes it should stay deleted" deal. No reason to go through TWO process. The QD thing is a different deal at this point, unfortunate but done. I would recommend leaving that at least for now because more drama is NOT what anyone needs right now. Oh and Lauryn knowing policy "because your an admin" is a bad argument ;) if I had a penny for every admin action I've seen that made no sense policy whys...... (talking about many wiks here). James (T C) 07:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ^{for less unhelpful drama and more helpful}[reply]

I'm sorry to see that your story was deleted, CR90: it was fun, & I didn't know it wasn't supposed to be there. That's too bad. However, I think it would be prudent not to try to get it back: it'll just make more drama, as Jamesofur pointed out, and as long as it has been emailed to you we can still see it on your website. :) Classical Esther^♣ 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story had no relevance to the encyclopedia. None whatsoever. This is not MySpace. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't have been here to begin with so my position is stay deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong deletion process to delete, but it's gone. WP is not a webhost, and it serves no purpose for the wiki. Keep deleted. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting admin: The story did not aim to improve the encyclopedia, and was so clearly in violation of the guidelines, without forwarding the goal of this project, that as an exception to the rule, I have removed it. It was so clear, that any community discussion would have removed it. The reason it was brought to my attention, was that your userpage/space was already taken under my scrutiny, by the other guidelines/policy breaks in the space. It was even stated on the story, that is was fiction. This goes against the very grain of a factual encyclopedia project. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I don't agree with it being gone, but if you looked at the edit history of the page, the community already actually denied QD deletion on the page so its not really clear that the community would have removed it. "09:33, 2 May 2009 . . Chenzw (talk | changes | block) (3,285 bytes) (No consensus on AN for quick deletion yet)" is what I am referring to for others that cant see. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.O I missed that? Sorry. Seems from the discussion things may change changed... but yes, I missed that. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the tag reason was user page of indef blocked user. Chenzw was referring to the discussion over the indef block, not the delete, so this has no bearing on this delete. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, what is more important to you, your ability to edit wrestling articles, or your userspace stories and trinkets? No this is not a veiled threat, but a clear message... if you continue to take my (and other's) time with this nonsense, I will start a discussion on why you are exhausting the communities patience. I won't block you for this deletion review, because I told you, you could do it, and it is a valid discussion because I was outside the quick deletion. But your not getting the points. Please think about what is important to you, because if you continue down these roads, you might not be able to edit. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

2009 requests

User:Christianrocker90/Delete-vote

This page in my userspace, was the Delete vote template. Now, I knew of the consensus to redirect the original location to Template:QD but this page was my userspace and was not vandalism so from what I understand it needs to at least go through a RfD to be deleted, yet Either way (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) proceeded to delete it as "Recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Template:Delete" anyway. I request it be restored as it was in my userspace. See my talk page for the message he left me after he deleted it and his reply after I asked him to restore it.-- † CR ₉₀ 01:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not admins, this is what the page contained: Delete

EhJJ^TALK 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say restore. We have a whole category of these here. I think the main concern at the RFD for the template is that people were placing {{delete}} on articles looking for a QD template and were instead getting the template given in the example above. I don't think that this RFD put any sort of ban on the creation of these sort of templates.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be restored as it was in the username namespace, not an actual template. --Bsadowski1 01:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Username spaces can be transcluded/used just like templates, though. Either way (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but still. It's not an official template. More like unofficial if you ask me. --Bsa dow ski1 01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Bsadowski. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. One of the reasons people wanted it deleted was because of the type of template it was. If you were to start using this, it would be going against one of the reasons it was deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we have a Keep one, but not a Delete one. --Bsa dow ski1 03:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which we should be redirecting to {{hangon}} as suggested in the rfd. I probably should have done that when I subst'd all the delete votes and redirected the delete template. -DJSasso (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there was no consensus to do so so you would be putting yourself out there on WP:BOLD. Now, this is my userspace we're talking about. Not Template space. Either way had no right to delete that page without my permission or consensus from the community in this case.-- † CR ₉₀ 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the minute you use that userspace template on another page, then it would be affecting non-userspace. Despite what you believe Wikipedia is not a webhost and you do not have exclusive right over your userspace. An admin can delete things in userspace, and his deletion reason was valid. Secondly, I think seeing as how the community voted to redirect delete, redirecting keep would hardly have been bold. -DJSasso (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<--)You're right in one sense, they voted to redirect the delete template not the keep template. if you had done template, it would have been WP:BOLD that you would have been following, to which somebody could have called you out on though I find that unlikely to happen. You're entitled to your vote, DJ, I just think you're wrong in this case. And I don't remember mentioning that I was gonna use it. But there have been plenty of things in the past that have been RfD'd successfully but somebody has chosen to add it to their userspace too. This is no exception.-- † CR ₉₀ 04:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and those things are only supposed to remain in userspace so they can be fixed and readded into mainspace, if they stay in userspace too long they are then deleted again as recreation of deleted content. And no, no one would have called me out on it because it would have been common sense for the same reason we redirected the delete template. Actually allowing you to keep this in your userspace would be an exception. Why DO you want it if you have no intention of using it? To me it seems you are back to your WP:POINT ways. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion and the aftermath seems to be similar to this situation. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yot later deleted it from his userspace just to be clear. -DJSasso (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin reply: DJSasso's said a lot of why I deleted this and believe it should stay deleted. The idea that we have a keep template so a delete would be fine is a little false. If you look at the RFD and the history of the keep template, you'll see that there was an intent/desire to have the keep deleted and redirected to hangon. Chenzw's statement is "{{keep}} has been settled as well" (meaning that it would also be redirected). He carried that out, but then saw there were technical problems, so he reverted himself. The problem has never been fixed, though. Like DJSasso said, it's okay to keep deleted material in a user space area if the page is going to be improved to be added back to the article space or another space. This is not a case where this would happen. The only purpose of this page would be to transclude it in discussions and consensus appears to say we shouldn't be using them. Either way (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, and also delete all of the remaining ones. Per DJSasso's reasoning. Gob lin 15:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
Keep deleted per EW's initial decision. Kennedy (talk • changes). 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus to undelete. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wijerd Jelckama

It was deleted just this day. It had 96 revisions, much hard work was done on the article. It was DYK and a GA nominee and then it was deleted suddenly because it was to similar to the English version. It was a great article, and everybody agreed, but because it was to similar to the English version it was deleted. I think this is arguabley the best article over here that has ever been deleted for such futile reasons. It could have easily been rewritten (which I would love to do) if only someone would un-delete it. I do not want to re-create it - then I would probably lose the last version. So please undelete it so that I can completely re-write it. Thanks in advance, Mighty Wodan (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Restored to your userspace. Refer to my talk page. Chenzw Talk 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That would be a fine solution. I'll go re-write it within a couple of days: I am currently very busy with other work. I appreciate this. Mighty Wodan (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East of Eden Band

Did the administrator delete this notable spoken word band by mistake? There is a British rock band East of Eden (the band) no longer in existence with 0 views in April 2009 compared to over 200 views by the spoken word band called East of Eden Band. There is a new CD played on online radio internationally. Is this a case of an unknowledgeable new administrator usng personal bias against non-rock music. There was not talk or discussion about the deletion that I could find. Discussion about the return of the article is important. Disambiguation makes no sense without two terms, and the administrator did not clear up any of the residual confusion with the hasty delete. How are administrators qualified to make delete decisions if they know nothing about a field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PulitzerBoard (talk • contribs)

Note: The linked article never exists, because of that it was never deleted. Barras (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to en:East of Eden Band which was recently deleted by en:User:Vianello. Perhaps you meant to post this appeal at the English Wikipedia's Deletion Review? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - The article never existed here on simple. There is nothing to restore. Barras (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fistell Chubb

It was referenced, I have the book right here in front of me. Who is this rambling man and where is the article I made? Agent Platter (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article that was deleted is Fistell chubb. EhJJ^TALK 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm User:The Rambling Man. The article had no assertion of notability. Whatsoever. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --Barras (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian Wikipedians

This cat's RFD was just closed but I don't think it should have been deleted, if it were any other thing I'd probably move on. Now my point is if you click on said category you still get the list that have that category as a red link, so it's still serving the purpose it was created to do in the first place, which made the deletion moot, and I for one will not remove it from my userpage cause it's deleted. Now seeing as it's still serving as a deleted category, I say we recreate or restore it till at least the discussion on simple talk concludes. Thank you.-- † CM ₁₆ 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, on en wiki, deleted categories result in a tidy bot popping by to articles which use them and thence the removal of said category. If you wish for a red linked category on your user page, well all fine, there's nothing stopping you doing that whatsoever. The consensus to delete this category was clear I'm afraid, regardless of users who continue to wish to use it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying CM is that you don't respect consensus and are going to game the system to get what you want? -Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I didn't respect consensus I wouldn't go through this RfX to get it undeleted, please quit twisting my words to make me look bad.-- † CM ₁₆ 21:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially so. CM16, in answer to your question here, not posting ridiculous requests like this would help. Then again, I would never trust you to have admin "status", so perhaps you have little to lose. Majorly ^talk 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to be Wikistalking would you, Majorly?-- † CM ₁₆ 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CM16, sorry, but there was a very strong consensus to delete this category. You haven't provided us with any new argument as to why we should restore it. Red linked categories exist all over this Wikipedia. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --Barras (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autofellatio

This article was deleted under A4 without having been at RFD before, meaning the A4 criteria had not been met. The article was referenced and illustrated, if only still a stub. I would like to either see this undeleted or undeleted and sent to RFD. Thanks Soup Dish (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already restored this. Blockinbox has done this kind of thing before. Majorly ^talk 19:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted without proper means. It was restored promptly. The deleting administrator then proceeded to delete and salt the article, claiming an apparently non-existent consensus. To undo would be wheel-warring, so a formal discussion is needed. I will post a diff of the article as it stood before deletion. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a medically important article; all deletions of it were done in an incorrect manner and seem to be a POV push. I believe the article should be restored. fr33kman ^talk 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up the user in question as desysop because of his actions. They are not what I want to see from an administrator. This article was fine for this site before it was deleted and salted. Razor flame 20:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I disagree with the deletion, I think a desysop would be overkill at the moment. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think a desysop is overkill at the moment. He engaged in wheel-warring, which I believe would desysop an en.wiki admin, would it not? If he undeletes it, then I do believe that a desysop is overkill, but until then, I do not think it is. Razor flame 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an immediate desysop, no. At most, an RfC would be initiated. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what has happened: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Blockinblox. Razor flame 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think either would be overkill for me at the moment for the sole reason I haven't seen what was deleted.-- † CM ₁₆ 20:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? –Juliancolton (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does to me cause I believe it is crucial to know what side of the argument I stand on. SO if anyone could help me out with that that would be awesome.-- † CM ₁₆ 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds has already restored some of the article, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me if the article has to stay, the image should, no we aren't censored but that image is disgusting, I wanna barf just looking at it. The words would suffice enough for this article.-- † CM ₁₆ 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then don't look at it. :) –Juliancolton (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has now been fully restored based on this discussion, and the one on AN. This, is the consensus to undelete. Synergy 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. –Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. fr33kman ^talk 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Wikipedians in Thunder Bay, Ontario

I think this turned into a vote counting scenerio, as the !votes are almost even and there is no strong arguement to delete. The best argument probably comes from Eptalon who didn't actually !vote either way. At worst this should have been closed as no-consensus for the two provincial categories or left open for more discussion. The city one I have no problem with being deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a formal undeletion review for this; re-create those categories where you think they are useful, like in the US or Canada (does it make sense to śpeake of Eastern, Central and Western in such cases? --Eptalon (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually forgot I filed this. I will create these two. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done recreated instead. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers in Romania

Request for deletion: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Lists of rivers in Romania

Hello there. Unlike the asteroid stubs, all of the rivers that you deleted were all inherently notable according to the English Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to request that All of the Romanian Rivers be undeleted, as well as a bunch of other pages that were not rivers that also got deleted. I was shocked that nobody even though to let me know via email that the Romanian River pages were up for deletion. I didn't even know that they were deleted until I just happened upon it whilst looking through the "Show any page" option on the left hand side of the screen. I just want to say that I am extremely upset that you guys found it necessary to delete pretty much all of the articles that I made for you. It is like kicking someone that is down. You are making me rethink my decision to come back to this site now. There are a number of pages which are definitely notable, including Suceava River, Moldova River, Prahova River, Siret River, and a bunch of other major tributaries that you guys just decided did not need to be put onto this Wikipedia. Why did you even bother deleting them if they were already made in the first place? They are going to need to be recreated at some point further down the road, so why not just leave them undeleted so that they are there for when we start needing articles for all the rivers of every country around the world. Rivers and other geographical places have inherent notability according to the notability guidelines on the English Wikipedia that says that things in which are places on the world are inherently notable because they are important because you may need to know all about them. They are an important part of an encyclopedia, so without them, you are kind of like cutting out a portion of editors to this site. I thought that the idea of the Simple English Wikipedia was to make an encyclopedia by writing articles in your interests. Geography is my interest, and I love Romania, so I definitely think that these should all be undeleted. This, in my opinion, was done behind my back (you waited until I retired and then put them all up for deletion. If I had still been on here, you would not have gotten the same vote for the request for deletion. I definitely believe that they are an integral part of this Wikipedia; much more so than the asteroids. I could care less about the asteroids, but when you mess with the Romanian Rivers, I get pissed off. I would like to request that the vote be redone and/or all of the articles undeleted. Thanks, Razor flame 03:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I ask that very serious consideration and discussion be given to this request. Unlike the asteroid RFD, Razorflame was not informed of the Romanian rivers RFD since he had officially retired from the project. It must be very disheartening for any editor to have much of his work deleted from a project and I think we should seriously enter into a discussion about articles that enWP would consider notable even if they were small stubs. fr33kman ^talk 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are troubled by the lack of references for each of the articles, that can be easily remedied. I can get a whole bunch of references for every single river article that you deleted, and I can probably scrounge up some more information about a bunch of them as well. Just give me some more time and I can get them all expanded and everything. Razor flame 04:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main point of the RFD was that the articles were "flooding" the Random page" button with unreferenced, one line stubs rather than "quality" articles. Expansion of these topics should be the order of the day. Quality over quantity seemed to be what was asked for. fr33kman ^talk 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you guys just waited, the random article issue could have been remedied as well. The more articles we get other than Romanian River articles, the more chance you got of not getting a Romanian River article from the random article option. Razor flame 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best option at this point is to create a list article with a list of the rivers, which most people would not have a problem with. Individual one line articles that cannot be expanded are just not good for a wiki that is only supposed to cover the most common topics. A obscure small romanian river is not one such article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure The close was done correctly. At the time, it was thought that RF was off wiki, and notification was not done. However, a proper close was conducted and community consensus was reflected accurately. I have no issues with the process or the closer's decision. Note: I did nominate the cat, so I am biased. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closure The close was done without the knowledge of the original author so that he could get his point of view across. All the articles are inherently notable and should not have been deleted in the first place. Razor flame 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure Not to vote count, but there was a total of one keep out of eleven comments. Clear consensus to delete. As no one owns articles on Wikipedia, the fact that the original author was not notified is moot. Authors are not required to be contacted. The process was correctly followed and the consensus was clear. Either way (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support Closure Razorflame was considered gone at the time, so it seemed illogical to notify. I presume he is only mad because articles he worked on got deleted. Shappy ^talk 13:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure Per Shappy and others. Pmlineditor Talk 13:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - So your point is? They should stay because they are notable enough and EN has them? This point has been brought up by Griffinofwales during the RfD. The community did take that into consideration, but it was shot down after discussion. Chenzw Talk 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community is quite capable of deciding which articles they want and don't want on Wikipedia. There was barely any context to these articles, and they were of no help to Wikipedia. We moaned and complained about your rapid creation of thousands of articles; you chose to ignore us, and then leave. If you want these articles, the onus is on you to expand them to a reasonable length, and that doesn't mean importing the enwiki versions. I do, however, doubt you'll do that, so support closure. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Ok guys, I understand that they should be deleted now. However, I would like to request the undeletion of the numerous lists of rivers that Creol and I made. Could we possibly discuss the restoration of the List of rivers in Romania and all of its' subpages please? Thanks, Razor flame 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which page(s) in particular? The one you linked to has no page history. Either way (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, one second.... {{Rivers in Romania}} should have had a list of these pages. I hope I got that one right. Cheers, Razor flame 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De facto, you didn't. Pmlineditor Talk 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is {{Romanian rivers}}. Chenzw Talk 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the template. Does anyone agree that we can resurrect the lists for the rivers (minus the red links, of course), and that would be it? Cheers, Razor flame 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<---) I can email you the deleted edits, but I won't be able to restore it without consensus to do so since it was deleted as a result of a RFD. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to email me the deleted edits because I remember those edits. Yes, I think that we can start garnering a concensus for the restoration of just the lists. Anyone else in agreement? Razor flame 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

This request will close seven days after it was opened; this will be around. Sunday, 23 August 2009 at 05:00 (UTC), although it may be closed quicker because of this.

Well, I thought about it. This RFU will be closed as unsuccessful. This means: The pages (includes all the deleted rivers, templates with redlinks only and lists with redlinks only) will not be restored. The template which is mentioned above, links only to lists. The lists themselves include only or to over 90% redlinks. Therefore, I think it is useless to restore them. Above is also no concensus for restore any of the deleted pages. There were some examptions I made a few weeks ago, when I restored a few rivers, which were needed for our VGA Romania. At all, only pages/rivers, which are needed on such important pages will be restored (e.g. per request on my talk). --Barras || talk 12:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ServeJesusForReal.com

I had started an article entitled ServeJesusForReal.com; it was not finished, and was to be an article contrasting the current day's worship practices with what was actually intended by Jesus Himself, and ServeJesusForReal's part in this. — This unsigned comment was added by Jailman3 (talk • changes).

Sorry, we're not here for free advertising. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Read WP:ADVERT. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The page meets criteria for quick deletion, and would require a complete re write. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestabe

My page, Honestabe was recommended for deletion because it contained "utter crap" according to user:Ironholds. The page was a discussion on the origins of Abe Lincoln's nickname, "Honest Abe." The Abraham Lincoln wikipedia page is protected and cannot be edited by everyone. Additionally, it does not include a discussion on the origins of the nickname.

After some discussion, I added about 15 cites to show that some of the "crap" was supported. One of these links was from a blog. I then went to bed. When I woke up this morning, my site was deleted by a bot due to this link to a blog. I would happily remove this link, but the page is gone. I would like the page to come back, or at least be userfied (I think that's the term). I thought the point of wikipedia was for others to edit material they considered "crap," not to simply throw it in the garbage bin. Thanks. Wikiwiki7390 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the Simple English Wikipedia, a different entity from the English Wikipedia. You will need to take it up with the deleting administrator (en:User:JIP) or to deletion review en:WP:DRV). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 requests

Electronic Cigarette:

Restore: I would like to request that the page for "Electronic Cigarette" be undeleted^[1]. It was decided to port the definition for electronic cigarette to the page describing NRT^[2] but this is incorrect as the World Health Organisation has issued a press listed requesting that electronic cigarette devices should not be described as an NRT's as there have been no recognised tests or studies completed to back-up these claims.^[3]

anyone now searching for electronic cigarette is directed to a page listed as "E-cigarette"^[4].While the terms "e-cigarette" and "e-cig" are popular terms used to in place of "electronic cigarette" on account of their brevity, they are in fact claimed to be trade-marks registered to Cixi E-cig^[5], one manufacturer of electronic cigarettes of many in China, though it might be the case that their trademarks have become a victim of "genericide"^[6]. I would like to request that the page listed as "e-cigarette" is changed to "electronic cigarette", the umbrella term for all of these devices.K08 (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, according to EU legislation^[7] these cigarettes have been declared as "drugs" (mainly because of their repository of nicotine, or nicotine-like substances). Like the other "nikotine-replacement theapies" their effectiveness is not great (between 5 and 15% of smokers can quit smoking using a NRT)^[8] I therefore think our current classification is adequate, Smokeless Cigarettes/Electronic Cigarettes are nothing else than a re-packaged nikotine patch. As an alternative: expand the section on them in NRT, and we could again move it to its own article.--Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although they might serve a purpose to some users as an NRT, they were first invented by Ruyan as a smoking alternative to allow smokers to "smoke" where there are restrictions in place to prevent them from doing so. The Chinese name Ruyan loosly translates into english as "smoke anywhere". They were never intended to act as an NRT although some traders decided to market clones of Ruyan's initial invention as smoking cessation devices. to quote the World Health Organisation:

19 September 2008 | GENEVA -- Contrary to what some marketers of the electronic cigarette imply in their advertisements, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not consider it to be a legitimate therapy for smokers trying to quit.
"The electronic cigarette is not a proven nicotine replacement therapy," said Dr Ala Alwan, Assistant Director-General of WHO's Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health Cluster. "WHO has no scientific evidence to confirm the product's safety and efficacy. Its marketers should immediately remove from their web sites and other informational materials any suggestion that WHO considers it to be a safe and effective smoking cessation aid."

In order for a product to be classed as an NRT, they must undergo a series of clinical studies. No electronic cigarette has undergone these studies. They are not an NRT as they cannot be classed as such. They are correctly described as an alternative to tobacco. They are not under the jurisdiction of the FDA in america. They are not under the jurisdiction of the ATF. K08 (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORE-Hello there Eptalon. Your references are not relevant to the discussion. Directive 83 [7] does not regulate or classify nicotine or tobacco, or deal with NRT, and those substances are only even mentioned in the context of possible interactions with prescription medicines, and neither cigarettes nor electronic cigarettes are mentioned at all. It is totally irrelevant to the question of whether e-cigarettes are a form of NRT. Your study on NRT effectiveness [8] does not include any data on, or even mention, electronic cigarettes, AND effectiveness is itself irrelevant to whether or not something even IS NRT. So, that's doubly irellevant. Electronic cigarettes are a nicotine delivery method, an alternative to cigarettes, more similar to a herbal vaporizer than to a quit smoking device. They are not NRT.- Leaford

Electronic cigarettes are not NRT in the same way snus and snuff are not NRT, they are tobacco alternatives. In order to qualify as NRT a device or drug has to be medically trialled and approved. The WHO have clearly stated that electronic cigarettes do not meet this criteria. The EU has not classified electronic cigarettes as NRT either and in the UK it is forbidden to sell these devices as smoking cessation/NRT because they are not approved. They are unproven, untested and unregulated; passing them off as NRT implies they are known to be safe and medically recommended, which they are not. .... Kate

In fact the Ruyan electronic cigarette has been tested by Health NEW ZEALAND Ltd; Research and policy advice to reduce heart disease, cancer and smoking; Dr Murray Laugesen, QSO, MBChB, FAFPHM, FRCS, Dip Obst; Managing Director. The study was paid for by Ruyan, but, by 'no influence' contract. http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport21-Oct-08.pdf -- "this report’s overall conclusion that the Ruyan® e-cigarette is designed to be a safe alternative to smoking, and appears to be safe in absolute terms on all measurements we have applied." and "Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders." ..... I vote for undeletion of 'electronic cigarette' ( is saying so here proper etiquette procedure ? if not I appologize ) - steve h. Stevehartwell (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear - I vote FOR Restore 'electronic cigarette' Stevehartwell (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that in tandem with the page for electronic cigarette being undeleted, the information which is now on the page for e-cigarette should be ported to the page for electronic cigarette because as i have mentioned "e-cigarette" is actually claimed as a trademark by cix e-cig group even though it is commonly used in place of electronic cigarette. K08 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette
↑ http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_replacement_therapy
↑ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr34/en/
↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-cigarette
↑ https://e-cig.com/shopping/shopcontent.asp?type=article5
↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
↑ directive 83 EC 2001 English_PDF
↑ Andrew Molyneux (2004). "ABC of smoking cessation - Nicotine replacement therapy" (pdf). pp. 454–456.

Support undeletion - per article at enwp en:E-cigarette --Matilda (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - undeletion request required as discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette concluded delete and merge --Matilda (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support undeletion. There is an article on the English Wikipedia and it appears notable enough. Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Synergy 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Doran

I am courteously requesting that we restore the article about Carolyn Doran. She is notable in that her saga throughout the 1990's and up to 2007 was written about -- independently -- by The Register, the Tampa Tribune, and the Associated Press (which was republished by the Washington Post, ABC News, and the San Jose Mercury News. Numerous blogs commented on this person, and Wikipedia co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Jimmy Wales commented publicly and substantially about this living person. Exclusion of a Simple English article about this person carries with it an unseemly taint of self-protecting project POV. Please restore. - PathWrote (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : this search has me worried about notability. Even then, not all of the results from this search are for the Carolyn Doran that you are wanting to get undeleted. Razor flame 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this search with maiden name, to limit mostly to pages about this subject. Are you saying 13,800 Google hits is insufficient? - PathWrote (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That search searches for everything with any of those three words in it. this search eliminates that possibility, and it still might not have enough. Razor flame 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to change my example search to this. Looks like about 140 or so unique pages on the Internet have been devoted to this subject. Still, the level of reputation of some of those pages (Huffington Post, USA Today, ABC News, etc.) is not to be trifled with. - PathWrote (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave deleted Not only because of the deletion review but because the article was not neutral, and negative piece, contrary to BLP, which I believe can properly be applied here.--Bärl iner 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted per Barliner. - Huji ^reply 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted per above.-- Lights talk 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted as per above and as per my notability concerns. Razor flame 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deleted, per above: notability for the subject has not been established. Anthøny 18:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Leave deleted Bärl iner 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 requests

Milw0rm

Milw0rm Deletion - Sept 16 and again on Sept 24. The reason for speedy deletion was quoted by KnowledgeOfSelf and Kingboyk as a CSD A7 "(Group): Article about a club or group that does not assert significance." I find this ironic because it appears that the people who deleted it must not have read the article? The hacking of a nuclear facility in India for the purpose of deterring Nuclear Weapons development is a HUGE story, and will be for years to come. This group is very significant as they were some of the founders that brought HACTIVISM to the front lines. Some individuals put a lot of time and effort into obtaining and posting this information, it's not like it's easy to come by... The google cache to the original article is here [2] — This unsigned comment was added by 38.119.107.75 (talk • changes).

I think you are confused. Milw0rm has never been created or deleted here. You seem to be talking about the Milw0rm article on English Wikipedia, in which case you need to request undeletion on that Wikipedia. Thanks. · Tygrrr^·talk· 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amasebail

If I nominate an article for deletion, many vote delete, others vote keep, and then a user makes a great point. I decide to take it off for deletion. If I regret nominating it for deletion, the result should be keep, right? The dispute should be over. Apparently, not so. This is what happened when the article Amasebail was deleted. Tygartl1 had to continue the dispute, put it up for deletion, when I regretted an action that I made. The deletion resulted in delete. I did not want this, because Blockinblox made a good point. He said that he believed an encyclopædia should have no limits for what cities, towns, villages, hamlets, or communities should have entries there. No limits on how big, notable, or widely commercialised the cities are, is what Blockinblox meant. So, he made a good point, I retracted and regretted the nomination. Tygart had to bring it up. I felt so strongly about this, I had to use a test account to sockpuppeteer in a deletion vote. I used David. This caused great controversy. So, I hereby contest the deletion of this article and I encourage others to vote here too. Keep or delete, please vote. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been through the RfD process and was voted on by many users and the majority of votes was to delete. My request for deletion had nothing to do with you. My second request was valid. There is no time limit as to how quickly an article can be re-requested for deletion. And I might point out that during the first request (yours), the majority of votes were to delete when you chose to end the request by withdrawing it. Your withdrawal was perfectly fine and allowed. You followed the rules and so did I. I don't see this article being un-deleted because, by following all rules, it was legitimately deleted by community consensus. · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to nominate, then regretted it. That should have been the end. It wasn't, and I want it back. If it weren't for me, there would have been no fuss. Please, I am PLEADING to undelete. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm sure I would have come across the article eventually and requested deletion even if no one else ever had. It absolutely had nothing to do with you. · Tygartl1^·talk· 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against Undeletion: While I did vote to keep the article in its RfD, the vote resulting in a clear 2-1 opinion to delete it so I accept that decision. The only reason stated here to overturn that decision is that a user is contesting the vote in which he used a sockpuppet on the losing side of the vote. The only controversy in this RfD is that a sockpuppet was used to try and change the outcome. That attempt was not only found but had actually failed anyway. To try and reverse the decision based on this controversy just does not make much sense. Had the article been deleted because of an invalid vote, that would be one thing, but in this case the invalid vote had no effect on the outcome. -- Creol(talk) 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - as I stated at Wikipedia talk:Settlements, "in the event of a disagreement about a specific settlement, unlike with humans or companies, I would rather err on the side of anyone who wanted the settlement kept, for whatever reason they felt was important enough..." We know this is a real place, we have room, and still I hate the idea of our having to pass judgement on whether or not every single place on Earth is "notable" enough, when those who hold this opinion may well live on the other side of the world (talk about "imperialism"!) Blockinblox - talk 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against undeletion. It's not so much about how notable it is. My problem with having an article about this place is that all we know about it is that it exists and it is in India. We need to have verifiable sources of information about topics that are included into an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, likey because of its size, there is little to no information from verifiable, reliable sources. That makes it virtually impossible to write an article that contains anything more than: "Amasebail is a place in India". Which frankly is not enough information to have an article (as it would be the equivalent of "Joe Smith is a Canadian man".) · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against undeletion. Per above, with the biggest factor being the verifiability of the matter. Without looking back at the article, I believe I thought this article could have been deleted for lack of information as well, let alone notability. - BrownE34 talk contribs 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. I don't think it's necessary to go over the same discussion over notability and verifiability issues. Doing so, without any new elements that justify debating it again and so soon after this article's deletion (especially when a clear consensus in favor of deleting it existed), goes against the very spirit of the Undeletion process. Let's not lose our focus from the point the nominator has based this resquest on, which is a formal aspect: the issue here is, whether or not a VfD process is valid after the editor who nominated it has withdrawn the request. The answer to this question is, yes it is, when a consensus endorsing said deletion has become clear, regardless of the nominator's original position. Withdrawal usually generates an immediate delisting of the request when there's a clear majority of editors in favor of keeping an article, since no further effect will take place. However, this is a typical case of the first situation. Further discussion is not necessary, unless new evidence of verifiable and reliable sources on this place are brought up to the community's attention. Phaedriel - 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your notability "guidelines" are silly, and have no place in a real encyclopædia. Deletionism is not "creating an open-source inclusive encyclopædia. Get serious, people. I am sorry to be so rude and/or blunt, but it is pathetic that people ponder over whether something is notablewhen we're trying to build an encyclopædia here, and only in special cases should we delete articles. Actually, the problem there was not notability anyway, but he requested multiple times to have it deleted. This is not one such special case, BLP or BDP here does not matter, nor does notability. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - First, when consensus is there about deleting an article, we cannot argue the consensus and say it shouldn't be deleted. Deletion and undeletion process, and all the giudelines, all of them, are the result of consensus. In my point of view, consensus of the users is much more important than a single statement in a guideline. Second, unlike some other people here, I believe what makes an encyclopedia different from a bunch of information about every thing is the notability guideline. Unlike people who believe we have room and time for everything to be added here, I believe we should learn to focus on things which have a place in an encyclopedia. And if one argues that eventually every city can have an article here, I would answer that if that is somethign which will finally happen, let it happen in the final stages, not now. Third, if I can recall clearly, the article in question here, was about a city, about the existance of which we had no reliable source. When we don't have a reliable source to prove the existance of an object, how can we have a reliable source to prove its being important enough to be mentioned on an encyclopedia? All in all, I strongly suggest this article to be kept deleted. - Huji ^reply 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Creek Wines

Redwood Creek Wines (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I posted a page about Redwood Creek Wines last week and the page was deleted within one day with the reasoning being "blatant advertising." I was just wondering how to edit the copy so that the page is not deleted again. We have posted pages in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._%26_J._Gallo_Winery being one) and I was wondering how these pages are any different from the one I posted about Redwood Creek. This is an urgent business matter and I really appreciate your timely feedback. My email address is mengel@hunterpr.com or you could reach me at directly at 212 679 6600 ext 266. Thank you, Meredith Engel

Briefsism

Briefsism (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
- inappropriately deleted. --Heah Lines 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the deleting, er, person... The article was deleted per quick deletion criterion G4 - a similar article was listed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, and subsequently deleted in accordance with the deletion policy. J Di 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. It is true, but regarded as a joke rather than a cult. That, of course, is my opinion.-- Tdxi a n g 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-spot vibrator and Egg vibrator

G-spot vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
and

Egg vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
were inappropriately deleted and they should be restored so that they can be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and so people have the opportunity to improve the article so it conforms to Simple English Wikipedia's standards. J Di 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles were restored and listed on WP:RfD. J Di 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep it deleted, obviously. Such "instructional" articles have a tendency to misdirect normal instincts and are actually harmful, besides serving the interests of those selling such items as indicated by the "external links" linking to a vibrator sales website. I have to see it in my email, but here too? Alternatively, as it is non core, I would rather see it merged with Vibrator (sensual) instead of having an article for every kind of sex toy out there. Blockinblox - talk 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep I checked out these articles before the deletion, but I must say they were a little to instructional. Also it would be better to merge them with Vibrator (sensual). If kept it should be less pornographic and instructional. And links to vibrator sales are also not appropriate in my eyes.... ;) The life of brian 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and relist on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion - no criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion rules seem to apply (can't find "inappropriate content" there), unless these pages were pure vandalism (which I doubt). М иша13 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. These may not have much merit (and prob. need rewriting) but the community should be able to handle this. Sue W 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Articles should have been QD'd the first time. They meet the qualification under A4 - They do not explain why they are notable. I would question if there are multiple non trivial published works by reliable sources (The foundation of notability) on them. There is certainly no such work listed in their external links either here or on en:wiki that notability can be verified with. As no one has stated that they believe the items are notable, it does not meet the qualification of going to RfD on challenge. The redeletion (as many times as needed) of reposted deleted material in the exact form it was deleted in is only covered by G4 if the article was RfD'd not QD'd but as the article is identical to the first QD, it is still not notable for the exact same reason and should be deleted as A4 again. G4 has a no repeat clause, A4 does not and can be used over and over if it still applies. -- Creol(talk) 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on RFD - These could be legitimate articles with some attention. I'm not a big fan of listing random sex toys on Wikipedia, so I'd vote for its deletion, but other users would want to weigh in at the RFD. PullToOpen^Talk 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. I have created one of these articles and I obviously want them to be available to everyone. I would gladly try and rewrite my article (and possible the author of the other article would also do so), but if the community votes the deletion of the articles, I don't think I will argue. Sil 09:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vibrator (sensual). ...Aurora... 11:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, it was voted to merge them to Vibrator (sensual) (see here). The last non-redirect revisions of G-Spot vibrator and Egg Vibrator have little additional info. I would therefore propose you extend the Vibrator (sensual) page, and once this has grown enough content, the community can then decide what to do with it. --Eptalon 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Scarfe

I am nominating the abovvementioned article for undeletion. The article was deleted for 'unsiimplified en-wiki copy and paste' by Tygarrt11. I did simplify this article, change a whole section from a complex list among other work. I try my hardest to not breach policy,there is no set of words that can be used(or must), and it was simplifyed! I am at least that this is restored to my userspace so I can work on it. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let another admin make the final decision on this one. I would suggest comparing the most recent version of the page here at Simple English (found here) with the August 15th version at English Wikipedia which is the most recent version before the page was created here (found here) by copying the SE version, pasting on EN, and hitting "Show changes". This is what I did before deleting the page and made a judgment decision that on a 17,000+ byte article, not enough changes had been made after a 10-day period to make it an appropriate simple addition to our project. In my opinion, even a stub using simple English would better than an un-simple copy-paste and I would encourage Spiderpig to try to create a thoroughly simplified long version of this article or a stubbified version rather than undelete this. · Tygrrr^·talk· 22:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the same procedure, I agree that the changes were generally minor ones, and the article can be called an incorrectly attributed copy of En WP, and can be deleted as per copyvio (because of violation of GFDL). - Huji ^reply 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, I agree. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planets

04:28, 19 May 2007 Creol (Talk | changes) deleted "Planets in discovery order" ‎ (Merged to solar system)

It took me a lot of work to compile such a list. I see no talk in RFD about the decision of deletion. If a sysop disagrees about restoring, please at least paste-copy the last version in my own page to give me a last chance to improve it. ONaNcle 11:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, if you look at the article on solar system at the same time frame as the delete (this edit), the list was copied into almost verbatim into the article. The information on Pluto being removed as a planet was not included as it was already stated on the page. Actually the list given in the merge has more information than from the deleted article as the dates of discovery were included for all the later planets (Uranus and later) instead of just giving them a number (which was already there since they were numbered in order: 1 Sun first found). If you need the list you could always just copy it from the old edit there. -- Creol(talk) 12:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 requests

Old request from 2006

I wish to propose the pages User:Tmalmjursson and Talk:Tmalmjursson for undeletion. They were deleted because they were vandalised, and the user who deleted them did not think to revert the vandalism. He just proceeded to delete all the content that was there. I have temporarily restarted the pages, but I would like the old content which was there putting back if possible, prior to the vandalism by the Slobodan Milosevic vandal. - They were deleted by user Blockinablox Thanks - Tmalmjursson 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting the page should be no problem. Now that I see you've made a formal request, just give me about 5 min. and both pages will be undeleted. First I will move the recreated pages to /temp extensions so nothing will be lost, then I'll undelete the originals. See your talk page for an explanation of how I made the mistake during the vandalism spree. Blockinblox 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't see any previous versions, except the ones created by Slobo... Maybe what happened is the originals got moved to a different title, and then deleted... I'll have to check the history some more to find out... Blockinblox 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any previous versions... There is no record of any page having been there before Slobo created it 15 Mar. 2006 , and the only subsequent edit was when User:M7 slapped a delete template on it, which was why I deleted it... Of course when I delete, I always check for a legitimate version first in the history, and I saw none, so I went ahead and deleted... But since this is your home page, and you have requested the original be undeleted, I will have to undelete Slobo's version, that he created yesterday. According to the databank, there was nothing here before that. Also, there is no record of his having moved it somewhere else. Blockinblox 15:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far I can remember, I carefully checked that there weren't previous version to revert to, before putting a {{db|vandalism}} request on that page. See my edit. This was not the sole page created from scratch during the vandalism episode. --M7 15:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette

[2] ttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_replacement_therapy

[3] ttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr34/en/

[4] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-cigarette

[5] ttps://e-cig.com/shopping/shopcontent.asp?type=article5

[6] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

[7] rective 83 EC 2001 English_PDF

[8] Andrew Molyneux (2004). "ABC of smoking cessation - Nicotine replacement therapy" (pdf). pp. 454–456.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]