Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Header: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:13, 19 October 2005 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Purpose: Remove some ultra vires stuff← Previous edit Revision as of 01:14, 19 October 2005 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Purpose: Fix mistatement of the focus of wikipedia: we're about *content*, not processNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
#*An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above. #*An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.
#Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion ''and'' the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. #Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion ''and'' the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
:This process should ''not'' be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about ''process'', not content. :This process should ''not'' be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. Remember that an encyclopedia is about ''content'', not process. Any deletion of a good article should be challenged.
</td></tr></table> </td></tr></table>

Revision as of 01:14, 19 October 2005

Shortcut
  • ]
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by administrators if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and undeletion policy.

The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on 3 December 2003.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. You don't have to get the stub undeleted, and as long as your new version has content it should not be redeleted. If it is, then you should list it here.

Purpose

  1. Deletion Review is the process to be used by editors wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion, speedy or otherwise unless:
    • They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question;
    • In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
    • The page can be undeleted under the undeletion policy
    • An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.
  2. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. Remember that an encyclopedia is about content, not process. Any deletion of a good article should be challenged.