Slashdot Mirror

Deleted pages can be found on DeletionPedia

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

There's also DeletionPedia, though I can't really tell what the current status of the site is.

After browsing the site some, I believe it's being considered for deletion.

I used to contribute a fair amount to Wikipedia to get my brain going in the morning. I quit doing so a couple years ago, because the whole infighting and "notability" crap was ridiculous. Every single character from a book, movie, cartoon, video game, anime (pokemon, etc) gets a many-paged detailed entry while real people quickly get the brush because someone gets a thorn in their ass over something. And those "somethings" are hard to pin down. Some entries surprisingly don't exist, while others (someone with a podcast you've never heard of or who is supposedly some self-described social media expert, etc) gets an entry. That idiot from "Hot For Words" even has a wikipedia entry.

I won't be surprised if a lot of things get deleted in the next few years, because a bunch of people who are twelve years old today will, in the future, say "I've never heard of this Commodore thing, it must be totally made up. Or at least not notable enough, or I'd have heard of it! DELETED!"

Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop. On the other hand, how much attention can really be given to the countless deletions that are proposed? Especially since, while some deletions occur with no discussion and immediately, others drag on indefinitely and are knock-down drag-out events. It's not a solution, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to raise the bar for deletions, at least. It should be a lot harder to delete something that isn't obvious spam or vandalism than it is to create it.

There's also DeletionPedia, though I can't really tell what the current status of the site is.

Nothing unusual about such confusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_laws#N.E2.80.93Q
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Poe's_law
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law

You can see non-editable versions of deleted pages at Deletionpedia.

Deletionpedia archives deleted wikipedia pages. Unfortunately, the site is mostly not working at the moment but they do say they're continuing to archive deleted pages while they get the site up again.

you could use Deletionpedia

Pidgey and the Pokemon, and countless others have been subjected to the digital equivalent of a book burning by people who held an opinion that certain information was not "worthy" of archival. This from the same crowd of people who think that the Cloud Gate, Wood Badges, Ima Hogg and Books on the psychology of Est are all topics worthy enough to be Featured Articles.

After a book burning, there is no book. After this "digital equivalent of a book burning", you have the article here (as you pointed out).

I don't know if a crowd of people were behind the "deletion" (in one sense of the word). I do notice that the page was "deleted" (turned into a redirect) by one New Age Retro Hippie (his/her self-description), whose activities at Wikipedia suggest no interest in musty old matters like Ima Hogg [I like this one] etc but rather an infatuation with electronic games for young folks.

If the page had been deleted (in the normal Wikipedia sense), you'd probably be able to read it at Deletionpedia . An irritating detour from Wikipedia perhaps, but again hardly the equivalent of a book burning.

Actually what it really means is that a few editors have amassed all the power (much like a few people amass all the power in the government). This problem has been around for a while. I personally stopped contributing after they kept deleting the the article on the stolen sidekick. Its been reduced down to just a few lines in some other article.

There is of course Deletionpedia, but it looks like their bots aren't always on top of the situation. Several of the articles I've tried to find there weren't saved in time.

It's a shame, since Wikipedia could be so much more that the narrow vision of the deletionists.

Someone should start a wiki to track deletions from wikipedia..

See Deletionpedia.

It confirms my expectations: that most deleted articles are not the Secret Truth Suppressed by the Man, but just selfish crap.

Does anything on Wikipedia ever really get deleted?

Perhaps not.

More like...

Here's the Deletionist smoking gun:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulteo
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gigglesworth/Ulteo

Here is what was deleted from Wikipedia preserved on Deletionpedia:

• http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Ulteo

It should not have been deleted.

CHALLENGE: Track down how it was deleted, why it was deleted, who was involved, and what was the motive for the deletion.

It has nothing to do with "a lack of space". All information on Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable, independent, secondary sources. This is fundamental.

An article is deleted if and only if there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss it.

So if you want an article on a Simpsons episode, find the sources that discuss it -- IGN, EW, TV Guide, all reliable sources not directly owned by Fox Television -- and it's good. Even though not every sentence in the article is properly cited, the topic as a whole is suitable for inclusion because it has the potential to be expanded.

If an article has never been addressed in any reliable secondary sources, it gets deleted, because not one sentence can ever be properly verifiable. There is no potential to ever meet Wikipedia guidelines. So for the sake of Wikipedia's quality, not quantity, it is removed.

It's not about space, it's not about geekiness. It's about sources and nothing else.

Well, the difference here of course is that you're replying following the current Wikipedia guidelines, while I'm not.

This is the key point. And it would be one thing if we were simply discussing the "notability" idea, which is not an official policy, but the material you urge to keep also includes that which fails verifiability, which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy.

I.e., it's something all editors (should) agree with, and it's one of the whole points behind the way Wikipedia works. Suggesting Wikipedia should remove this policy is pointless, because you'll then be talking about something which is fundamentally different.

If you or someone else wants to fork Wikipedia, and create a version that allows unverifiable material, go right ahead. Let me know how it works out - considering how much people criticise Wikipedia for any false statement that briefly appears, I can't wait to see what they make of unverifiable-pedia :)

My test for notability

My reasons for saying most of those should be deleted was nothing to do with notability, but the complete lack of reliable sources, and in some cases, was material that would likely be unverifiable. Many of the articles didn't even assert their importance, so we have no reason to think that sources could be found in future.

My minimum requirement would be "Information above what you can obtain from a typical mention".

And how would such information be verified, in these cases?

First would add a notice asking for references, then nominate for deletion if none appear.

But this did happen for http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Interbras_(deleted_20_Aug_2008_at_20:23) which you also said keep. It was up for four years and was tagged for sources for a whole year!

Certainly not, I'm suggesting that such things aren't all that common, and that much of what gets deleted isn't pages about somebody's cat.

I agree regarding pet articles - that was a joke example of something that nonetheless could be included if we do away with notability or espeically verifiability. But the other examples do commonly exist.

I'm not saying that everything unsourced should be immediately deleted - citation needed tags are useful. However, there's a difference between information which is plausibly verifiable, and information which is not. The former is reasonable to delete straight off, the latter can have the tags. There's also a difference between information added to an existing article, and cases where the entire article seems unverifiable, and may well be just made up. Furthermore, even when articles have existed and been tagged for months or years, with no sign of improvement, you still seem to oppose deletion.

The problem is that without speedy delete, Wikipedia would become overwhelmed with completely made up or unverifiable crap. How long should joke pages be kept up, just in case someone might produce reliable sources for? It'd become a laughing stock. As I say, if you want to create unverifiable-pedia, I'll be curious to see how it turns out.

Speedy delete and prod are also ways to cut down on the work, as AfDs are much more time-consuming. If an AfD is needed for one line articles that someone's just created with no sign of importance of verifiability, then there will be a massive increase in required AfDs.

I'd argue that it would also make things worse for the inclusionists - with more AfDs, there'll be less editors looking at any given AfD, meaning it much more likely that things are deleted for dubious reasons, just because a few people don't like it. What Wikipedia needs is a way to streamline deletion for obviously crap articles, whilst focusing people's time on debating the less obvious cases.

There are two reasons for someone deleting something:
1. He disagrees.
2. He thinks it's not relevant.

No, actually, there are two reasons for someone deleting something:

1. It is absolute dog shit.
2. It does not have significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources, which is required for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Pretty straightforward. The "solution" is to avoid letting your article fall under the two above categories.

Elvis sightings has been deleted from Wikipedia. An archived version is shown below. Other versions of this page may be available. Stifle deleted Elvis sightings because AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis sightings. This page was created 21 February 2003 and deleted 3 July 2008 (1958 days).

5-1/4 years and about a hundred demonstrated examples of its place in pop culture and why?...

The Elvis lives conspiracy theory is discussed in the Elvis Presley phenomenon article. The "Media examples" is purely a trivia list. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that there were only two votes delete, two to redirect, and two to keep. The mentioned "Elvis Presley phenomenon" article contains a verrrry long list of singles that were released under his name till 30 years after his death including rereleases.

I find it hard to believe anyone would consider deleting this article. Elvis sightings are a widely-known phenomenon and figure as largely in popular culture as Catholic saint apparitions. They have been continuing for at least 20 years and there are several websites devoted to the phenomenon. They can conceivably be considered distinctly separate from the "Elvis lives" conspiracy theory, as many of the "sighters" are not subscribers to any particular theory about Elvis. At any rate, readers may want to consult a catalog of sightings not unlike a discography or list of tour dates. I think the article should stay although I can't comment on revisions

Unreal. Stifle, indeed.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

Sounds like a nice test. I decided to try. Here are my opinions based on 10 loads of the link:

Club. Would keep.
Actor. Would expand and keep.
Company. Would expand and keep.
Rock band. Would keep it.
Some company. Should be improved, but would keep it.
Rock group. Would keep it.
Association. Would keep it. If such an association exists I don't see why not document it, however fringe it might be.
Self care. Would agree with deletion based on original research, though the concept is probably documented somewhere and could be fleshed out.
Pianist, with no useful data. Probably least worthy of keeping of the bunch.
Dancer. Lacks sources, but assuming the real world claims are true, I'd keep it

Of the 10, I'd only delete two of them, one for not containing anything useful (Khatia), and one for being original research. Wouldn't hurry with the deletion of any of them, I'd wait a couple of weeks to see if the article improves.

No articles on some random person, their cat, webpage, bad poetry, or a "List of Slashdot users with the letter 'i' in their name" so far.

I just found out an article about comparison of Iraq war and Vietnam war got deleted because of "comparison of the war." I was wondering as a reason why it can't be there? Anyone?

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Category:Deletionpedia:Pages_with_100_or_more_editors

I'd never known about this before. I checked it out just to see what subject areas were being deleted. I was really shocked that several warhammer entries were deleted. Damn, that's like deleting the entry on WOW or Starcraft. I'm more of the opinion that sort of crap needs to stay there, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm really into webcomics. Wikipedia has already waged one war on webcomics. If you aren't sluggy or megatokyo then you aren't likely to stay there for long. If you want decent webcomic info you have to go else where.

It's a shame that whilst Deletionpedia has stirred up this debate, no one has actually gone and looked at it.

Go on, check out random page a few times, and tell me if you think that likes of The thinking pose and whatever else you find should have been kept on Wikipedia?

So maybe everyone in the world should have an article about themselves?

Maybe I can have an article for all of the quick software programs I've put up on my webpage? Or for a random piece of music I wrote for my music lesson at school 15 years ago?

Maybe Adam Gordon should be allowed to have his page on The thinking pose?

Let's be serious - there might not be space restrictions, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is a free server for anyone to put up what they like. It is an encyclopedia, and there are many things that it is not meant to be.

I second the call for links. It's funny how people whining about Wikipedia never cite their source.

I bet most the people complaining are the sorts of people who write some nonsensical or unsourced article, or one that does not even assert why it's important, and then whine about Wikipedia that it got deleted. For all we know, the creator of List of films with monkeys in them is on here, complaining how crap Wikipedia is that his masterpiece of an article got deleted.

The sad thing is that elsewhere, people are also criticising Wikipedia because "It contains so much crap", because of the very articles that the former set of people write. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been edit wars, which result in both sides of the argument getting annoyed and complaining "Wikipedia is full of idiots who rv anything I write" and "Wikipedia is full of idiots who write complete rubbish"...

Do you have examples of wrongly deleted pages? Or editors who always unfairly vote delete?

Perhaps you refer to classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade, as some people here seem to think.

Do you have examples of wrongly deleted pages? Or editors who always unfairly vote delete?

Perhaps you refer to classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade, as some people here seem to think.

Link please? Extra credit if the link is to Deletionpadia.

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

So what about Deletionpedia http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
They claim that they store all deleted Wikipedia pages. IF this is so, wouldn't they also be subject to the DCMA notice? Or does Nielsen have to give them a separate one as well?

Do you have an example of an article of yours that was unfairly deleted?

Why should I accept that as a reason for deletion, especially in an encyclopedia, doubly so in one that claims for itself to accumulate the knowledge of the world?

What do you mean especially for an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is especially where being notable is important, or do you think Britannica have all these sorts of articles that Wikipedia deletes?

And summarising the knowledge of the world does not mean that they claim they want articles on every possible topic. There are many things that Wikipedia is not.

The fact that there's an entire wiki dedicated to preserving these cases, and it has tens of thousands of articles in it proves you wrong.

The article has tens of thousands of articles that were deleted - this does not mean there are tens of thousands of articles that were wrongly deleted! This includes classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade.

Ah at last, an article that failed notability. Do you think that was unfairly deleted? If so, do you think I can have a Wikipedia article as a programmer? I'm not a notable programmer, but that shouldn't stop me having my own Wikipedia article, right?

I'm know that some such unfairly deleted articles exist as the system isn't perfect, I agree, but I'm curious what sort of articles you are talking about? Can you give me examples?

What's your solution to fix the problem?

Do you have an example of an article of yours that was unfairly deleted?

Why should I accept that as a reason for deletion, especially in an encyclopedia, doubly so in one that claims for itself to accumulate the knowledge of the world?

What do you mean especially for an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is especially where being notable is important, or do you think Britannica have all these sorts of articles that Wikipedia deletes?

And summarising the knowledge of the world does not mean that they claim they want articles on every possible topic. There are many things that Wikipedia is not.

The fact that there's an entire wiki dedicated to preserving these cases, and it has tens of thousands of articles in it proves you wrong.

The article has tens of thousands of articles that were deleted - this does not mean there are tens of thousands of articles that were wrongly deleted! This includes classics such as Guy Blandford (which was deleted because the article didn't follow the rules - whether or not it's notable, an article should at least assert the importance of the topic), and List of films with monkeys in them. In fact I suspect that the vast majority of deleted articles are articles that were complete crap that were rightly speedy deleted, and not established articles that got deleted as part of a non-notability crusade.

Ah at last, an article that failed notability. Do you think that was unfairly deleted? If so, do you think I can have a Wikipedia article as a programmer? I'm not a notable programmer, but that shouldn't stop me having my own Wikipedia article, right?

I'm know that some such unfairly deleted articles exist as the system isn't perfect, I agree, but I'm curious what sort of articles you are talking about? Can you give me examples?

What's your solution to fix the problem?

Here's another one: GNU/DOS. I never knew this existed, and although it was merged back into FreeDOS later on, it's an interesting tidbit of free software history. I'm a fan of Deltionpedia already.