Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There seems to be a lot of discussion on "Votes for undeletion" about the merits (or lack thereof) of the Sept. 11th articles. I think that we should establish that Vfu should not be used for discussion of the content of the articles being proposed for undeletion. That would be unfair, since most Wikipedians can no longer read it. (Yes, they can make requests to sysops to be privately e-mailed or whatever, but that takes more effort than a lot of people can be bothered with, so the process is not very open in practice even if it is in theory.) I think this page should be used only for discussing whether or not there is sufficient reason for the case to be reopened. For example, I think that casting doubt on the process by which the articles were deleted is reason enough to reopen the case. Discussion of the merits of the articles should then take place on Vfd after undeletion, rather than on Vfu, in my opinion. -- Oliver P. 03:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anyone can ask for a copy of a deleted article on VfU, I've done this once and it arrived in my email box in minutes, so my impression on a very small sample space is that the system works well.

But perhaps there should be two pages for undeletion, one for pages deleted by proper listing in VfD, the other for pages summarily deleted or allegedly deleted without proper process. Reason: For articles deleted after discussion on VfD, the onus of proof should be on those who want the article undeleted, to reopen the discussion; On the other hand, for articles which have not enjoyed this period of discussion for whatever reason, the onus of proof should be on those who want it to remain deleted, as the discussion has not yet taken place and should. Andrewa 08:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Casting doubt on the process is enough to undelete? No, I disagree with this. People are proposing that articles be undeleted when there was a nearly unanimous vote to delete. Making articles ping-pong back and forth between VfD and VfU whenever a single person "casts doubt" is a bad idea. Daniel Quinlan 17:14, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. It depends what you mean by "casting doubt on the process". If the process was followed, then someone objecting to the process is not a case for undeleting... that's a non-terminating loop as you say. But if there is doubt that the process was followed, I'd say undelete. The most common scenario for this is that something is instantly deleted that in hindsight needs discussion. This discussion should then take place on VfD, and the article needs to be undeleted for this to happen. The only time extended discussion should happen in VfU is when there's some reason for not undeleting, such as privacy concerns.

What we're after is a system that deletes trash and keeps useful stuff all with a minimum of overhead for both sysops and contributors generally. It needs to be robust, that is allow decisions to be reversed easily in need. Which is pretty much what we've got IMO. The main problem I see is overuse of VfD, when eg the article could have been instantly made a useful redirect or a useful stub. Wikipedia:Cleanup is addressing this, perhaps sometimes undeleted articles should be listed there rather than straight to VfD? Or does this already happen? I haven't seen a case but I'm not all that regular here. Andrewa 20:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If something is deleted "out of process", then that can be instantly undeleted. If something has gone through VfD and the decision made to delete it, it should not be undeleted without agreement being reached here first that it should be. Otherwise, you will just get one person who thinks nothing should ever be deleted casting doubt on everything that is deleted, regardless of what consensus was reached at VfD. I also think that if anything is undeleted for any reason, then that must be (re-)listed on VfD. Obviously the person who deleted it is voting that it be deleted, so their view should be taken into account. Angela. 20:39, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

How long do these things need to be here? There are things that have been here for weeks. RickK 07:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've moved some of them to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/undeleted and Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/deleted. I think 2 weeks is usually going to be long enough. Angela. 08:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus on publishing the name yet, even on the Kobe Bryant page. It's highly controversial, and we have at least two versions of the deleted article available without the name. That should be sufficient to evaluate the undeletion issue. People looking for this issue (it's reported on Wikipedia:Goings-on, for example) only know to look for the issue, and may not recognize it if it's listed under the name. --Michael Snow 01:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus on removing it either. Until then we should use standard practices, which includes a link to the actual page we're discussing, and the complete uncensored page. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus either way; you're right. Until then we should do the conservative and respectful thing. Standard practices are just that; they're not hard-and-fast rules. Everybody understands what page we're talking about without needing to use the name. Let the discussion play out. moink 02:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The conservative thing to do is to do what we always do. I don't see how this is an issue of respect. Anyone who does a quick google search for "kobe bryant accuser" will immediately find the name of the accuser. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, this isn't a standard case, so standard guidelines might not necessarily apply. - Seth Ilys 02:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They might not (in this case, they do, but that's a different question), but until there is consensus on whether different rules should apply, we should go by the standard rules. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a unique case. At least while this discussion is still going on, I don't believe the name should be there - why not stick with something neutral? Ambivalenthysteria 03:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How is the page supposed to be undeleted if the name of the page isn't even listed? There is nothing neutral. You either list the name of the page, or you don't list the name of the page. Hmm, maybe that's a compromise. Move the page to "Kobe Bryant's accuser" and remove the references to the name. then list the page on VfD and start a vote on the talk page about a rename and whether the name should be included. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise. We should leave the name out until the issue is decided. moink 03:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The name would still be in the history, however, unless it was subsequently deleted by consensus on VfD. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 03:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me. Ambivalenthysteria 03:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to have been done yet. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 00:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I want to make sure we all agree on what we're doing before I do it. What I think I'm doing is using that archived copy that someone has somewhere in their user space (somebody point me to where if they remember), moving it to Kobe Bryant's accuser, editing it so that it makes sense without the name, and then having all conversation about publishing the name on that page's talk page. We'll put a note on the village pump etc so that all interested parties can participate in the discussion. In the meantime we'll remove the name from here and wherever else it's mentioned. moink 00:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the page from PCB21's user space. moink 01:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That page doesn't have the author information in it. The original page needs to be the one that is moved. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reorienting back to left

We do not retain copyright violation information. We delete the article and allow it to be recreated. If Wikipedia decides that the accusers name is not appropriate then there is nothing wrong with deleting the article and allowing it to be recreated. - Texture 02:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is legally required to remove copyright information which they know about. They are not legally required to remove this woman's name. But more importantly, Wikipedia is legally required, by copyright law (via the GFDL), to maintain the information on the authors. This is not the case with a copyright violation, because the infringing content is not copied and pasted into the new page. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 02:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Obviously there is a page missing, which was incorrectly linked - how can the data be found again? The page of interest was called OCT (Optical coherence tomography). Can it be revived again as "Optical Coherence Tomography"? --BoP 13:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I destroyed by mistake the English version of page ATC code A02 (overwrite to translate into french; I tought I was in the French section.
Please restore the previous English version
I am very sorry

Eras-mus 23:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on your yourself. It seems to have been an honest mistake. I fixed it. Actually, you could easily have fixed it yourself. Any editor can "revert" the article to any previous version by clicking on the history tab, clicking on the date of the version to which you want to revert, then clicking "Edit this page". You can then edit that text. When you save (including the case where you make no edits), that old version (with any edits) becomes the current version. You don't have to be an administrator to do this. --BM 23:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the line

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

It's unclear to me what it's talking about. Looking at the history of the Meta page, it looks like a discussion that was active in 2003, more or less petered out in early 2004, and apart from one comment has had no serious discussion since March 2004. Since this does not seem to be anything that is "in the works," not even "some ways off," I don't see the point of having it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to post here, but I'm in a hurry and cannot really figure whom to tell about that. Am I dreaming, or the Canada article has been deleted?? --Valmi ✒ 02:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like it's back, but only has one edit in the history. I think the previous history needs to be appended. Kappa 02:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Full history is back, just replication lag. --SPUI (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)