Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Denying refund requests to avoid gamesmanship

There's a discussion at ANI right now (here) about any interesting problem: is it right to deny a WP:REFUND request that looks like the original creation was gamesmanship? The editor there was accused of creating hundreds of stubs of all types that then got prod's or sent to AFD (mostly minor league hockey players upon their drafting) and then if someone else went and created a proper article once the player made it to the majors, then jumping back here to get a refund and then claim to be the first creator of the article. I don't think there's really much of a reason to refund those pages (since the edit history isn't even relevant) but I'm curious what people think. Also if anyone has any views about the proposal to ban said user from making more refund demands here because of the time wastage, that's fine too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• If that's really the only reason for them requesting the REFUND, then I'd say that this would be a valid reason for declining a request. It's unfortunate, but there are people on here for whom being "first" is their number one priority. Heck, I ran into one author who got upset that I didn't restore the history for a copyvio article, despite his first version (the one without copyvio) having little to no content that would make any difference. His response was to create the article at a new title and then turn the prior article into a redirect. So yes, I'd say that I support the idea of declining REFUNDs for editors that are just trying to game the system - particularly in the case of the editor currently being discussed at ANI. I think that this sort of behavior is extremely detrimental to Wikipedia. While it may seem like nobody is getting hurt, it can lead to people trying to abuse the system because they're obsessed with article creation count numbers and not with actually improving Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is about restoring the history of a deleted article if a new version is created, If the new article is based on the deleted one, but one or more other authors had contributed to the deleted version, then we need to restore the history to give them attribution. But if (a) the new article is not based on the deleted version, or (b) the author was also the only author of the deleted version, then there is no requirement for attribution purposes to restore the history, and I suggest that we should decline to restore unless there is some special reason. That would save work, but more importantly it would remove the incentive to create dozens of premature articles about non-notable persons in the hope of claiming "first-author" credit if at some future time some of them become notable. Pinging Graeme Bartlett, Amatulic, Fuhghettaboutit for their views, who have done a lot of these history-restorations. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The disbenefit of this kind of restoring is wasting other users' time. But declining uses time too. We would need to check whether the current article looked to be a derivative of the earlier one. That is probably more work than just restoring the history. But we also have to make sure that irrelevant pages on other topics are not brought back. Restoring the history can be useful if the article was not just a stub before, but actually may contain references. The original problem is creating articles on non-notable people in the first place, when the users would know that already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess my question, from an outside perspective, is whether this is actually a problem beyond one user. Do you guys see other editors frequently making requests like this? Resolute 03:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say, but my best guess is yes and it just hasnt been noticed because others are not so blatant. The problem isnt just the time spent to restore the history. First there is a waste of time in paroling that could have been spent on another good article. Then the problem is compounded by the amount of time invested in AFDs for articles that should never have been made. The admin closing the AFD (there is almost always a backlog of AFDs to be closed) and all the editors who comment on them are in that total of wasted time. Then the let down of possibly a new editor who creates a good article on the topic and has a sense of accomplishment at doing it and being the first. That is later dashed by gaming the system, so they stop creating good content. Its just wrong on so many levels its hard to find any good in restoring the history of a stub that shouldnt have even been made. There is also an argument to be made on nipping something in the bud. This kind of problem is so wasteful that stopping it now is a better idea than waiting until we have found dozens of editors doing this. All it takes to stop it or slow it down is a slight modifying of how things are done to eliminate the reword. I see no downside to changing it. AlbinoFerret 15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• The real question here is whether there was any encyclopaedic value to the stub. If there was encyclopaedic value, then restore it. If it's in WP:TNT territory, then don't. I'm happy to trust whichever random admin is at the pump at the time to make that call, one way or another. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In the cases where I've done history restoration of these sports-figure stubs, I recall (and I could be wrong) that it was at the request of the editor who re-created the article.... in which case, the requester doesn't care about getting credit as the creator, so there's no reason to deny the request unless the history is about a different subject with the same name. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I expect that someone seeking a restoration at REFUND who wasn't the article creator, and wouldn't get credit for the first edit, could reasonably be considered not to have a selfish motive in mind. Ravenswing 05:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's not a bad idea, although I'll address the elephant in the room: if the original article creator was Dolovis then we should probably do some slight investigating to ensure that they want it just to verify the info and weren't asked by Dolovis to request the page restoration. I hate to assume bad faith, but there wasn't a lot at the ANI that would really make me assume good faith either. That aside, I know that this thread is mostly to address an issue that was brought up via Dolovis, but this is a problem that does happen on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm talking about ones like these: 1 2 3 where the article was re-created by someone else. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• In the case of Dolovis, I'd recommend against restoring any of his histories unless there's something very pertinent in the earlier versions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• On the flip side of this, there were a number of requests earlier this year at WP:RFD for redirects to be deleted so that an editor could create a page in its place. Occasionally the requester was a new editor who didn't realize you can just write over a redirect, but there was at least one where the requester insisted that the redirect must be deleted so that they would get credit for creating the page. I can't find that discussion at the moment, but I don't recall it having been the editor currently being discussed at ANI. So perhaps there is greater evidence of a problem with page-creation-count gaming beyond this one editor. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw your post and it reminded me of one I was involved in where an editor created an article over a redirect and then later requested deletion under WP:G7 and wanted to recreate the article with the same content. They claimed that the creator of the redirect is not a significant contributor. It was important to them because it supposedly makes a difference in new page stats. Here is the discussion User talk:GB fan/Archive 5#Yingguo. -- GB fan 16:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin myself, but I admit that if an editor claimed that his reason for wanting a REFUND was because it made a difference in new page stats, I would give a thumbs-down on that reason alone. If you're here because you think this is some geeky console game and you're thirsting to get Game High Score, you're here for the wrong reason. Ravenswing 17:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• I would consider this a special case of WP:A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Absent either a legal issue that requires restoration for attribution history OR information (including any potential reference) in any deleted edit that might plausibly be added to the current article that isn't already in its edit history or talk page, there is no reason to restore it. Now, in many cases is a burden for admins to plow through the old edits so it will be efficient to userfy the existing version with a request that if information is later merged in verbatim or nearly-verbatim, that the editor request a history merge to preserve attribution. However, in cases of stubs where there it's easy to tell, or in cases where gamesmanship is suspected and an administrator decides that the spirit behind WP:DENY makes it is worth the effort to exhaustively search all edits and he finds nothing that needs un-deleting, I see no problem with saying "sorry, if I restore it I will immediately delete it under WP:A10 as there are no edits that have information that isn't already in the current article or its edit history, so I simply won't restore it." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Refund for TV Fights Box Scores and Movie Fights Box Scores

Is it possible to have the deleted data sent to me for personal use for these recently deleted pages? I wanna make some sandboxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to provide an email address? Andrewjshick (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Andrewjshick: What do you mean by sandboxes? Do you mean on Wikipedia? If so, then that's actually highly discouraged since these articles were deleted at AfD a couple of days ago. The material was considered to be original research and indiscriminate data, so it's unlikely that it could ever be re-added to Wikipedia. That means that at best these sandboxes would be considered you using Wikipedia as a webhost (even if only temporarily), which is not allowed per WP:NOTWEBHOST. You'd only ever be able to put this on a place that's off Wikipedia, as was recommended to you here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm going to ping @The Bushranger: so he can weigh in. Also, it'd be best if you were to enable your e-mail on Wikipedia rather than post an e-mail address. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't have an objection to them being used - with due consideration for attribution - as a basis for off-wiki work, but agree that on-wiki would not be wise considering the very recent deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll stick with the sandboxes (even though I still haven't figured out how to get people to see it, but that's another story, and I might just quit expanding it after I get the data back). I have no clue how to enable wikipedia email, so here it is, my email: (deleted by user, see below) . If this can't be done, please tell me what I'm supposed to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I have linked my email to wikipedia, so an email can be sent. Thank you

Archiving requests

I have a peculiar request. I have an editor who is a paid editor. They made a request here and wanted the request removed since it could reflect badly on them. Upon further questioning they expressed concern that they could be subject to punitive action at work because of the issues surrounding the request, which included content on a conflict of interest. Since they'd tried removing the text themselves, there's also content about this in the section. I don't see where the section (here) is that bad, but I know that this could be an issue with some companies.

Now assuming that this is legit, is there anything wrong with me archiving the request early instead of the bot that usually does this? Amatulić, this involves you since you made the initial remark and I'd like for you to have some input on this as well. This is a pretty valid concern in general since this could potentially happen again and while this shouldn't be a constant thing, it should be OK for some extreme circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I see where there's more to it - the article was about someone who employs them, which is why they're concerned. Other than some concerns, I do think that they are trying. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Restoring pages which never had a db-g13 tag

@Tokyogirl79, Graeme Bartlett, Amatulic, Fuhghettaboutit, and Liz: We are starting to get undeletion requests for G13 pages which have been deleted directly from Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions without ever having a db-g13 tag applied. You can tell them because there is no db tag to remove from the restored page, but there is a problem: the AFC decline template will still show "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13" like this or this, and the article will still be in that category, and therefore liable to be quickly deleted again, as happened here.

Any edit, even a null edit, seems to be enough to reset the clock and remove the page from the category, but one does need to make some edit. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I remembered seeing the BC article and raising an eyebrow that it was deleted without the tags applied to it. I think that this is one area where it'd be better to just tag them and leave them for others, since that would give the article's creator a chance to contest the deletion or at the very least, would prompt the restoring admin to remove the tags. I didn't realize that the restore wouldn't count as activity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up John, especially because this is not obvious.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction: I said above that a null edit (simply clicking "Edit source" and then "Save page") was enough to reset the six-month clock and remove the page from the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Experiment with another case this morning shows that ain't so: a null edit does have that effect, but (mysteriously) if you then purge the page, the warning message comes back and the page is once again in the deletion category. I can't image why that is, but to make the change stick a null edit is not enough, you need to make an actual dummy edit, like adding a space on a blank line. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further correction: change "ain't so" above to "ain't necessarily so". In another case, a null edit did the job, but one evidently can't be sure of that. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We had better do a dummy edit then, actually improve something or add a space character. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't pretend to understand how they interface or work but apparently the old behavior of null edits where you might have to wait for that to reparse the page, causing categorization to change through the job queue, was changed in 2013. Now you can force it using action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1. Anyway, instead of a null edit, it's so easy to fix something on a draft page – they always need work – and you could always do a dummy edit instead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, User talk:JohnCD#G13 cases, it seems that drafts that are restored need to have an edit made or they will go back into the G13 eligible category. This is usually not a problem because the editor who requests the restoration goes to work on the draft and it only takes one edit to reset the clock. But there will be instances when an article is deleted, restored and deleted again if the admin restoring it or the editor requesting the restoration does not make a page edit.
This problem might not have been an issue in the past if the G13 category wasn't cleaned out on a regular basis. Eventually, the editor would return to work on an article. But I know that when I see there are 1000 or 1400 drafts in the G13 category, I try to address the backlog and it could be that the time a draft sits in the category is shorter than in the past, I do not know for sure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It has not been a problem in the past because drafts were not deleted until they has been given a G13 tag, so on restoration the first thing to do was remove the tag, and that made the necessary edit. What is new, in the last few days, is the appearance of undeletion requests for articles which have been deleted from Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, without ever having been tagged. It is a problem if they go back into the G13-eligible category, because they may well be re-deleted within hours, before the requesting user has even read the reply, let alone made any edits.

Now that we know of the problem, it can be contained, though I think myself it would be easier if it were left to HasteurBot to clear the eligible-submissions category by applying db-g13 tags, and actual deletion was done at CAT:CSD. The bot has a throttle so that CAT:CSD is not overwhelmed. JohnCD (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, when I am looking at G13 nominations that I feel will never make it to the Main space, I try to always make sure I nominate no more than 50. I believe this is the same amount the Bot will nominate too. JMHamo (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe you are confused. Consider if you will the following [1]:

1. At the start of a run, the bot counts how many pages are in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions
2. The bot then takes that many away from 50 (i.e. 50 - Count of current G13 nominations)
3. The bot then selects up to that amount of candidates from it's internal list of pages that were eligible for G13 at least 30 days ago
4. The bot then evaluates each draft to see if G13 could be a valid CSD rationalle

1. If the rationalle no longer holds (The page was edited or is a redirect elsewhere) then the bot purges the page from it's "potentialy eligible" rolls
2. If the rationalle is still valid, then the bot applies the db-g13 template (including the last edit prior to the deletion nomination) with the edit summary "HasteurBot: Nominating for CSD:G13"

At the end of the list the bot jumps back up to step 1 up to 10 times. This is done so that each hourly triggering of nominations from the bot pushes as close to 50 nominations into the category as possible (due to the fact that each collection from step 3 may have pages that are already deleted or are ineligible for CSD:G13)

For these reasons your assumption that you can nominate 50 and the bot nominating 50 is incorrect. Hasteur (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the bot for a minute, I am saying that there will never be more than 50 nominations in CSD from G13 when I am evaluating. JMHamo (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How and when G13 tags are applied is not the problem being discussed here: this is about handling restoration of articles which were deleted as G13-eligible without ever being tagged, and so when restored are still in the G13-eligible category and liable to be rapidly re-deleted. The solution, once admins working here are aware of the problem, is to make at least a dummy edit on any article which when restored does not have a db tag on it. I think that discussion is complete. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So this is caused by the template adding the category directly, as opposed to a manual tag being added. Short of editing the page, there is no other real solution here - we could make an override field in the template, but as that has the same effect as an edit, it is fairly pointless. Mdann52 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: The reason why the template adds the category is so that any of the roving "DECAT EVERYTHING" bots doesn't come through and wipe these out and this has been the established pocedure for these templates since G13 was enacted and paralells how we the Category:AfC submissions by date subcategory onto the page without it being a hard category on the page. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ok so the problem is that it is restored and still has the big "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13." and the admin moved on without checking it so it got deleted again? And the solution is for the admin restoring to check on the page and otherwise do a null edit? Is there anything more needed? Should we add this to the attendant instructions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Second requests

What a lot of second-requests we are getting lately, for drafts which have been undeleted before and not touched. I have issued five UND-2nd responses in the last ten days. The interesting thing is that not one of them has replied, which confirms my suspicion that some people are just happy to have something "in Wikipedia" and don't care that it is only a draft, and also think that posting a REFUND request will produce automatic action and does not need any follow-up.

I see a problem, though: it's understandable that an occasional user may not check back immediately, and this page archives pretty rapidly - three of the five I mentioned are already archived. If those users come back, they won't find their request and the response asking for an assurance that they mean business this time; if they do trace it in the archives, they might reply there and no-one will notice. I think I shall have to add a note on their talk pages. Does anyone have a better idea how to handle this? JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea a note on the user's talkpage would be a good idea. Perhaps a template along the lines of;

Your request at WP:REFUND has been placed on hold pending further information. WP:Sandbox 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. We may be willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it and provide a short description of what you intend to do to improve it to meet our policies and guidelines. Please add this to your request or include in your next request at WP:REFUND.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have temporarily made this template at User:Mcmatter/sandbox.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: I have moved this template to TEMPLATE:REFUNDHOLD, let me know if it's what you were looking for. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mcmatter: Thanks! I have tweaked the wording slightly to make it less formal, but it's just the job. JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Undeleting articles currently about different subjects with the same name

Suppose that an article A was created about one subject, then deleted and recreated to be about a different subject with the same name, and you want the article about the 1st subject to be undeleted. Should one move A to some disambiguated title w/o redirect and then undelete A, and if necessary move A to another disambiguated title w/o redirect and then either turn A into a disambiguation page or move the 1st disambiguated title back to A? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we have to do something like that. Similar things happen sometimes. Or when restoring, when two topics are deleted, only restore the content on the one topic, if that is what the requester wants. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Userspace drafts deleted for staleness should be eligible

For the past few months, several editors have been clearing out Category:Stale userspace drafts, nominating for deletion with WP:STALEDRAFT as a rationale drafts that are not currently suitable for mainspace that have not been edited for >1 year, nor has their creator made any edits for >1 year. While this is certainly not uncontroversial, as myself and several other editors frequently oppose such deletions, the deletions sometimes happen anyways. Since the deletions are purely on grounds of staleness, and the pages (while they usually have problems with WP:V and WP:N) are acceptable for userspace, I propose that userspace drafts deleted for staleness alone should be REFUNDable to userspace. Thoughts? Pinging MfD regulars Ricky81682, Legacypac, and SmokeyJoe. A2soup (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't think it's a necessary policy as I suspect that most admins would restore it on sight (I would at least). Otherwise, I'm not sure under how much are you expanding this to. WP:SOFTDELETE is a policy that is regarding discussions with no consensus (versus the rejected version) and if you think we expand that as an option at MFD, I'm good with that. Else, I think it's kind of hard to figure out which MFD discussions would qualify under WP:REFUND (which didn't exist until AFC and G13 came along. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Why do you think it would be a given that an admin would restore a page deleted after a possibly-contentious deletion discussion on sight? I appreciate that you would do that, but it's not in line with usual deletion practice. To clarify, I am not talking about WP:SOFTDELETE cases - I am talking about userspace drafts deleted because they are stale and unsuitable for mainspace, but which are not problematic in userspace. As to figuring out which would qualify, I am imagining the closing admin determining that and leaving a link to WP:REFUND in the deletion summary if appropriate. Of course, I would prefer that such deletions not happen, and I don't want this option to make them more okay. But they have happened recently despite opposition, and I unfortunately expect them to continue to happen in the future (especially if SmokeyJoe or I take a Wikibreak at some point), so this seems worthwhile. A2soup (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: Because contrary to many people's beliefs, most people here aren't in a while and crazy mood to get rid of good content. If someone is going to work on something, why should I make it more difficult for them to do so? If someone starts a draft and includes (doesn't have) a single reference and I object and they start anew, I'm more likely to end up restoring it anyways to merge the content. - Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Recovering material deleted under G11

I've received a request for recovery of a deleted article for archival/offwiki uses from someone whose articles I tagged for speedy deletion (G11). The template placed on the talk page says the deleted material can be recovered and instructs the editor to contact the deleting administrator. I don't know who deleted the article. See User talk:JNoworyta. Roches (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

FireIce · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions], Soil2O · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] and GT-W14 · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions], for the record. The first doesn't exist at all. The second was deleted by NawlinWiki under G11 and G12 and the third by Tokyogirl79 also under G11.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• I left a long message, but what's concerning is that it looks like there was another account editing the main article for the company a few months prior to the current editor's account creation. It's likely that they're the same editor and if this is the case then it looks like they either didn't read the COI guidelines or they did and just didn't care. Either one is concerning, the latter of which is even more so. The article for GelTech Solutions has some issues with PR speak and sourcing, as it's almost entirely sourced via primary or trivial sources. The only two that are usable as independent, notability giving RS are the CNN and HuffPo articles. A quick look at sources shows that their coverage is almost entirely press releases. I'm honestly extremely tempted to just nominate this for AfD given the way the article is written and the sparse coverage, but I also told them that I wouldn't. However I'm extremely concerned that this is just another PR/marketing attempt by the company. Hmm... I'm going to go ahead and just nominate it. The more I look, the worse the sourcing seems to be out on the Internet. The general lack of non-PR coverage paired with the slightly spammy tone of the article and the potential that we have an editor here that did potentially receive notice about the COI guidelines (or at least their employer did and didn't say anything) just makes this a bit much to ignore. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

G5 not restorable here?

Hey, I've seen a couple of G5 restoration requests pop up here. This seems to be the type of thing that should really only be restored by the deleting admin. I've restored a G5 in the past that I didn't delete and was told that this is the type of thing where the deleting admin should really be asked before it gets restored.

What are you guys' thoughts? I figure at the very least that sort of thing could be seen as relatively controversial, especially when you get into some of the more prolific and problematic sockpuppets, as restoring the content would bring back the sockpuppet's username. I know that in some cases the sockmaster wants their username (or at least one of them) to get creation credit, so some wouldn't be happy having this restored because it seems like it'd be rewarding the sockmaster. In any case, it seems like G5 wouldn't be a great fit for restoration here unless the admin is no longer active on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

G5 deletion is already controversial. Restoring is a bit less controversial. My opinion is that if someone wants it restored (that is not connected to the socker) and they are prepared to keep ownership and fix any issues present, then we can restore it. To convince us there should be a reason given for restoring. After all the same person could have remove the G5 tag themselves and improved the article before it was deleted. Alternatively someone could grab the article from a Wikipedia mirror, modify it and repost it, and then it would not be a G5 candidate. Some admins do object to G5 reversal, but the reason seems to be due to ideology and punishment of sockpuppeteers, rather than potential for problem articles. The deleting admin should be consulted first, but should that be the only way? A deletion review is more work for every one. The higher purpose of Wikipedia should be considered. Is it more helpful to have an article on the topic or is it more helpful to stamp out the work of the sockpuppeteer? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It matters a lot why the person was blocked (or banned). If it was for behavioral issues unrelated to actual article content - socking at afd or personal attacks or legal threats or whatever - restoration's probably harmless, though any G5 is still the very definition of the "likely to be controversial" article that the form at the top of the page warns you not to request. At the other end of the spectrum is someone who's been banned for serial copyright or BLP violations, where material really shouldn't be restored even to draftspace without multiple eyes on it - at least, not unless you're willing to take responsibility for the content yourself. DRV is low-volume and has a lot of very experienced admin watchers; I'd say send them all there to be safe. —Cryptic 08:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The safest course is probably never never to restore anything that was deleted by another admin without discussing it with him/her fist - at least if that admin is still around. It's what I do anyway, but I've only ever restored a handful of the thousands of pages I've deleted. I suppose I believe in G5; summary deletion of articles by socks and banned users are not always of the best quality (unless they were cleverly created by the Orangemoody and their ilk, and let's face it, we have to be prepared to lose a few articles sometimes in order to preserve and maintain our policies and keep the encyclopedia free of junk and/or undesirable users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Attribution for content undeleted for use elsewhere

Infogalactic is a new Wikipedia fork set up by Breitbart as "an alternative to biased Wikipedia". Since its standards for notability and for COI are intended to be more relaxed than ours, we are likely to be asked for copies of deleted articles - I have already had one request. I am concerned about CC-BY-SA attribution, and have asked advice at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Attribution for deleted content. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the article is speedy deleted, people can always look for it on http://speedydeletion.wikia.com -- but my position on such requests is, if they didn't bother to catch the article before it was deleted via AFD, that's just tough luck. Nothing prevents Breitbart from generating their own content. They just prefer to be lazy if possible.

I'm curious why they're bothering. The world has already had Conservapedia for years, with similar standards. Is another variant really necessary? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We can also use special:export to offload the whole article and its history. Though it would have to be restored first. Then wiki recipients would have to import. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest mentioning speedydeletion wikia and also deletionpedia (and other similar sites) at the top of the page Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, because there might be many people interested to restore deleted pages in order to develop them or to use them on other encyclopedias. —  Ark25  (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do these people come from?

Ever since I started participating here a few years ago, I have observed a disproportionate number of requests to restore articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 and WP:AFD.

There must be a page somewhere advising people, "go to WP:REFUND if you want this article restored." I mean, heck, I never even heard of this page until after I became an admin. Clearly newbies are finding it awfully fast. Anyone have any idea where that erroneous advice might be? In a templated welcome message perhaps? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I'm not sure that this advice would be "erroneous." Is there another page that we should recommend for the restoration of pages that were deleted in error? Jarble (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's explicitly noted at the top of the page that AfDs need to be contested at DRV, and it's generally advised that all CSD deletions should be contested with the actioning admin if they cannot be done here. 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs)

Roller Hockey International

One user went on a campaign to delete all the content involved in this subject. Now more editors are involved and the trend is WP:SNOW to keep, however a bunch of content has already been deleted before this damage was noticed. I believe all the links involved with Template:RHI topics were once blue. Since it is deleted, as a non-admin, I have no way to trace who deleted it. I am requesting all of these be restored at least to my sandbox so I can sort this out, add sources and properly restore this content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: any user can check the deletion log of a deleted article to see who deleted it. If you go to one of the red links, you'll see a message box. At the bottom of the box you should see "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?" Click on "deletion log" in that sentence to see who deleted it. I checked a few, and found different admin names, as well as some redlinks that have no deletion history. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Once I request for my page to be undeleted what do I do when the next page pops up with all the different characters? It won't let me save anything until I type something. Is that where I reinsert my revised bio? Edwardss734 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC currently in progress regarding tagging "unencyclopedic" files for deletion with a 7-day wait

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#RFC on routine file deletion. The discussion is a proposal to have certain files deemed "unencyclopedic" tagged and deleted with a new process similar to WP:PROD or existing file-related WP:CSD criteria with a 7-day delay after tagging for the file to be deleted. (This page is being notified since the proposal also includes making such deletions of files allowed to be uncontroversially restored upon request, undeletions being the purpose of this page.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

New File namespace RFC

The above-referenced discussion was closed a few days ago. However, a new RFC/proposal directly related to the aforementioned proposal is currently in progress at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#File PROD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

dedicated G11 Added to UND template

Pinging regulars: @UnitedStatesian, SwisterTwister, SoWhy, Jimfbleak, Anachronist, Juliancolton, Tokyogirl79: We get a lot of G11 undeletion requests and had no dedicated decline for it in the template so I've added one ({{subst:UND|g11}} or ({{subst:UND|notdoneg11}} will result in:

Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for the work and the ping! Regards SoWhy 13:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not needed. The existing template for A7 was designed to handle other CSD codes, and works just fine for G11. For example {{subst:UND|c|G11|Anachronist}} results in:

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion G11. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Anachronist (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.

Although I have no objection to creating an alternative like Fuhghettaboutit's, particularly since the part about "signficant new information" doesn't make much sense in the context of G11.

I do object to omitting mention of deletion review and contacting the administrator. I run across many G11 deleted articles that weren't unambiguously promotional, and could have been fixed by removing a word or sentence. In such cases the wording of the alternative G11 template doesn't work for me. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy! Hey Anachronist. I'm not sure what you mean by referring to this one as an "alternative". If you mean the ndc/ndp/ndb ones, they don't seem suitable for g11s at all – not just because of the "significant new information" language, but because they are tailored to address notability concerns, with only a throwaway line about promotion at the end, and many G11s that were blatant commercials, are on notable or potentially notable topics – so they're really off target for deletions that occurred specifically under g11.

Anyway, I agree with you that some percentage of G11s (and A7s, and others) are questionable, and so having that language available would be good, but it already is. You can append that language to any request through the UND template. See the very last entry in its documentation.

The vast majority of CSD deletions got it right (though what we hear a lot about are the squeaky wheel discussions for the ones that got it wrong; as with most things, the headlines are rarely about the unbroken). Correspondingly, many requests for undeletion are about articles that patently met the criterion under which the deletion occurred. Under those circumstances, which is more often than not, a DRV request would be a waste of everyone's time, including the nominator's, and for those majority, we're sticking beans up our noses by hardcoding that language.

So, I think we should be very leery of pointing everyone at the deleting admin and at deletion review as the base template language (which is currently only hardcoded into the A7 and AfD template responses btw – which I think should be removed from the former). Templates should address the prevalent, and can always be tailored after substitution to address the exception, or a personal message left. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My point was, a requester should always be asking the deleting administrator about it, and not the WP:REFUND page. We'd reject such requests anyway, so why not include language to point the requester in the right direction? In many G11 cases I've handled here, not just an insignificant fraction, it seems appropriate to restore the article to draft space for improvement, and that's a reasonable thing to ask the deleting admin. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Unclear: where to ask a copy of G11/A7/etc deleted material?

I came here while trying to answer a help desk question.

On the one hand, This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you

On the other hand, Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G5 or G11 be undeleted here.

I cannot fathom why a WP:G11 couldn't be at least emailed, or why a WP:A7 couldn't be userfied in general (even if I can imagine very reasonable situations of no-refund). Also, I am not aware of any other place to make such requests except asking the deleting admin, so newbies are unlikely to find the correct place if it exists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just ignore the instructions and ask any way. The idea is to stop people asking for things that will be immediately rejected. Other ways to do this is to ask one of category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Making it clear which speedy-delete criteria will and will not be undeleted.

It's quite unclear which criteria can be undeleted and which do not. So far, I can tell:
Will be done:

• WP:G6
• WP:G7
• WP:G8
• WP:G13 (if it has not previously been undeleted)
• WP:U1
• WP:U2 (if that is the only reason for deletion)

Will not be done:

• WP:G1
• WP:G2
• WP:G3 (don't even think about asking for these)
• WP:G4
• WP:G5
• WP:G9
• WP:G10 (don't even think about asking for these)
• WP:G11 (contents might be emailed)
• WP:G12 (contents might be emailed)
• WP:A1
• WP:A2
• WP:A3
• WP:A5
• WP:A7/WP:A9 (might be restored to draft space)
• WP:A10
• WP:A11 (contents might be emailed)
• WP:U3
• WP:U5 (contents might be emailed)

Am I correct in my assignments, and could someone make a table to tell me and others which pages can and cannot be deleted? Thanks, RedPanda25 20:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

For the most part, but:

• G13 has a caveat: If there's no evidence that a draft has been worked on since the last time it was undeleted, then a G13 very likely will not be undeleted. The first G13 is almost always guaranteed to be undeleted if it's a serious attempt; anything beyond that is dependent on how much work was done since the prior undeletion, and it is exceedingly rare (bordering on "never) for a G13 deletion to be overturned a third time.
• G4s are never restored, as they're extensions of XfD debates (which are not restored here).
• G3s are straight-up never restored. Asking for it is a good way to attract scrutiny of your edits, as well.
• G5s are never restored, as they're banned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.251.165.59 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think we've ever had a G1 or G2 come here, but I believe G1s are in the "never restore" camp.
• Most of the G13 deletions that don't get undeleted generally would fall under A1 or A10 if they weren't drafts.
• Redirects and templates generally do not come here for undeletion, and most of the files that get undeleted here are requested to be undeleted by an OTRS member citing a ticket.

Hope this helps—Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Thanks for telling me this, it certainly helps. From what you have said, no WP:ACSD will be restored, is this correct? I have updated and ordered the table, but it's still not complete. Could you assign the remaining unknown ones, so I can create this as a linked article? Thanks, RedPanda25 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why we'd restore something deleted per A1 - A11 unless the deleting admin clearly made an obvious error. The exception might be A2. A2 doesn't belong in main space although it might be restorable to draft space.

Another reason we have declined restoring from G13 is if the requesting user has a username violating Wikipedia:Username policy. I won't restore such an article until the username is fixed, although I don't object if someone else does. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't restore foreign-language (articles into) drafts, either, because we would never accept them. RedPanda's assessment is correct - no A# criteria are restorable by request here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We can restore foreign language articles into drafts, if the purpose of doing so is to have a space to work on a translation. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

For many of these the deleting admin should be first consulted, as they could have extra information, that would need to be known before restoring, for example for G5. However if the deleting admin does not respond in anyway, or directs the requestor to the REFUND page, then we should consider any request on its merits. Sometimes things are deleted with the wrong code, or apparently totally in error. These sorts of things can be restored if there is no other reason to delete. Sometimes something is deleted as a copyright infringement, when it is not actually, but the purported original is in fact a copy of Wikipedia. Other actions can be for A7 or A9 pages to be userfied or draftified. The deleting admin should get the first right of acceptance or refusal though. Pages with A1, or A3 could have their entire content quoted if it is not harmful. Often people will ask for an earlier version, not realising it is about a different person/topic, or is a piece of junk. My other comment will be that G4's are not always checked to see if they are similar to the earlier deletion, but again the deleting admin should be appealed first if the requestor thinks they have addressed the issued in the xFD. Lastly I will count a G7 as reversible here, if there are no other obvious problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

G7 is usually restorable unless the deleted page is a mis-use of Wikipedia as a web host. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just one left: will WP:U3 be undeleted? PikachuRP25 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Anyone who wants to link to a non-free image on their user page should do it like I did on mine, using a colon link as in [[:File:image_name.jpg]]. "Fair use" on Wikipedia means that the image is being used to illustrate a topic, it doesn't mean it's allowed in anyone's personal collection that is visible to the world. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. The table is complete! Thanks, to everyone who helped. RedPanda25 01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Question from a clueless novice: Regarding G10 - Obviously, restoring the page (even on draftspace or userspace) is out of the question. But if the subject of a G10 attack article hears about it and asks for a copy (e.g. out of concern for their own safety, they want to know about threats against themselves - G10 victims are often celebrities who get stalked, occasionally by seriously disturbed, potentially dangerous individuals), could the contents be emailed to them? I'm not in this situation, and don't know anyone who is. I just wanted to know if there's any wiggle room in the "don't even think of asking".

Also, for those who work in WP:LTA, could they ask for a copy of a G3 to be emailed to them, if it was relevant in tracking a LTA? Eliyohub (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

UP/RFC2016 - B4

The consensus at WP:UP/RFC2016 regarding section B4 was:

B4. When a userspace draft is moved to mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for mainspace for reasons which would not apply in userspace, should it be returned to userspace rather than deleted?
Clear consensus in favor of this proposal. The details (who moves what back where and when) should be discussed by the community.

If a page where such a move occurred has already been deleted, I believe requests for undeletion is the appropriate place to request restoration, which should be uncontroversial due to the consensus quoted above. See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 229#Unicity Productions, Play It Strange Trust, and Hack n' Smack Celebrity... for an example. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this undelete and move should be allowed. However if the AFD was aware of the move and stated it must not be a draft or userspace draft then keep it deleted. There is no need to criticize the mover, but perhaps they could be informed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. As the discussion concerns requests for undeletion, interested editors are welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed as "opposed". See more details there. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I still undelete my old user page?

My name is Donald Trung, it’s a Hoa (Han-Chinese) name and it’s on my Australian passport as the name (Donald) I chose upon naturalisation. Well when I created my “first” user page it was speedy deleted by Champion who left a message on my talk page claiming that it was deleted for threatening a living person, however no such threats were made towards anyone. Now I may count myself lucky that I was first “discovered” by the likes of Champion and not Widr who might have permanently blocked me without appeal and blocked my IP while deleting any pages I’ve created, and if you think that Ryukyuan mon is solely worth deleting because my name sounds like a certain American politician (without it ever being given a second look) you would probably be backed up by the Wikipedia community. And though I’m happy that I got to make these contributions I am still afraid that one day if that American will get in a scandal that some trigger happy admin will just “nuke” me and delete my account, and articles like Qing dynasty coinage simply for this false association. I’m honestly quite happy that most readers will never see the ugly underbelly of what happens behind the scenes on Wikipedia, and we may never know how many good pages are lost every day. As I have no insight into my “original” user page deleted by Champion and others could still see that I had supposedly “threatened” Donald Trump, how can I request for my original user page to be undeleted or at least visible for future reference so people can see that it wasn’t threatening at all. The user also reported by user name for admin attention and it was (thankfully) turned down, but other than that I have no future evidence of the fact that my original page wasn't threatening, is there a place where it is stored? Or did my old user page automatically get permanently deleted when I made my new one? Is there still a way to restore it? I really don’t want it to replace my current user page which serves as a nice gallery for my work, but are there any logs left of it prior to its speedy deletion?

Yeah, I'm already aware that most wikipedians never apologise, so I need to be able to verify that it was not an attack account.

--Donald Trung (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just for an FYI, there is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#User_false_accused_me_of_threatening_a_real_person., pinging @Sjb72: (the deleting admin). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• The page was only one line, and more of a hoax/joke. It should be restorable into the future, but probably not much of a point, as it will only get you into more strife. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Sorry I've not been around to respond, but I've been off work for the past few weeks. If you want to restore it, then I've no objection to having it done so, but I will point out that everyone will be able to see it. I can't find your post where you made it, but in one of your posts you said that it was purely an inside joke. Bearing in mind that the entire world and their dog would be able to see it, how many of them would immediately realise that you were making a joke? Considering that Donald Trump has such a polarising effect on the public, it is safe to assume that about half the people who read it in future would take it as an attack. The page is still visible to those with admin or bureaucrat rights (and will remain so), so it can still be referred to if needs be. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Better undelete search for undeleters

I will note here this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1 which can find deleted titles, not just by prefix. This has recently become available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope to see a checkbox option appear Special:Undelete someday, instead of having to remember to put the parameter in the URL. But good to know it's available. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

G13 update

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

---

The standard text for G13 REFUND now says: I, username, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.

It should now read: I, Username, request the undeletion of this Draft or Articles for creation page deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.

This is due to expansion of G13 to include all Drafts. I'm not sure where to fix the template. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: This edit is the most recent one using the G13 preload (with a page specified), which includes 'draft'. {{Refund/G13}} is the source of the text. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Bug in the instructions?

The instructions specify the {{Requests for undeletion}} template, which doesn't exist, instead of {{UND}}. How can that be corrected? —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• It was a recent edit to Template:UND/Short Doc [2], I've reverted it. Hut 8.5 19:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hut 8.5: Thank you. I didn't want to wade that deep into nested templates and risk making a bigger mess; that's why I pointed it out and sought expert help. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When not to restore a PROD-deleted article

Regarding my reply to an undisclosed paid editor here, in which I didn't exactly decline the request to restore a prod-deleted article:

Over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist there's a standard practice of declining requests to de-list a blacklisted website unless the request comes from a trusted high-volume editor. For consistency, I recommend we decline requests to restore PROD-deleted articles to main space unless the request comes from a trusted editor without a COI.

If an editor with a COI requests restoring a prodded article, we can leave it deleted if the COI editor hasn't complied with WP:PAID, or we can offer to restore to draft space with a requirement to re-submit via WP:AFC.

Any thoughts? The practice on the spam blacklist to consider requests seriously only for trusted high-volume editors has been in place for years. In my view, restoring prodded articles should also be by requests from trusted editors (say, with extended-confirmed rights).

Naturally, if the responding admin agrees with the undeletion, well, the admin is a trusted editor, so it's no problem.

Thoughts? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well the policy says that any articles deleted under PROD will be undeleted if a request is made on this page to restore them, unless there is some reason for deletion other than PROD (e.g. the page is a copyright violation). Any individual administrator doesn't have to respond to any particular request on this page, of course, and I am personally wary about restoring these when the requesting editor has an obvious COI. But I think that if you want to establish this as a general practice then you'll have to get the policy changed. Hut 8.5 23:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• There is no policy based reason to decline the restoration of the article. The proper course of action would be to restore the article and send it to AFD and let the community decide if it belongs. ~ GB fan 23:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are quite right, thanks for replying. I have created a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion instead. AFD isn't always a viable option; In some cases I've found the article is neither ready for main space nor appropriate for AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If an article has been deleted via PROD but it isn't appropriate to send to AFD after restoration then it shouldn't have been deleted via PROD in the first place. If the article is about a notable subject but isn't ready for the mainspace it can always be put in the draft space so it can be worked on to clean it up. ~ GB fan 02:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Page content refund

I would like to get my page "Bishwo Gautam"'s content mailed to me as the page is no longer to be undeleted. I worked hard onto the content. Please mail it to me Ktmstreetrider (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple articles

How do I add pages to a request for deletion en masse? The pages I would list, for the record, are:

• Draft:2017 PSMS Medan season

• Draft:DeeWunn
• Draft:Foresight Ultrasonic Inspection
• Draft:Hawk HF3000
• Draft:Mario Nesich
• Draft:Rainier Avenue
• Draft:Write! App
• Draft:Vanja Mijatović

How would I put these into one request on the main page? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jjjjjjdddddd: Basically, you'd do it exactly like you just did here on this talk page, except it would be better if each bullet item used the {{revisions}} template like this:

* {{revisions|article name}}

Then below your list, make your request. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2018

hist) . . (-48)‎ . . m OpenNIC ‎ (Removing link(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emercoin closed as delete (XFDcloser)) (current) 14:45, 24 June 2018 (diff 95.68.51.214 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from the requests which have already been made, Emercoin does not qualify for restoration through this process. Hut 8.5 19:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Tanya Granic Allen

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tanya Granic Allen came to public notice during the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018, in which she was a candidate. Her article was redirected to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018#Tanya Granic Allen after a 11 to 9 vote (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Granic Allen.) Since then she has predictably continued to attract news coverage, in particular for the new leader removing her from the list of candidates and for getting a later convention to approve her proposal to stop the teaching of gender identity. She shows over 6,000 hits on Google news. Whether or not she was notable 6 months ago, she is notable now. Is there a procedure to restore the article? TFD (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes. There are two paths to take:

1. Start a new article from scratch based on current sources at Draft:Tanya Granic Allen and submit it for review.
2. Ask Spartaz, the admin who closed the deletion discussion, to restore the article to Draft:Tanya Granic Allen. Then you can use the prior article as a starting point to expand the article and submit it for review. (Of course, the admin may decide that circumstances warrant recreation outright because of changes in circumstances.)

Spartaz gets first shot at the matter since they closed the deletion discussion. If a few days go by with no response, leave me a message, and I'll be willing to restore the text to draft. —C.Fred (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm no longer an admin. Use DRV please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm restoring to draft. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

CSD C1

Can categories deleted under CSD C1 be undeleted via WP:REFUND? The only reason why they're deleted is because they have no pages in them. Anyone who can think of pages to populate them can request they be undeleted and add the pages. funplussmart (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It is probably easier to just recreate the category though. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I decided to add C1 to the list on WP:CSDRFU per WP:BOLD. funplussmart (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Alan Laney

discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Alan Laney

Saranga Disasekara’s image doesn’t have a copyright issue. Therefore I kindly request you to undelete it Jackbarbera (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote

Re [3]: what is the reason for the hatnote not being at the top? Pinging Cryptic. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In essence, that {{noticeboard links}} and the triply-redundant anti-AFD'd/not-yet-deleted box must be the very first things seen by the typically upset and confused new users who this page is aimed at. I'd just as soon not have either of them there at all, let alone first, particularly the immense and (to our target audience) useless outher-noticeboards template. But not enough to argue about them. —Cryptic 20:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and move it, per WP:BRD. I don't think a small hat-note will confuse newbies, but a hat-note in the wrong position is easy to miss, as I found out. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:32, 24 April 2019‎

As this page is clogging up my watchlist, {{ping}} me if anyone replies. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Natalie Duddington

I asked for the undeletion of this draft article, just so that I can make a copy of it for myself. (I'm writing a book in which she appears and it would save me a lot of time and re-reading to have a copy of what I wrote a couple of years ago.) But now my request has gone? What am I to do? Many thanks, Peter gpeterw (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi gpeterw your request is still open and waiting, another user had reverted to an old version and removed the new requests - it's been fixed now. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank you, KylieTastic, for this clarification. gpeterw (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC) You can re-delete this page, with many thanks. I've taken the copy I needed. gpeterw (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Mystery of the vanishing histories

I don't understand this situation, so if this is the wrong place to post, my apologies. Some page histories are missing. I can't find any record of what happened, and there is no obvious reason for deletion except in one case. The history seems to just be gone, and I'm puzzled. Could someone explain this to me, please? Details are at User talk:HLHJ#Loss of history. Thank you! HLHJ (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've commented there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining and splicing the new article's history, JJMC89. I'm afraid I have a related issue.

The new article replaces a very similarly-titled article (which was recently deleted by consensus). All the redirects to the old article now point to the new one (rather than the third article to which the delete discussion redirected them). The new article seems to me to have similarities to my memories of some of the older versions of the old article. Derivation is disputed at Talk:Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing.

Can you tell me if it is possible to splice the edit histories and talk page histories of the two similarly-named pages? Their histories do not overlap in time. Should I trawl through the article history for evidence that some versions of the new article constitute copyvio of some versions of the old one? Can a splice be done on a precautionary basis and as a convenience for editors? The desirability of splicing is also disputed on the new article talk page and on my user page at User talk:HLHJ#Loss of history.

This is a new form of dispute to me and I am not sure how to go about resolving it, discussion having failed. I previously requested comments on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Resurrected redirect history, but got no response, so I am asking here; please let me know if I should be asking elsewhere. HLHJ (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion

After making some edits, I got busy with life and I could not make time to fix the errors. I wish to continue my progress and finish the work. Rajesh.Rajan 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crajeshrajan (talk • contribs)

I would like to edit it this time as I was searching for additional details Kalingahistory (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry if have broken any policies. But I really want that page back because that was created with permission of the person for whom it was made and I don't have the copies of those information at this moment. So I beg the Wikipedia administrators to fix it as soon as possible otherwise I might get fired from my job. OoooooYeaeah (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

New script for easily processing requests

I have developed a user script for easily processing refund requests, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper that automates most of the work associated with undeleting pages, including userfications. Any feedback or new feature requests are welcome. SD0001 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy and Kingboyk: The script is now fully tested and ready to use. SD0001 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett and C.Fred: I see that you two are most active on this page. Just wanted to let you know of the above. The main highlight basically is the automated removal of prod/csd/xfd tags after undeletion, which I'd imagine is tedious! See the doc page for other features. On the other hand, if you love the charm of handling things manually, that's entirely ok! SD0001 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The main editing difficulty for me is soft delete reversal with adding an old afd notice on the talk page. The second main problem is g13 reversals without a speedy delete tag, when I have to edit the page meaningfully to prevent someone else g13 deleting the page again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: The first point (of adding the old afd notice for afd deletion reversals) was brought up by kingboyk as well elsewhere. I am working on adding that feature (though it may take some time).

Regarding the issue with g13 reversals, I think this is best left to be done manually? The ideal solution would be for admins to not delete g13 drafts unilaterally (much less do it en masse with scripts as a few have been doing), which I would guess can be facilitated by reviving HasteurBot that automatically adds G13 tags. In this case, the removal of the tag, of course, resets the g13 timer. SD0001 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I definitely prefer to remove a speedy delete tag to reset the timer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett and Kingboyk:  Done {{Old AfD}} will now be automatically added if any deletion log summary of the page includes an AfD page link. All 3 parameters (page, date, result) will be filled in. SD0001 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And there is good news on th g13 front, too. See Wp:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14. SD0001 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have been adding {{AfC postpone G13}} when restoring drafts deleted with G13, either in place of a CSD tag, or just at the top of the draft, to provide a clock-resetting edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

REFUND script

Hi, i would like to inform you about DannyS712’s new script that makes it easier to request undeletion of a page. It’s at User:DannyS712/Refund requester, have a good day! PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 03:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@PorkchopGMX: Thanks for the note. Also, the current script produces this edit --DannyS712 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

PorkchopGMX, cool. I don't usually have need to request undeletion, but will have to try this out when I do. I've installed it nonetheless. I've been impressed with DannyS712's DiscussionCloser script and have turned a few people onto it, including MikkelJSmith2 who really likes it. His Source Assess table script looks like it's really useful for AfDs, so I have that as well. Anyway, I've made a shortcut, WP:REFUNDREQ to Danny's script. I thought about WP:REFREQ, but ultimately thought the latter would be too ambiguous. Doug Mehus T·C 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh my gosh... Facepalm , I just realized I replied to a year old thread. Oops. Doug Mehus T·C 02:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Archives now done after 6 days instead of 7 (update: back to 7)

The project page was exceeding Wikipedia's limits of "expensive parser functions." I figured the best way to fix it was to let the bot archive after 6 days instead of 7. See this diff and its edit summary for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: We meet again, in similar circumstances! Thank you. Your solution seems reasonable, assuming that there's no other easy way to resolve it (I take it there isn't?). --kingboyk (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of any easier way to solve it, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm not all knowledgable about all things Wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That's tonight's playlist sorted, thank you! --kingboyk (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated to 5 days while the most recent bot-run brought the page under the limit, it crossed it again less than a day later. Here's hoping a 5-day retention will be good enough. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

I changed the underlying template {{revisions}} so that on average it uses just over half of the expensive parser functions that it used to use. I'm changing the archive settings back to 7 days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DRV instructions referring to WP:REFUND

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Reason 3, where there is a proposal to alter the wording of WP:DRVPURPOSE with regards to whether certain requests should go to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Can de-prodding and G13-restores be automated under narrow circumstances?

I'm wondering if any human judgement is required for these cases:

PROD and G13:

• Deletion log clearly indicates expired PROD or G13
• Requesting editor is an established editor (I would suggest something like extended autoconfirmed, but at least confirmed)
• Requesting editor has at least some reasonable number of non-deleted edits in the main article space (suggest same number as required for extended autoconfirmed)
• Requesting editor's non-deleted-edits to total-edits ratio is high
• Requesting editor has no blocks since page was created
• No pages related to XfD discussions link to this page (see AFD pages, similar for other XfD)
• No pages related to sockpuppet investigations link to the page, it's creator, or its requesting editor (see here)
• Page title has only 2 entries in the log: Creation and deletion. No page moves to track down and follow.
• The words delete, deletion, CSD, AFD, MFD, CFD, RFD, etc. do not appear in the page history or page logs of the page or its talk page.

These are all things that can be checked by a bot or script.

Now for the important questions:

• Are there conditions where a bot would say "all conditions green" with the above checklist where the page would NOT meet the G13 or PROD restoration criteria?
  • If not, are there conditions where an administrator would say "um, yeah, it qualifies for restoration but it should not be restored because..."?
  • Is the combined percentage of the above enough to say "no way" to allowing a bot to do G13 and PROD restorations under these limited circumstances?
• Is the workload-reduction gain by having a bot do these restorations too low to warrant writing and maintaining a bot to do these restorations?

Even if a restoration bot is not a good idea, would it be a good idea to write a bot that would run the scan and log the results, so administrators would have less work to do when reviewing restoration requests? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to check the request, whether requestor=writer. Sometimes a non-writer requestor asks if the deleted page was about a particular subject (eg basketballer) and only wants it back if it matches. Sometimes a page is proded more than once, but I think you can still restore it. I would restore a G13 a second time without more justification if a different person asked for it than the first undelete req..

If there is a very large number of revisions you may have to restore several hundred at a time in several undeletes to avoid time-outs.

There are not that many prod reversals, but there are plenty of g13 requests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Aren't there also things a bot can't easily check? For example, prior to undeletion, an undeleting admin should always check for BLP or copyright violations. If those went undetected and the article were instead deleted under G13/PROD, it still should not be restored. I don't think a bot could readily check for those. I would not see any problem with a bot just logging "These issues were not found", but I'd be uncomfortable with completely automated undeletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The copyvio and blp issues are exactly the types of things I was hoping to call out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A substantial fraction of REFUND requests for G13 deletions are for drafts which qualified for deletion for some reason other than G13. Most of these meet G11 (advertising), but a few are copyright violations. BLP violations are rare, in my experience. Hut 8.5 10:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

RFUD-helper: updates

• Now, RFUD-helper will show you the last deleted revision (parsed content, not the wikitext) at the bottom of the page when you navigate to any deleted page, and on Special:Undelete. You'll also find a "[Jump to preview of last revision]" link near the top to easily navigate to it.
• While restoring files, RFUD-helper will now give you the option to add a new {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag to the page. This is for use while undoing F5 deletions, where the file isn't presently red-linked from an article and you don't know how to de-orphan the file yourself. A new message has also been added ({{UND|f5deferred}}) associated with this. See User_talk:SD0001#RFUD_helper_-_CSD_F5.
• While restoring drafts per G13, if there are no deletion tags on the page, a dummy edit will be made to the draft to reset the six-month G13 clock. This is not done if the page has deletion tags, as in such cases the automated removal of the deletion tag resets the G13 clock.

Well, got some unexpected holidays due to you-know-what, so got some time for the above at last. SD0001 (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm

I am Dr. Honey's research coordinator, and I believe that the Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm page should be considered for undeletion. Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm (HeLPS) is a disease, and is not original research. Seeing as Wikipedia contains information on the majority of human diseases, I believe that HeLPS should be able to have its own page on Wikipedia. As HeLPS was recently discovered in 2016, I believe that having its own page on Wikipedia will allow the disease to gain increased widespread recognition. HeLPS is often misdiagnosed as a psychiatric condition, therefore the majority of patients with HeLPS will never have the chance to have the surgery that is available for this disease. Having a platform on Wikipedia will potentially offer help to patients suffering from HeLPS who have been misdiagnosed to find the answers that they deserve, as more patients are turning to the internet for answers. The Wikipedia page is of course not a substitute for a neurological examination. However, it may help patients to discover what it is that they are truly suffering from.

I believe that having a HeLPS page on Wikipedia allows for increased public awareness of the disease. Patients are often asking me as a research coordinator for an online source of information outlining their disease so that they themselves can have a better understanding of it. Wikipedia is an easily accessible venue for patients to reference, and it thus allows for further understanding and awareness of HeLPS and the impact that it may have on those affected. I believe that this page will be highly beneficial to those who are struggling to either find a diagnosis or to better understand their diagnosis.

For the reasons outlined above, I am requesting for the Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm Wikipedia page to be nominated for undeletion. I believe that the page was deleted quickly and without significant warning. Leahpoly (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Leahpoly: The community appears to feel otherwise. About ten days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm closed with an outcome of delete. The concern at the time was that it was original research: the references are largely attributed to Honey, although they do appear to have been published in a reputable journal.

@Sandstein: You closed the AfD. Would you like to chime in, or should I help Leahpoly have the matter addressed at WP:DRV? —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)