Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Restoring for merging

Is it uncontroversial to restore a deleted article for merging, i.e., would REFUND fulfill such a request? Discussion of a specific case at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21#Conquest X-30. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Celph Titled

Celph Titled, member of Hip Hop group Army of the Pharaohs, I believe (as well as many others I have spoken to) that Celph is the one of the most promising members of The Demigodz and Army of the Pharaohs. When looking down the list of Army of the Pharaohs members, celph Titled is recognised equally or better lyrically and in technique and delivery. This page has been deleated many times before, but there are more reliable sources available now. 18:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanlanjosh (talk • contribs)

Userbox relevant to REFUND

I have made a userbox intended for counting article "resuscitations" through here or at the Article Incubator: {{User:Chaos5023/Userboxes/Reanimations}}. (See also my userboxen page for usage and display example.) Just FYI. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that text copied from other websites has been released under a compatible free license

When I first saw this refund request I was about to undelete the article without hassle but I couldn't help but notice that the original webpage still says Copyright 2011 - Kerere Africa Ltd. All rights reserved. . Eventually I assumed good faith and due diligence on the part of the OTRS volunteer in determining that the request was valid but I still think that in the future, it wouldn't be unreasonable to require that a proper cc-by-sa (or other compatible license) notice be present on the original web page before the article is restored. It's reasonable to assume that if the person making the request to OTRS owns the rights to the material, then they also should have the technical ability to change the license tag themselves or direct whoever does to change the tag. Barring the website getting hacked, this would be a good way to be 99.9% certain that the material has indeed been released under a free license. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We (OTRS agents) are pretty through when it comes to determining a) that the person we're talking to has the right to release the material in question and b) that they're releasing under a compatible license (and understand what that means). So if an OTRS agent asks you to undelete an article based on an OTRS ticket and says the text is available under CC-By-SA (or any other compatible license) , you can be confident that the text is available under that license. Alternatively, you can refer it to the OTRS noticeboard and ask for an admin who is also an OTRS agent to check and undelete if you don't feel you've done your due diligence by not being able to access the ticket. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that if text on a website is released under a given license that the website itself reflect that license. If the footer for a page says "all rights reserved" and OTRS says "released under a compatible CC license" I trust OTRS folks have done the appropriate due diligence but for everyone but the OTRS team, that text is still copyrighted. In other words if a person looking at the original text wants to re-use it or make a derivative work they will be under the mistaken impression that they cannot. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright owners are free to grant licenses under different terms to different reusers. The Creative Commons license is not exclusive so technically anyone else can make use of the text on the website as of the exact moment the OTRS tag was placed on the article's talk page. Maybe the website owner wants to be able to update the text on the page and not have the CC license apply to any newer versions. OTRS volunteers, if they've done due diligence, can allow a copyright owner to license a low resolution version of an image under a CC license, without also requiring that the larger resolution one hosted on their professional page also be CC licensed. Changes to the original website are only required if there is no other method of verification that the emailer is the same person operating the website. – Adrignola talk 19:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. The wisdom of accepting a grant is probably still in question, as we delete a lot of the text released by OTRS that comes through REFUND for non-copyright reasons. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised to see that it wasn't WP:CHIMP material. If this were like most such requests, it wouldn't last long enough for us to have this discussion, I'll admit that I might be wrong and in no way was I trying to question the thoroughness of our OTRS volunteers. I also see Adrignola's point when it comes to images and it is reasonable for someone to release a low resolution version of one of their images under a free license while reserving their rights on the high resolution one. However, when it comes to "text", there is no such concept of "high res" and "low res". (unless fancy fonts or formatting is involved I guess) If someone does want to reuse the text of a wikipedia article, sees that it came from www.example.com/foo but the original page still says "all rights reserved" (and it's still the same text as the WP article), it might cause some confusion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding wisdom, many articles that I've requested to be restored due to the resolution of copyright problems end up going to AfD anyway for things such as notability. I try to not take it personally. As for low/high res images, it's an imperfect analogy, but references the possibility that two versions of a work can coexist under mutually exclusive licenses. I suppose we could start doing WebCite copies and link them from the {{ConfirmationOTRS}} templates if ultimately desired. – Adrignola talk 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to make any personal slight when talking about the wisdom of the process. At REFUND I try not to second guess OTRS users and I'm sure people patrolling the OTRS queue aren't interested in getting into arguments about notability. Both of those standpoints are laudable but we end up with a lot of wasted work as a result. I also agree w/ Ron. Releasing one instance of text under a copyleft license and maintaining another as all rights reserved is at best confusing. At worst it inidcates that the companies on the other end don't understand the license. Even the example you gave is rocky. Lets say for a moment that I have an article on my site which I release under CC-BY-SA through OTRS. The original article still indicates I forbid copying/redistribution/etc. If I change the article slightly am I not required to license it under the same terms? Protonk (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Consider images at Flickr. They could be copied to Commons and then later the Flickr user can change the displayed license to all rights reserved, but we don't have to delete our copy. Likewise if the Flickr user shows their email in their profile and we get a statement of permission from that email for a photo, then a version (even the exact same file) can be released under a different license. I'm transcribing PDFs released by the CK-12 Foundation under the CC-BY-SA license to Wikibooks, even though they later modified the PDFs on their site to indicate a noncommercial license. But the Creative Commons license is not revokable and I uploaded the original versions to Commons as proof of the original terms. – Adrignola talk 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's say the owner of foo-island.com releases the text of his website under cc-by-sa so it can be used on Wikipedia but decides to leave the instance of the text on the original site "all rights reserved". Later he sees that a third party has used the text in a travel book offered for sale at Amazon or BN and decides to sue. Does the author of the travel book have to prove that he copied it from Foo Island and not foo-island.com? This can also be an issue with images as was the case here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice find. It's even a thread that I started. As you might expect, I do not place faith in mistaken licensing claims in order to get an image taken down or appreciate false DMCA submissions. On a side note, those wanting to get royalties through Getty at Flickr are forced to change all images to all rights reserved (though they can't get as much money if they were ever CC-licensed). As for your specific question, the great thing is that Wikipedia has specific revisions with time stamps that can be pointed to by a reuser of text. For images from Flickr, you can point to a permanent link for the image that shows it was reviewed by an administrator, trusted user, or the Flickr review bot as being under the license at the specific point in time. So yes, the author does have to prove the provenance, but Wikimedia makes that easy to do so with the software we have, which works nicely into our mission of spreading knowledge (excepting an unquestioned DMCA take-down of the page that could be used for proof). But overall you can see releasing content under a free license as invalidating any all rights reserved claims on the exact same content posted anywhere else. They might as well change the terms shown elsewhere if they aren't planning to change the content. But I think some choose not to simply to avoid "exposure" (hide the fact that the same content is available freely elsewhere). – Adrignola talk 16:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Template bug - reasoning discarded!

This resulted in 'no reasoning given' !!!: {{subst:refund| File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_(in_Safari).png |I logged in to find http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elvey&redirect=no#Disputed_non-free_use_rationale_for_File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_.28in_Safari.29.png and the image deleted. But the image page contained a good FUR, IIRC and I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#F7 is certainly inapplicable. The note indicates the FUR was disputed, but it seems there is no information available to me as to the nature of the dispute with the FUR, and I can't see any potential issues other than user error.}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 September 2010

The "=" in the URL caused your reasoning to be treated by the MW parser as a named parameter (so you basically passed a parameter called "I logged in to find http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title" with the value "User_talk:Elvey&redirect=no#Disputed_non-free_use_rationale_for_File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_.28in_Safari.29.png and the image deleted. But the image page contained a good FUR, IIRC and I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#F7 is certainly inapplicable. The note indicates the FUR was disputed, but it seems there is no information available to me as to the nature of the dispute with the FUR, and I can't see any potential issues other than user error."). Prepend "2=" to your reason. T. Canens (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A possible solution to the issue of articles restored per OTRS being immediately redeleted

Also known as the WP:CHIMP problem. An article gets deleted as a G12 copyvio, gets OTRS clearance, and then gets deleted as SPAM per CSD G11. (or another speedy criterion) When I responded to this request, I took the extra BOLD step of moving it to the incubator where it will either eventually be turned into an "article" or deleted. I think it's preferable to having it whacked within the hour which is what would likely have happened if I had left it in article space. Any opinions about making this "standard practice"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed seams a sensible solution to the problem, I would support it as standard practice for any article where the restoring administrator would re-delete it if it was tagged with any of the CSD tags and any unref'ed BLP. Mtking ^(edits) 04:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction between Deletion policy and WP:REFUND instructions

See WT:DEL#Contradiction between Deletion policy and WP:REFUND instructions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Should we have a section encouraging K.I.S.S rationales?

Just saw this request and it seems to me that not only is such a long justification completely unnecessary, it could in some cases throw a monkey wrench into one's quest to get an article restored. I've seen other requests where the requester when into this long explanation as to why an article should be restored complete with lots of WP:ATA type arguments which led to responses from admins challenging the subject's notability instead of just restoring the article. In some cases the tone of the request may suggest that the requester has a conflict of interest. All it's necessary to say is "It was deleted as an uncontested PROD". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Template responses

The other day I created a set of template responses for nonadmins clerking the page. Opinions sought and welcomed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jason Banton

the article was accepted for undeletion but was never activated by an admin and has now fallen into an archive, do I need to re post it or can an admin just do it anyway? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 13:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Better post it again with what your request exactly is, as the history contains a sock and a copyright violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Silly question

Assuming there's a concerted spam campaign (mayhaps incited by Brian himself) should we revert and block on-sight (for 12-24h) any anon trying to get that article undeleted here? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to WP:AGF ... even after the comments on my talkpage yesterday (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AGF isn't a suicide pact. There are three declined requests for this article on REFUND right now; all of them are very easily visible. If they're not going to bother reading the declined requests and just spam up this page, they're not going to bother to file a legitimate request. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

True that. Note to Brian: If you're really that notable, have one of your denizens get an account. Have them write an article that meets the Wikipedia requirements in their userspace or in the article incubator. Ask for help. That's how intelligent people do things. The piece of junk your denizens keep asking to be undeleted was not worthy of anything - my 7 year old writes better stories. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding to that - before starting, they should read WP:Your first article, especially the sections on notability and references, WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people). Then make a draft article, starting from Help:Userspace draft, and propose it at WP:Articles for creation. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now finally begun 1-week blocks for disruption for the IP's that continue to disrupt this process. It's difficult to semi-protect this page, due to its typical usefulness. Reminds me of a Tosh.0 prank, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the semi issue I'm forced to agree. Semi-protection would be a good way to make it more likely that those who make requests are here compliant but articles deleted by PROD need to be restorable upon request by anybody. Therefore I guess we need to continue to deal with people who drop out of the sky and request we undelete articles that there's no way they even knew existed unless they have a COI. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it really stems back to this failed AFC too. To quote Mel Lastman: "Noooooooooobody!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New template

For anyone interested in the "customer service" side of responding to REFUND requests, I have create the template {{UND-response}}. In its simplest form, you simply put these on the requesting editor's talkpage:

• {{subst:UND-response}}

If you want them to reply:

• {{subst:UND-response|response=yes}}

You can also specify a thread:

• {{subst:UND-response|thread=Etymotic}}

Enjoy!! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gobbldeygook needs attention

NOTE: at the top of this editing page I'm using now, it says, "If your concerns cannot be not addressed, you may seek redress at deletion review." <sic>. "cannot be not addressed"?? Needs to be reworded.--Elvey (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed the 'not'. It's an edit notice called Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Intro. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha.  :-) I boldly performed what I think were some sorely needed grammar tweaks as well. --Elvey (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

PROD undelete for CSDs

What about PROD undelete requests (for articles failing CSD or not) being semi-automatically userfied on request for evaluation (or optionally email) so that undelete process matches the low burden PROD. They would get userfied with a PROD attached to prevent adverts lingering (obviously a userspace PROD undelete would not qualify). Wouldn't his be more transparent and in-keeping-with-WP with all editors being able to decide on content rather than admins, while still being a low burden process in keeping with PROD, and providing an incentive to delete CSDs with CSD not PROD. I'm sure you have some much better informed opinion on this idea. Widefox (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the question. The majority of requests to undelete a PROD'd article are successful, except: a) clear significant policy violations (such as BLP), or b) ancient PROD's (my article was PROD'd over a year ago, and I want it back) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For the one I did not restore for Widefox, I would have deleted it as an advert anyway. If there was a way not to expose it on WIkipedia but made it available to Widefox I could have done so. Also some times I do reverse speedy deletes, and even less times get a complaint about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient PROD's

I have mixed feelings about this one. I was the editor who first proposed the idea for a "requests for undeletion" and coined and created its well known WP:REFUND shortcut. My idea was for a central location where here compliant editors could request the undeletion of articles that were uncontroversially deleted but it does seem like the majority of the requests seem to come from editors who create an account, create an article and then show up every few months or so to see if it's still here or requests for which there's no way in hell the requester could know the article even existed unless they had a COI. Bwilkins and others, I feel your pain.

However, I can also see a case where a "here compliant" editor creates an article, goes bush for a year, (yes I know that's an exaggeration) returns to WP and sees it gone. I can also see its absence being noticed from following a redlink from another article. Therefore, I think we need to honor all PROD undeletion requests no matter who makes them or how old they are unless the admin has a damn good reason why it shouldn't such as the article otherwise meeting a CSD criteria or having BLP issues. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it does not matter how old the prod is. However there may be cases where the requester is after a different topic to what the deleted article was about. I have also seen some admins restore a prod request and then immediately delete it with a CSD criterion such as A7, I am not sure how useful that is, but may make it clear the a reverse refund request is no longer applicable for that article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

An article meeting a CSD criterion falls under "damn good reason" so one should just say "no" from jumpstreet. Restoring a PROD and then turning right around and deleting it seems bitey and insulting but I can see how one would be tempted to do it if the original requester is being a huge dick about the issue but one should not fight "dick" with "dick". If the deleted article was about a different subject then just say so and invite the requester to write a new article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

List of DirecTV Channels ( United States)

I would like to request that the article [[ List Of DirecTv Channels ( United States) gets undeleted. It does not deserve to get undeleted and it's very helpful for DirecTV subscribers.--Chase287 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

You'd think I'd know the answer to this, but I think this may be the first time in 8.5 years that I find myself in the position to request an undeletion, and I'm not sure if this should be done through this page or DRV. Anyway, the AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association (ecology). There's nothing wrong with the closing admin's decision, but the discussion only had two participants, neither of which knew anything about the subject. So I was wondering if I should raise the request here, or on DRV. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As it was deleted at AfD, you should use DRV. Discuss with the deleting admin first; if you can show her some references, she might be willing to undelete and relist for further discussion. This page is for uncontroversial undeletions like PRODS which can be restored on request. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. I wasn't sure how low the threshold was for "little or no participation". As I said, it's all weirdly bureaucratic - I completely agree with the deletion based on the data she had...I would have done the same thing. It was the discussion itself that was flawed, and the flaw was mostly structural. Anyway, thanks. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging REFUNDED articles

I think we have to put a stop to refunding articles when the editor does not intend to fix it and represent it through DRV, but instead intends to bypass a 'delete' AFD result by merging the content into other articles. It's creating a licensing nightmare. The particular issue where I'm having trouble is 2013 in UFC, which was apparently built by unattributed cut-and-pastes, including REFUNDed copies of multiple articles (thanks to Flatscan for the research here):

1. [1]: UFC on Fuel TV: Silva vs. Stann
2. [2]: UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald userfied to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald (User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 41#Restore UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald to my user space)
3. [3]: UFC 157 userfied to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 157 (WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 81#UFC 157), histmerged to 2013 in UFC
4. [4]: UFC 156 userfied to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 156 (WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 81#UFC 156)
5. [5]: UFC 158
6. [6]: UFC 158
7. [7]: UFC 156, might be a reformatting
8. [8]: UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping (no userfication request found)

I'd be pretty justified to G12 the thing based on it being completely unlicensed and unsalvagable, but that strikes me as being a WP:DICK violation, so I'm not so inclined. I'd like to hear some suggestions as to how to fix this thing, and, more importantly, get everyone that deals with this page to understand that REFUND is not intended to allow deleted material to be merged into existing articles. If the AFD closed as delete, that doesn't entitle individual editors to override the result to merge by using REFUND to bypass DRV.—Kww(talk) 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe your interpretation of AfD results is wrong. The only thing an AfD decides is whether or not something can be a standalone article. Usually, nothing precludes that info from being added to another article; whether or not it belongs there is an editorial question, decided usually by WP:V, WP:NOR, and, especially, WP:DUE (WP:NPOV). In some cases, where there is discussion of a merger in the AfD, we could say there was a clear consensus to delete and not merge, but this is fairly rare. In this case, I'm assuming that the target article didn't even exist at the time of most of the AfDs, so of course there was no merge discussion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, having said that, sometimes we should expect editors to guess the will of the community. I couldn't, for example, take a whole bunch of refunded future films articles deleted under WP:NOTCRYSTAL/WP:NFF and create Films which have been considered for production. I don't know if that applies here. My first guess is that it doesn't, since we very very often have articles on future "seasons" of other professional sports, so I think that collecting that information in one place may be okay (and fits with the earlier consensus favoring omnibus over individual event articles anyway). But, again, that matter could be debated on the talk page of the new omnibus article and/or an AfD if people thought it necessary.

But, having said all of that, Kww is absolutely correct w.r.t. the licensing problem. None of those should have been cut and paste without attribution. Luckily, attribution can be backwards preserved (I've been told). Someone just needs to make a series of null edits to the article that list all of the sources for these (which will presumably be the refunded articles sitting in article space), and then the talk page of the omnibus in mainspace needs to be tagged with {{merged-to}} and the talk page of the sandbox articles need to be tagged with {{merged-from}}. This should ensure that the sandbox articles are never deleted. The whole reason to sandbox rather than just email a copy is to preserve the attribution history, so there's no problem with that technique. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the articles are restored to their proper locations, I will do the needful with dummy edits, {{Copied}}s, and a {{Copied multi}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I will agree that Oscar was not disruptive, didn't intentionally create a licensing problem, and that the resulting article in this case is reasonable. As a result, I'm restraining myself. In this case, none of the articles was refunded to their original places. They are laying all over sandboxes, and some have been redeleted, which is why I want to get some agreement as to how to patch this together before I do anything.

I will strongly and vehemently disagree with you in terms of whether REFUND is being used appropriately, though. Having the article history sitting in article space, under the article name, is not the result of a "deletion" at AFD. That's a "merge", and "merge" has historically be considered a form of "keep", not "delete". If an article has been deleted, merging its content is not a viable outcome. REFUND is not at all appropriate. Basically what has happened here is that editors and admins used REFUND to override the result of numerous AFDs while not going through DRV.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Tero Kinnunen

Per this, said article was restored. I'd really like to know why, seeing ass how a request is not a given. MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

History-only undeletion

Right now, DRV's instructions say that it should receive history-only undeletion requests: an article was deleted at AFD, you write a good new article on it later, and you make a history-only undeletion request by saying "Please restore the old edits, since I've written a good new article that resolves the reason for deletion". I've proposed that these requests be sent here instead of DRV; please go to my proposal and offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion of page in userspace?

Hi, I'm new to this corner of the encyclopedia... I don't understand why no one responded to my request for temporary undeletion of a page in userspace?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_90#User:Maslowsneeds.2FSuzannah_B._Troy

Seems like it should be routine and very uncontroversial. Someone help please? Thank you! groupuscule (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's quite controvertial to request undeletion in someone else's userspace. What makes you think otherwise? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think exactly because it was in userspace, and you are not the user in question, afaikt . It was deleted because of WP:SOAP, and that was about right: it was a big bit of puffery and aggrandizement about the person. But this is just my take. And as you can see from the lack of responses: it is not routine and uncontroversial. Lectonar (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the responses, think I understand better what's going on now. I'm quite sure that User:Maslowsneeds was not happy with the deletion. I'm requesting at least a copy of the page because I'm considering work on a main namespace article on Troy but I'm on the fence about (ability to demonstrate) notability. Thus, I am seeking all available links that might be relevant. Maybe there is a way to help me with that, without actually un-deleting the page? Thanks a lot. groupuscule (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the contents to you. Any recreation that uses any of that will need attribution to previosu editors (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As I can do no more, just a litle comment: I do not know about Maslowneeds being not happy, because his last edit was in 2012, and the page has been deleted in 2013....Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this page for?

So, if I think a page shouldn't have been deleted, and I want to discuss if it should be revived, is this where to request that? --Shikku27316 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)`

Not as such; let me quote: "Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator." Is your question just hypothetical, or are we talking about the article "Neutrois"? Lectonar (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I have trouble understanding big words so I asked here. Do you know how I could revive an article, then? Also, it's not about that article, it's about another article. Thanks. --Shikku27316 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)`

It really depends. Care to tell me which article it was? Perhaps it is easy to restore, if not then deletion review might be the correct venue. Lectonar (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was Polandball. All the other languages of Wikipedia have this article, and it has every right to be here. I just wanted to have a discussion about it to show why it should be restored, so that it's not deleted again. --Shikku27316 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)`

You will know, of course, that it was deleted after a discussion to be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball I would find it rather difficult to just undelete it after the closing rationale provided by User:Sandstein. So the right choice would be indeed DRV, as mentioned above. Mind that a new article about this topic would have to be impeccable indeed. I frankly doubt that all other languages of Wikipedia cover this topic, and every Wikipedia has different sets of policies to boot. Lectonar (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

of wikidata & undeletions...

hello;

i'm posting this here, as a follow-up to an uncompleted conversation that i had in an undeletion request, some time ago.

i did a little digging, & unless something has changed in the intervening timespan, i have definitely found that

WIKIDATA inter-wiki links ARE NOT restored, when a deleted article is undeleted.

see here, for an example:

http://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11605502&action=history

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_Rabbit_Rope&action=history

as you can see, once the article is red-linked @ wp/en, a bot @ wikidata goes through & erases the listing there. it might not be exactly "instantaneous", but it is a routine & automatic procedure.

what this means is that the inter-wiki links (if any) for a restored article NEED TO BE REPLACED MANUALLY, at least until someone develops a tool for it.

the real problem is with finding the correct wiki-data entry to re-link it to...

as far as i can tell, there is no trace left on the restored article page (or in history, at least from the time the item was added to wiki-data), to back-trace it. there might be something somewhere in the mediawiki database, that holds a record of the "connection", but it doesn't seem to be anywhere in userland.

& this is going to be important, i think. it may seem like a limited/small problem now, but if it's not fixed, it's going to grow into a HUGE pain-in-the-ass, & cost us many man-hours of wasted extra work; if we have to do this EVERY TIME an article is restored...

that, or we just accept a "lower-standard" of inter-wiki linking; which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what wikidata is supposed to achieve.

i'm going to cc a copy of this message over @ wikidata & seewhat they have to say; i'll cross-link that with here.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

the discussion @ wikidata http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#of_wikidata_.26_article_undeletions...

Lx 121 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a job for an interwikibot to sort out. The bot could look at all undeletions and look for any wikidata that may be connected, check its history and relink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Accessing "James Cranch" page

A few years ago, there was a page about me, James Cranch. It was deleted (I'm not notable enough). Mostly for reasons of vanity, I would quite like to be able to see what it said. My home page contains contact information including an email address to which a copy could be sent. I'd be grateful if someone with the appropriate rights could help! 146.90.43.93 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"certain speedy deletion criteria"

What are the "certain speedy deletion criteria" in which REFUND can be applied? I think something like this should be as explicit as possible, as it may lead to disagreements between editors and admins as well as uneven application of WP:REFUND — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The examples in the parenthetical are piped links to G6 and G13 (added April 2013). In the latest WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 99, REFUND of G4-deleted pages was declined for BPO+ and fulfilled for Brough Family Organization. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so to paraphrase: current consensus is that administrators are to exercise administrative judgement in deciding whether or not an article can be recreated through REFUND, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with no prescriptive rules. About right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to G13 relevant here

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Addition to G13: Restored articles at 3 month mark, if unedited; 1 month mark if sill unedited. The genesis of this was raised higher on this page at #G13 undeletions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

G13 undeletions

It's interesting to see the G13 undeletion requests coming in - people who have done nothing about their submission for a year (or in one case, four years) still want it back as soon as it goes. I suppose that, just as some people used to think "Failed BA" better to have after your name than nothing, "being in Wikipedia" is thought to give prestige even if the article is sitting in AfC with a rejection notice on top. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was just thinking of starting a talkpage query about that....nice to see different people think in the same patterns, sometimes.....but what leaves me thinking is this part of the G13 refund procedure....."If your article submission has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it, follow these steps....:" For me this means that it has to be the creator of the AfC who must request the refunding, or can anyone do it? But perhaps I am just being dumb here. Lectonar (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section of the UND template for G13s (you can use {{subst:UND|g13}} or {{subst:UND|AFC}} or {{subst:UND|afc}}) The results is:

Done - as an articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request.

As to the OP, this concerns me--that we made G13, but no mechanism for further deletions if nothing's done after restoration. This is probably the wrong forum for this, but maybe we should have a caveat to G13, that upon restoration, the period drops to two months or something like that, then some lower measure, say a month, then no restoration unless edits are proposed that address the reason for rejection. Just thinking out loud. Have to mull it. Lectonar: I think that's just a problem with the notification template's language. To my mind a third party wishing to undelete an AFC is more likely to make edits that address past rejections than is someone who was not able to do so, or sat on their hands and abandoned it. There's another problem with that template. We are not going to be userfying them, I would think, but just undeleting them back to the same AFC title. Would you agree? If so, the templates language about "...an administrator will place the undeleted submission in your user space" needs to be modified.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree; and I think the message should include something on the lines of: "Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material not suitable for the encyclopedia." There should perhaps be a paragraph along the lines of WP:FAKEARTICLE somewhere in the AfC guideline pages. JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm running out the door. Please do edit the template as you see fit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I added your suggested language near verbatim.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. I have tweaked it by putting caps on "Articles for Creation", and already found it useful. (I would have used the new "Thank" button here, but I really cannot bring myself to use that pink heart!) JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

John, I actually didn't know what you meant about the heart when I first saw this but learned later. See Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Thanks#Change the i-love-you heart to something more neutral.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As an editor who was the cause of a lot of these G13 nominations I have some thoughts.

1. There's no deadline for articles to be improved, but at the same time we can apply G13 again once the submission goes beyond 6 months on no edit and 30 days beyond that for HasteurBot actually nominating for G13. What I do think we do need is additional instructions for UND to exercise discretion in restoring. Obviously of course if an editor petitions for UND-ing a 2nd time after a G13, the admins really need to ask why there has been no significant improvements on the article in 6 months + 30 days twice. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

coding the input box to supply the article name?

We currently have the inputbox as follows

<inputbox>
type=commenttitle
page=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion
preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Example
editintro=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Intro
buttonlabel=Request
width=40
</inputbox>

I was just wondering if there was some way to code it so that the title the requester supplies is automatically placed in the first parameter of Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Example (or if there might be some other coding scheme that would have the same effect). Currently there are constant failures to supply the page name after they click the Request button, despite successfully entering the title as the page header.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please use Template:old prod full

It's very helpful to have {{old prod full}} on contested-prod restores.

If you are using a script for contested prod restores, consider modifying it to put something like this on the talk page:

{{old prod full
|nom=[nominator]
|nomdate={{subst:ISO date|[timestamp of PROD]}}
|con=[your name]
|condate=[today's date]
|conreason=Requested at [[WP:UNDELETE#[section name]]] ([diff of current version of [[WP:UNDELETE] goes here]) by {{U|person requesting a refund}} on [date of request]
}}

or if you want to leave your name out of it

{{old prod full
|nom=[nominator]
|nomdate={{subst:ISO date|[timestamp of PROD]}}
|con=[person requesting a refund]
|condate=[date of request]
|conreason=Requested at [[WP:UNDELETE#[section name]]] ([diff of current version of [[WP:UNDELETE] goes here])
}}

At the very least, just use a plain old

{{old prod full}}

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs)

• Actually, though I know a merger of the two is proposed, normal practice (certainly my practice) has been to use {{Old prod}} for restoration of deleted PRODs, with {{Old prod full}} used if the PROD is removed before deletion. I have never seen much point to the various parameters - the details are in the history if anyone really needs them, but the point of the template is to warn future PRODders, or admins working the CAT:PROD queue, that the article needs to go to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

NOINDEX

I have added NOINDEX to the page. It seems to me undesirable for it to be turned up by a Google search for the name of someone whose article has been deleted and who is arguing about it here. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New G13 template option

Quite a few times now I've left the standard G13 template and then realized the person never submitted for review, so the text "Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it" is not tailored for such matters. I've thus added a new template option:

{{subst:UND|g13-ns}} or

{{subst:UND|AFC-ns}} or

{{subst:UND|afc-ns}}

The "ns" stands for not submitted or never submitted, and it provides

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!"

Feel free to tweak--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it, just used it. Hopefully they'll actually see it and act on it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Great. On the issue of seeing it, I've taken to pinging every time I answer a request (using {{tping}}) because I find it a bit mysterious how rare it is for anyone to comment back. Not that I'm pining away for thank yous, but it seems inexplicably uncommon. (I'm also still puzzled why we have such a constant influx of doubled and tripled requests.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

History undeletion underneath redirect

We are discussing whether WP:REFUND is an appropriate place for history undeletion requests if the article in question was deleted and later turned into a redirect. Please go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect to participate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Two suggestions

I haven't really been very active at this page, but decided to get a little more active. If someone finds I'm not handling things properly, please point it out.

Kudos to whoever created the templates to provide answers.

Two suggestions, which may actually be questions:

1. I see templates covering restoration to main space, and to user space. Having just restored something to Draft space, I either need to know why this is a bad option, or suggest that there should be a specific template to cover this option.
2. The templates at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations (which could use more eyes, hint, hint) automatically include the signature. I think I've managed to remember each time, but it seems odd to have to remember to exclude the sig at SCV, but include it here. Would it be too much of an imposition to ask that these templates be changed to autosign?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal preference for No. 2 is that it not include the signature, because I often say "Done, <insert specific comments>". Maybe just for the templates that add a lot of text? Or maybe consistency is better. I don't know, but I'd prefer that the basic done/nd templates not have signatures. Protonk (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly, especially as you make a good point. One thought occurred to me, what if each template had an additional parameter, if blank, the default is not signed, but if filled in with say an "S", it is signed.

E.g {{subst:UND|d}} produces the unsigned versions while {{subst:UND|d|S}} produces a signed version. Then you could use the unsigned version if you want to add text, and your sig at end, or use the signed version if you do not need to add text. Those who are fine with current templates can ignore it, because the default is to work exactly as is. (I need practice working on templates, and this sounds like a relatively easy task, with a low probability of breaking the place. If you see a downside I've missed, let me know.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked into how those templates are written but I can certainly get onboard with a signature param defaulting to no sig. I think if you want to get into template editing it's at least worth forking the template and trying to add in the parameter in a sensible way. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Preloaded forms

Do we have a list somewhere of the templates and edit forms which preload REFUND sections? I'd like to take a look at possible ways to knock down the empty section titles and multiple sections added but I'm not sure where to start (since evidently some live here on the REFUND page while others are part of the AFC process, somehow). Protonk (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice

I want to update the edit notice to include only the most common deletion responses, rather than transcluding the whole documentation subpage (see Template:UND/doc), with a link to the full documentation after an abbreviated list. Right now the list has a lot of content under the fold, including a number of parameter choices which don't seem to see much use on REFUND.

Pinging @Fuhghettaboutit, JohnCD, and This, that and the other: for comments. Protonk (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• No objection, as long as there is a link to the full list. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Per JohnCD. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Done. See the shorter docs. Feel free to add/remove/move things. I made a rough guess from recent activity but I may have missed common params. Protonk (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent requests to undelete under G13

We're now getting to the time when we're going to be seeing second requests for undeletion (drafts that were undeleted once before and are requested to be undeleted a second time). Of course these should each be considered on their peculiar facts. If a request is obviously by a different person than the first requester, we should probably handle that no differently than we would for a first request. But for ones where it's the same person requesting (or probably the same person) should we have a standardized response?

I responded to the first one I've seen of these yesterday or the day before, here: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Structure101. I used a bit too much specifics there for a template in the same form, but the gist and some of the language there might be considered as a starting point.

Anyone have a suggestion for such a templates response's language? Do you agree that we should require some type of additional response – some affirmative statement of intent to actually make improvements – before undeleting? Should we add a timeframe to it? Something like if no edits are made to address the rejection bases within ______ of undeletion, the draft may be deleted again without further process"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

I have used this approach, declining to restore without a definite assurance that it will be worked on. (No reply, in this case!) Maybe that could be the basis of a template; your "What do you intend to do?" question looks like a good addition. Given a plausible-looking reply, I don't think we need specify a timescale, which would either mean new G13-type machinery or making a personal list to check up on; let the existing G13 mechanism catch it if abandoned again. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of requiring an affirmative response above and beyond the boilerplate "I solemnly swear I'm up to no good I'll work on this article" in the G13 template already. I usually just undelete the material and move on. However I think the issue comes up often enough that a templated response pointing out past restorations might be valuable. I don't know how to word said response. If given the choice, I'd rather ask if people need help working on an article rather than giving an ad-hoc ultimatum. Sorry if this sounds contrary or negative. I'm not trying to shoot down the concept. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Users making a G13 restoration request don't actually, themselves, say they are going to work on the article: they just press the button and "I intend to work on it" is part of the machine-generated response. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a personal reply to a direct question before doing a second restoration. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll amend my own template message to include a pointed question. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Ell oh ell. We should probably remove that from the G13 template. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everyone. Okay, so I'm going to work up a template, borrowing from myself, Jesse and John, and then everyone is free to amend as they see fit, or not to use at all. Regarding the language from the template ("as I intend to work on it"), I added that as a nudge, a hopeful prompt to people that this is what they are agreeing to and that they shouldn't ask unless they are planning to. It's impossible to know whether it has had any affect, but I think it should remain for that purpose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this questioning the user idea. Perhaps we also need to question them on their talk page. I have found only about 10% of G13 restores get worked on, Perhaps the users do not even know their page is back. They may press the button to make a request and then never look at the WP:REFUND page again. I have had one user though that did respond to the ir question about a second undelete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That very possible. Regarding prompting them further on their talk page, pinging should have the same result. I have taken on the habit of adding {{tping}} to every restoration for just that reason but I don't know if that has had any affect either.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am substituting the template I have added to {{UND}}, placed with {{subst:UND|2nd}}, for inspection below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Declined pending further information. This was undeleted over six months ago with a pledge that it would be worked on, but no edits were made to improve the entry for resubmission. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia's article mainspace. I am willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it. Please advise.

I would put emphasis on everything from "but only if[...]" onwards, and add userspace drafts and the Draft namespace to that description, since not all drafts are in AfC (the majority are, but I'm just covering the bases here). Also, probably bold the first four words ("Declined pending further information"). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Length of time undeletion possible?

Greetings. I was wondering how long after an article has been deleted is it possible to still recover it? I only recently realized that an article that I had done significant work on had long since been deleted in what I believe was a speedy deletion for reasons it shouldn't have been, IMO. Just curious how long it is possible for and I think others may also be interested in this information. Thanks! Centerone (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

These situations would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. For example, if an article was deleted long ago because the subject wasn't notable, it is possible to restore it if there is evidence that the subject has become notable since the article was deleted. Generally it is best to look at the deletion log of the article and contact the administrator who deleted it, for reconsideration.

Which article are you talking about? I see contributions to three articles in your deleted contribution history, and all of them are minor edits (one is a revert). You have more siginificant contribution to some deleted article talk pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While there is one specific article I was talking about, I was more curious just in technical terms how long the deleted articles are reasonably recoverable for. You say it depends on on a case by case basis, but there has to be a set point at which things are simply no longer in the database because these were deleted and have since been overwritten. I figure that information can be helpful and informative. Now you bring up an interesting point. As far as one's "deleted contribution history" goes, is there a way for users to see that? Is there a special place in Contribs or something to go to in order to pull that data out? Thanks Centerone (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know a deleted page could be recovered basically indefinitely. See here for some info on that. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as your question about seeing deleted edits, only administrators have the ability to see them. GB fan 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Finding an article that has been deleted

If someone knows of a page that has been deleted, how does one find that article back again?CountMacula (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you know the exact title, attempting to create the page again (by clicking on the "You may create the page xxxx..." link at the top of the search results) will bring up the details of the deletion and the admin who carried it out. The actual content is unavailable to non-admin users, but most administrators will be willing to email a copy of the deleted text to you if there is no good reason not to. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're referring specifically to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natalja Baklanova, then you can ask for it to be undeleted under G13, and just about any admin will be happy to do that. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding requests for Nitesh Estates limited

Since it's pretty obvious that the only ones who will make the request are sockpuppets of Ramesh985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), would it be a smart idea (for admins; I won't touch these requests) to revert off the request and block the requestor? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion isn't needed. In fact I think it's a good idea for the purposes of evidence to leave the requests in place. As for blocking the requester, it seems that already gets done every time a request appears.

I have also pre-emptively protected a couple of similar names from recreation that hadn't been created yet, using the abbreviation "Ltd". ~Amatulić (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletition of the article "Stormy Atmosphere"

Copied over to main page, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Stormy Atmosphere

Good day, On 20 February 2015 my article was deleted due to a suspicion of a copyright violation. This is the link to an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silverray123/sandbox About the copyright violations - It was a huge misunderstanding actually. The text in the link http://progresja.com/events/mike-terrana-usa-2/?lang=en was actually taken from the original biography of the band. The owners of the website were the ones who copy-pasted it when making the advertisement for the bands' tour with Mike Terrana in December 2014. They don't own the copyright on that text, it's the band's original bio text. I thought it's okay to citate few words from the original bio of the band, when I write about the band. Hope that this explains the issue, therefore my article can be brought back from deletition and resubmitted. Thank you in advance, Silverray123 (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Julie Fagerholt

I would like to request an undeletion of the article (stub) on Danish designer Julie Fagerholt since I think she quite obviously satisfy the need for notability. It was deleted before I had time to respond.Ramblersen (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Ramblersen: This was actually speedied via WP:A7 and can't be restored through this board. You need to ask Bbb23 if he will restore it and if not, then you'll need to take it to WP:DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Gabay

Please could it be undeleted and returned to my sandbox so that I can work on it. Thanks.

user:Roundout Thank you.

Roundout, Draft: Jonathan Gabay already exists. Edit things there. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundout (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentle Reminder regarding G13 restores

Just a quick reminder: AfC relocated out of the prefix "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" several months ago. Happened back on this page for a completely unrelated subject and saw restorations to the old prefix. Ideally we prefer to have the AfC submissions at Draft:TITLENAME going forward. As part of your restoration if you could move the page to the draft space, that would be extremely helpful. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem with simply restoring to the same AFC space where it started? Does that break anything?

Eventually, the old "Wikipedia talk" submissions will be cleared as submissions get approved or expire, and this will no longer be an issue. But I don't see the point in giving administrators additional burden for no actual benefit. It's a bit of extra work to move the page to a new title, but if it's also expected to omit the redirect and inform the requester of the new location, that's more work. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's part of the "AFC should only live in Draft Space" which was adopted as AFC procedure over 8 months ago. All I'm asking is that after you do the restore is to go ahead and do a regular user move (and leave the redirect tombstone behind). The actual benefit is that the AFC reviewing tools and templates are going to become unsupported for pages that are in the original prefix area. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Will do. Thanks for the reminder, I didn't know AFC had moved to the draft namespace. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: After doing a couple of these, I have reached the conclusion that it's best simply to restore the submissions in place, and leave moving them to a bot. Would that be feasible? The cumulative amount of administrative hours that would be saved, depending on the potential number of restoration requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: It's feasable, but it also means parsing the Requests for undeletion page to hunt down any strings that match the pattern [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/*]] or [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/*]], checking to see if the target exists, checking to see if the target is a redirect, and if not to go ahead and move the page to the draft namespace by striping off the old prefix. Your thoughts? Any other UND admins want to weigh in to establish consensus? Having a consensus to do it in hand makes going through WP:BRFA a lot easier. Hasteur (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: It should be simpler than that. There is no need to parse undeletion requests.

A bot simply scans through all pages starting with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation". The bot would maintain its own log. If the page has already been logged, do nothing. If it isn't in the log and it's a redirect, log it as done and move on. If it isn't a redirect, move it to draft space, log it as done, and move on.

The bot could run once every few hours (there aren't that many undeletion requests, and the requester typically doesn't do anything for days after restoration anyway), or be triggered when someone saves or restores a page starting with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation".

In this way, we'd have a bot that would constantly be mopping up the AFC space as needed. No need for parsing the requests page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: We actually don't want to perturb pages that are in the old prefix because some of them are on their silent advancing to G13 eligibility. If we move the page to draft space that resets the clock on G13. Getting at the list of what pages are in the AFC prefix is a lot more difficult. Hasteur (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Resetting the clock on G13 simply means that the page exists for another six months, right? A couple of years ago we didn't even have G13, so what's the harm?

In any case, I know it's possible for bots to be run in response to certain activities, such as saving a page or restoring a page. Such a bot could run when a page is restored, check the title, and if it has the right prefix, move the page to draft, or schedule it to be moved. There's still no need to parse the undeletion requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I would be opposed to a bot moving all of the pages in the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" to the "Draft:" namespace, given that there is a chance that either 1) The draft is "speediable" or 2) The page could be an actual talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: A bot could still do this automatically AFC articles restored by an administrator. The two situations you list would not apply then. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amatulic: My concern would still be that the bot would not be able to tell the difference between a recently-restored page and a page that had existed without restoration for a considerable amount of time. Whether it be undeletions or existing pages, I really would feel more comfortable if the page moving was done by a human since a bot cannot tell the difference between a valid page and a speediable page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing a bot from looking at the revision history to determine if it was restored, or to trigger on an administrator restore in AFC space. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Isn't it worse to leave a redirect behind that might eventually be orphaned? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: If that's the case we should never create any redirects for fear of the target of the redirect being deleted (Ending Absurdist extension). The admins that act on G13 nominations are supposed to remember to look for redirects that point at the article that's about to be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: On the contrary. The redirect that is created helps editors who may have been working on the draft when it was located in the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" namespace locate the draft. Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned redirects are not a problem, they get sorted out by AnomieBOT III. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk page notice for criterion A7 asks users to post here

The user warning template for when a page created by the user is nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7 (Template:Db-notability-notice) asks users to post here (on the main page) even though requests for A7 undeletions aren't handled here. The reason for this is that all user warning templates for speedy deletion transclude Template:Db-notice, and that template contains the link, with no option for deactivating the link other than removing the part about contacting the deleting administrator (which users contesting A7 deletions are supposed to do first). As such, we routinely get requests for overturning A7 deletions here, because the user warning asks users to come here, even though they shouldn't.

I've proposed a change to Template:Db-notice to add an optional parameter which, when used, will remove the link to and prompt to use RFUD while still asking the user to contact the deleting administrator. The implementation of this change at that template is uncontroversial, I think, as no current transclusions will be affected if that change is implemented as is done in the template's sandbox. However, I will need consensus to actually use this parameter on Template:Db-notability-notice, as the user who is handling my edit request won't implement it unless and until I establish such consensus.

Doing this would greatly reduce the amount of requests for A7 undeletions put here, reducing the work for admins to come and decline these requests, so it would be great if you could support this change. Also, are there any other user warning templates where this parameter should be used?

See also: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Template talk:Db-notice#Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2015 Gparyani (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've also created a sample editnotice to add to this page to further curb the amount of A7 requests we get, but that can't be implemented until the user warning is fixed, as the two would contradict and potentially confuse a newbie. See: User:Gparyani/sandbox. Also, this would cover cases where an article was initially nominated under a criterion other than A7, but was actually deleted as A7. Gparyani (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: I've also found out that A11 (and possibly A9) are also subject to the same rule. I'll edit my editnotice for that, but once again, are there any other criteria for which this applies? Gparyani (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that two users supports me so far, I'll re-file my edit request and file a creation request for the editnotice if no one else objects within a week or so. Gparyani (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of A7 requests are for undeletion rather than userfication. For an A7, the former is going to be rejected almost all the time, but the latter might be granted fairly often (it's hard to tell because we really do get so few). Indeed, we get almost no request for userfication of any stripe, even though we tell people at the top of the page "This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved..." I don't think there's a lot more we can do to make the distinction clear to people here before making their requests. Most people just don't seem read the page and digest it before making a request. But it may be that we can tackle making the distinction clear in the notification template. So, I do agree that the current scheme in the notification makes little sense – because we know almost every A7 request is in fact for undeletion and not userfication, which will be summarily rejected usually. What I'm suggesting is that instead of removing the link in the template we change it from:

...or if you have already done so, you can place a request [[WP:RFUD|here]].

to something like:

...or if you have already done so, you can ask for the content to be [[Wikipedia:Userfication|userfied]] to a draft at [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]], so you can work on outside of the article mainspace and attempt to make it compliant with [[WP:42|minimal article standards]]. Note that a request for it to simply be undeleted is unlikely to be accepted.

Just throwing out another possibility but now I'm having second thoughts. It occurs to me after writing this that maybe we really don't want a glut of A7 userfication requests. Sometimes we can tell people too much and shoot ourselves in the foot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: So, you're in favor of this request? Gparyani (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, my position is not so simple, per above. Yes, what you're proposing would appear an improvement but only because those who come here through the unexplained link in the notice almost always request the wrong form of relief, and not because such a link does not belong per se. So, if no one supports some form of change that addresses the underlying problem as I suggested, you can chalk me up as a support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support the change either way. However I have to say that I'm usually fairly cautious about userfying A7s in general since I don't know if that really steps on the toes of the declining admin. Most times that doesn't really bother anyone but I've seen one or two occasions where userfication was declined based on one or more factors like extreme doubt about notability or such. I don't know offhand if there's a way to get around that. Maybe a list of admins who have no problem with someone else sending an A7 to the userspace? I'd put my name on it, that's for certain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, I'm for whatever makes it easier for the newbies- and most A7 petitioners are extremely new to editing. We're fairly used to the various ways things are phrased, but this can all seem pretty confusing for newer editors. I'm kind of going through that with my volunteer job since I'm finding myself in the extremely delicate position where I have people who are familiar with the Internet (one routinely does markup and other work for various websites), but they are very confused about the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I remember talking to a professor who was equally confused with how things work on here. It wasn't that he wasn't willing to learn or was completely ignorant of Wikipedia, but it was more difficult for him to maneuver than he had originally thought. I don't want to say that we have to try to keep it in 5 word sentences, but as simple and obvious as possible would be good. If we have to repeat it and bold it or otherwise highlight it, I think that's a good idea. Sometimes people just don't see the link to where they need to go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Do you like my editnotice (my user sandbox, linked above)? Also, note that criterion A7 only applies to articles, which is why it begins with 'A'. Gparyani (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The user warning has been edited and the editnotice have been created. Let's hope that both reduce the amount of A7 undeletion requests... Gparyani (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification on talk pages?

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSociety_of_Quantitative_Analysts there is a user that has made multiple requests for a page to be restored. I was wondering if it might be because some of the users are expecting to be notified if/when the request is fulfilled. This might somewhat explain some of the people who have their restored pages deleted, only for the user to return and ask for another restoration. They might not be aware that the page was restored to begin with. Some of the more experienced users are already aware of this, but it might not be a bad idea to make a template response to let someone know that their request has been answered in one way or another. Ideally it'd be somewhat like the talkback function but it would specifically mention REFUND. It'd add an extra step to the process, which would be a pain, but it would also ensure that everything was done to let the user know that the page was restored since posting on talk pages can result in an email being sent to the address used to open the account. Thoughts? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The late, lamented DangerousPanda created Template:UND-response for this purpose, which I used to use until Notifications became available; now I generally just use a Ping at the beginning of my response. If the request is made by an IP, the history of the requested page shows the account that created it; but if they are not logging in, messages or pings will not help, and it's hard to see what more one can do.

I suspect that sometimes a second request to restore may really be intended as a request to review or accept the draft. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that you might be right about that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This is actually a different question than I was asking the user at that post. I was not referring to a third separate request over time, but that the user made three duplicative requests seconds apart, which we see constantly. And of course confusing matters is that, yeah, this user also posted three requests over time, which my post could have been about – so I think I picked a bad post to make this inquiry and was less than clear. Anyway, as to the issue in the OP, I also see little more to do if pinging is ineffective. Certainly there is some "admin/reviewer shopping" involved for some of these.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

About the duplicate requests seconds apart - the page header down to the "Please enter the page's title to request its undeletion" form is almost a full screen even at 1920x1080, and none of the already-answered requests are visible unless you either scroll down or collapse the TOC. They're not visible no matter what you do if you get here via WP:REFUND/G13. I suspect that many of these repeat requesters think this is an automatic process, much like the edit button; and, confused when their page isn't immediately visible again, they re-request, thinking it a transient error. That "Click this link" on the G13 page is a whole lot more eyecatching than the "An administrator will then review your request" text below it, and the big blue "Request" link on the main page even more so. The edit notice doesn't go out of its way to make the manual nature of this page explicit, either. —Cryptic 04:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Open Contracting

Where the talk page and answer??? Deleting without answer is very aggressive, please put it back and put an answer and please talk. --Krauss (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You have posted this on the wrong page, but I have restored it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We need a "nothing to do" reply template

NOT DONE

Sometimes I use the "Not Done" one but it would be nice if we had one for cases where the request does not apply to WP:REFUND, followed by some text, e.g., "The article has not been deleted" or "PROD contested" or something like that. Not done and that big red X seem a bit harsh. Unfortunately I suck at templates :( §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. (I couldn't resist!)

I thought I'd seen something like this, somewhere. Hmm. RFPP has an "already protected" template with a green checkmark, which makes little sense to me. An icon depicting a shrug might be more appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Like this one: ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of a more neutral and serious one Like maybe which is used in SPI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A serious and neutral one is what we need. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this the right place for the undeletion of an article's history?

Got a bit of a puzzler, not entirely sure where to go, so thought I'd ask here before making an actual request on the project page (or elsewhere as advised).

Following the transfer of two Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy from the Australian to the Philippines Navy, we ended up with a situation where each ship had two articles about it: new articles were created for the Philippines portion of the ship's careers by @Phichanad:. As there was not enough content to justify two separate articles at this time (and I believe that a theoretical article encompassing the eventual entire ship's history would not be excessively long to justify splitting) I went and merged the articles under the Philippine name. @Nick-D: disagreed, with the opinion that the ships should be at the Australian name: he undid one merge, but in the second case, the edit history of HMAS Brunei (L 127) was deleted when BRP Ivatan (AT-298) was moved on top of it.

Is there any way of getting the pre-2015 edit history of HMAS Brunei (L 127) back from the aether, or is it gone-gone because another article has been moved on top of it? If it can be recovered, is this the place to ask for it... if not, any suggestions on where to go? If not, what are the options for attributing the contributions that make up the article.

Note: Opinions of if the articles should be single (and at each name) or split (and at what point) should go to Talk:Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy#Article structure for ships transferred from the RAN. What I'm asking for here is if the deleted article history can be recovered. -- saberwyn 10:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is completely my fault, but I can't see how to fix it! Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes The history can be recovered. Some options are: restore the history, in which case it will become part of the history of HMAS Brunei (L 127); or we can restore the history to another name, by move to temp, restore, move restored history to new name, move temp back to current name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I would say you should have it restored in place as part of that article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)