Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you think a page should not have been deleted or speedy deleted, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the deletion was right, or the page should be undeleted. Each user can say if he or she wants to restore the page, or keep it deleted, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.
A page should stay listed here for at least five (5) days. After five days, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do. If the consensus is to undelete, the admin should restore the page. If the consensus was that the deletion was correct, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.
[edit] 2007 requests
[edit] Briefsism
Briefsism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) - inappropriately deleted. --Heah Lines 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as the deleting, er, person... The article was deleted per quick deletion criterion G4 - a similar article was listed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, and subsequently deleted in accordance with the deletion policy. J Di 12:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. It is true, but regarded as a joke rather than a cult. That, of course, is my opinion.-- Tdxiang 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] G-spot vibrator and Egg vibrator
G-spot vibrator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) and Egg vibrator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) were inappropriately deleted and they should be restored so that they can be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and so people have the opportunity to improve the article so it conforms to Simple English Wikipedia's standards. J Di 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I vote to keep it deleted, obviously. Such "instructional" articles have a tendency to misdirect normal instincts and are actually harmful, besides serving the interests of those selling such items as indicated by the "external links" linking to a vibrator sales website. I have to see it in my email, but here too? Alternatively, as it is non core, I would rather see it merged with Vibrator (sensual) instead of having an article for every kind of sex toy out there. Blockinblox - talk 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- very weak keep I checked out these articles before the deletion, but I must say they were a little to instructional. Also it would be better to merge them with Vibrator (sensual). If kept it should be less pornographic and instructional. And links to vibrator sales are also not appropriate in my eyes.... ;) The life of brian 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete and relist on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion - no criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion rules seem to apply (can't find "inappropriate content" there), unless these pages were pure vandalism (which I doubt). Миша13 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete. These may not have much merit (and prob. need rewriting) but the community should be able to handle this. Sue W 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Articles should have been QD'd the first time. They meet the qualification under A4 - They do not explain why they are notable. I would question if there are multiple non trivial published works by reliable sources (The foundation of notability) on them. There is certainly no such work listed in their external links either here or on en:wiki that notability can be verified with. As no one has stated that they believe the items are notable, it does not meet the qualification of going to RfD on challenge. The redeletion (as many times as needed) of reposted deleted material in the exact form it was deleted in is only covered by G4 if the article was RfD'd not QD'd but as the article is identical to the first QD, it is still not notable for the exact same reason and should be deleted as A4 again. G4 has a no repeat clause, A4 does not and can be used over and over if it still applies. -- Creol(talk) 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Relist on RFD - These could be legitimate articles with some attention. I'm not a big fan of listing random sex toys on Wikipedia, so I'd vote for its deletion, but other users would want to weigh in at the RFD. PullToOpenTalk 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete. I have created one of these articles and I obviously want them to be available to everyone. I would gladly try and rewrite my article (and possible the author of the other article would also do so), but if the community votes the deletion of the articles, I don't think I will argue. Sil 09:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Vibrator (sensual). ...Aurora... 11:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- At the time, it was voted to merge them to Vibrator (sensual) (see here). The last non-redirect revisions of G-Spot vibrator and Egg Vibrator have little additional info. I would therefore propose you extend the Vibrator (sensual) page, and once this has grown enough content, the community can then decide what to do with it. --Eptalon 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
