Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy/Archive 2

message: I was looking for this page and it took nearly forever to find.  I had to click through 47 pages just to find this ONE.  WikiPedia seriously needs to have its policies and guidelines pages restructured with a more logical layout. (Lady Serena 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I note that the page refers only to relisting at AFD or MFD, but surely items undeleted could (should!) be listed at CFD, TFD or SFD as well... shouldn't that be mentioned? Grutness...wha? 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, God for it! --Celestianpower háblame 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only AFD and MFD?

message: I have taken the bold step to update the "exception" section of this policy to reflect the new WP:PROD policy, that anything deleted through that process can be undeleted on request, in particular "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any admin without discussion.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to reflect [[WP:PROD]] 

message: If this is truly policy, it should be reflected in practice.  This policy is violated daily by numerous administrators.  --70.218.50.194 04:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage 

message: Within the 'Suffrage' section, wondering if there would be any objections to creating a link to the 'sockpuppet' article since it is a neologism? Many people may still be unfamiliar with this term. Personally I had to perform a separate search to learn about this excellent new use.--Rlefson 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Rossami (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage 

message: I'm wondering what proceedure is in place to handle the case where a page is created on a subject that fails notability criteria, the page is then deleted and protected, and the person later becomes notable.  As I read the DRV guidelines, that article should never be undeleted, because 'process' was followed correctly.  Should a one-time junk article ban the subject in perpetuity? Dgies 05:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misreading the guidelines.  First, page-protection is not applied as a matter of course.  Protected pages are only created if vandals are repeatedly re-creating the same deleted content in defiance of or in willful ignorance of the community's consensus decision.  If the page is not protected and if significant changes have occurred, then anyone can create a new article.  Note:  That new article may itself be nominated for deletion if other readers do not agree that the changes to the subject's notability have been sufficient.   In the case where the page is still protected with the  tag, it is often best to make the draft on a sub-page in your userspace and to very clearly document what has changed since the AFD decision.  Once you have a solid, fact-based and verifiable draft, you can petition at DRV to have the protection lifted and and your draft moved into it's place (and, if appropriate, to have the deleted history restored).   I'll also note that because of the community's continuing problems with vandalism, you should expect some skepticism and be ready to show that there is truly new evidence which was not available or was not considered during the deletion debate.  Rossami (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in article subject status? 

message: Now that images can be undeleted is there any policy about the process?  It seems that if one admin can delete an image because it is improperly tagged, another admin should be able to undelete it if presented with the proper tag information.  Since I haven't seen this spelled out anywhere, that is the tact I will take unless I hear otherwise. (I'm an admin.) -- Samuel Wantman 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy for undeletion of Images 

message: I recently read an article that was titled Intangible Economy but cannot find it anymore.  I searched in the delete logs, but could not find it.  I am not sure if the article was up for deletion, I did not notice if this was the case or not.  It was rather interesting and I was disappointed when it could not be found. 
I would like to know if this was deleted according to policy, and if so, why does a search on the delete logs not show?  Everywhere that I have tried searching for this topic, comes up nothing.  I am confused why is the case.  Can anyone help? --Knot2afrayed 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Intangible Economy nor Intangible economy have ever existed. Perhaps you're looking for Intangible asset? -Splash - tk 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete process- what happened to Intangible Economy? 

message: I'm a new user to this site.  I was searching for the word "Moob" in Wikipedia and found that it was deleted and protected from the site. I have no clue why it is so.  I'm requesting that it be added back in.  The word "Moob" is the name and language of a group of people called "Mong" or "Mong Leng" (see also Hmong).  If any of the Wikipedia admins see this, could you please redirect all searches on "Moob" to "Mong" or "Hmong." Thank you! Tomx 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This title has repeatedly been deleted.  The deleted versions were either neologisms (deleted after an AFD discussion because Wikipedia is not a dictionary) or rather obvious pranks (deleted as vandalism).  Given the unfortunate history of this page, would you please provide a source for your assertion?  If it can be verified, I or any other admin would be happy to unprotect the page so you can edit it.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "[[Moob]]" 

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: Discussion is underway at deletion review to discuss a possible shift of DRV reviews from a majority rule process to one that is more consensus-based.  As it specifically deals with a portion of the process here, it would be lax to not notify folks of the discussion who may not be paying attention there.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental change to DRV 

message: Hey so I couldnt' find an answer to this question.  How can I view a list of all the articles that used to be on my watch list, but have since been deleted?  Could we put the answer to that question in some easily searchable place?  Thanks.  Mathiastck 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pages are still on your watchlist.  They just don't show up on any of the "recent changes" views.  From in your watchlist, click the link at the top which reads "display and edit the complete list".  Then scan the list for the red links.  Rossami (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion doesn't count as a recent change?  Mathiastck 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not the way that particular piece of software works.  Rossami (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that's my primary feature request then :)  I understand it's not likely to be granted, but deletion is the biggest change I can think of!  Mathiastck 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of deleted articles? 

message: I've restored this important bit of policy: Discuss the deletion in the first instance with the deleting administrator if you are concerned that a page may have been wrongly deleted.
It's only disputed deletions that need to go to deletion review.  In many cases the deleting administrator will simply say "oops, I boobed" and restore.  This restoration of our written policy, if followed, should lighten the load on deletion review.  Administrators also have discretion (see the exception clause) to undelete, and if they think it's merited to take the deletion to AfD. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries should go to the deleting admin in the first instance

message: I've removed the section titled "Suffrage".  It said: 
: Anyone is allowed to give comments or opinions here. However, as with other voting pages, a user's vote may be discounted if that user has a lack of edit history (for instance if the account was created after the DRV nomination, or all the user's edits are related to the article), or the user is a probable sockpuppet. There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the undeletion policy, but rather to pertain to the specific process of "deletion review".  Presumably suffrage conditions (is it really still a vote?) are described there. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffrage

message: Somebody has added "or it gets deleted again after you restore it" to the caveats for the exception.  It should not get deleted after restoration, obviously, without at least an AfD.  It's not a good idea to legislate in order to normalise pathological conditions.  --Tony Sidaway 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exception clause

message: I've removed "the undelete debate suggests" qualification from "Unless the undelete debate suggests this step would be pointless bureaucracy" in the procedure for restoring admins.  We do get a number of singularly pointless "procedural" deletion debates coming from deletion review, and reducing this tendency would be desirable.  --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unless this step would be pointless bureaucracy

message: In the article you say "See the Special:Log/delete for a searchable list of deleted pages; see archives for deletions prior to the MediaWiki 1.4 upgrade."  Could you include the date of thus upgrade in parenthesis. TonyTheTiger 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 1.4 

message: :* If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MFD), or because the article was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored.
:** If the answer to the question "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" is obviously "no", then do not request undeletion.
I'm not sure when those were added, but not being aware of a discussion has never been successful as a plea to overturn an XfD decision. Also, the "Wikipedia would be better" is implied in the nomination, it's really meaningless as a provision. ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two provisions that have never been enforced

message: There are two parts to this proposal:
# This proposal is for closing debates that resulted from a deletion following an XfD discussion—if accepted, this should also be added as part of the procedure for creating the deletion review.  Include a link from the AfD to the deletion review subpage.  This could be done either on the AfD page, or perhaps from the XfD talk page.  Either way, I think it is useful to provide this link, since AfDs are often used a precedent for either future speedy deletions or for future XfD discussions.
# When overturning a deletion, add a notice to the page's talk page about the deletion review similar to the  etc. notices added for XfD discussions.  This would not be required for overturned PROD deletions, but would for overturned speedy deletions as well as overturned XfD deletions.
—Doug Bell talk 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using  for overturned AFD deletions; that template can handle discussions in mutliple forums.  (There is an alternative for multiple AFDs, which I don't recall at the moment, but I've found multidel more useful for complex histories.)  GRBerry 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to procedure for closing debates 

message: Forgive my ignorance.  I am not sure if this is the right place to ask for undeletion but I will give it a shot. I have yet to "read and understand" policies.  I have recently updated the article for SGV (tagged for deletion) but it was still deleted.  I have also asked in talk pages on how to get it out of that list.  I have searched but is unable to understand the rules.  Can an admin undelete the said article?  I really put sometime into editing it. BURUGUDUY 09:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{la|SyCip Gorres Velayo and Company}} 

message: *T&E - I agree that the "out of process" clause may be tricky (and indeed it has been used for wheel warring in the past). I would not object to its removal, but note that it has been here for awhile. I've added a note about closing renoms to WP:DEL. I'm not sure if we need to point out that speedies-after-AFD can be put on DRV, considering the policy says that any speedies can be put up for review. >Radiant< 14:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Out-of-process" Clause