Stuff is deleted by administrators. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. The forthcoming meta:deletion management redesign may address many of these issues, but that is some way off. See also:deletion policy and undeletion policy.

Please note that 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.

Purpose of this page

It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:

1. People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Ireland Information Guide would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on votes for deletion (VfD), or because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion, but were ignored.
2. Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
   • As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Ireland Information Guide talk:administrators. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

If you wish to undelete an article, list it here with a brief reason. The procedure explained at Ireland Information Guide:Undeletion policy will then be followed, and if the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.

If you wish to view a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it.

See also Ireland Information Guide:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in case of copyright violations.

Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at Ireland Information Guide:Votes for undeletion/deleted. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at Ireland Information Guide:Votes for undeletion/undeleted

Votes for undeletion

August 29

Duality of Screaming Do not let the over-scrutinising Wiki-fascists win. A victory for DoS is a victory for freedom.

August 26

Category:Welsh athletes, Category:Scottish athletes, Category:English athletes

No idea whether this is the right place for this, but anyway...

These three categories were recently deleted via speedy deletion by User:Chris 73. They were originally perfectly valid categories, containing athletes of the respective nations (who compete for those nations in, for example, the Commonwealth Games). User:Duncharris depopulated the categories, moving all contents to Category:British athletes, then placed the categories themselves on speedy deletion. I added comments to the talk page of each category, as instructed by the message, and I started a discussion on User talk:Duncharris. User:Duncharris disagreed with me, but I thought the discussion had not ended. I wake up to find the categories gone, and no further comments.

I don't believe policy has been followed here. First, I thought that categories for deletion were supposed to go on Ireland Information Guide:Categories for deletion. Second, I don't think these qualified as candidates for speedy deletion in any case, since they (originally!) contained valid, useful information. Removing these categories means, for example, that Category:Welsh people no longer contains all Welsh athletes by subcategory implication. I explained to User:Duncharris that it would be trivial to make Category:British athletes the supercategory of the others to achieve the desired effect, but this was apparently ignored. See our respective talk pages for the discussion.

Disappointed (and late for work). -- Avaragado 08:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Games issue seems like a strong argument for splitting into subcategories. Are the categories particularly small? Pcb21| Pete 08:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Welsh and Scottish articles contained about 5-10 articles, I think. There were significantly more articles within English athletes. All three categories could have grown very easily. By the way, it looks like User:Duncharris is now working through other sports, Britishifying those categories - see for example Virginia Wade. His rationale is that "They compete under the British flag", but surely Colin Jackson belongs within a subcategory of Category:Welsh people? Of course I could go through each of the articles and tag them Category:Welsh people as well as Category:British athletes or whatever, but frankly it was fine as it was. -- Avaragado 18:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate, for sportspeople to be categorised under the country for which they normally compete.

But this pre-supposes that the athletes can only be categorised once. Why not in Welsh and British. If I were interested in researching the history of athletics in Wales, I'd like a page with Lynn Davis, Colin Jackson, Jamie Baulch et al. Welsh culture is distinct from English culture and British culture, just as English culture is distinct from British culture. We're very proud of the Welshness of our (few) succesful athletes. Undelete GWO 10:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This means that rugby players can be English, Scottish, etc. but athletes compete under Great Britain and so should be listed as British. This means that when one clicks on the category at the top right of the page, one produces a list of hence Colin Jackson is listed next to Linford Christie, which is appropriate since they both competed for the same team. This is just using the most appropriate name for the category. The details of place of birth and for whom they competed at the Commonwealth/Empire Games can be placed in the main text. At best, one could put them in both categories, but certainly not just the one than they competed under once every four years. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These categories would be subcategories of British athletes, which must mitigate your concerns to a significant extent (particularly bearing in mind future planned features for categories). Pcb21| Pete 21:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To answer the last point: why not? See Category:Rowers at the 2004 Summer Olympics for an analogous example, which categorises people based on one event! If this is acceptable, then categorising them based on a four-yearly event seems quite reasonable to me. And as I said, I believe the semantics of these categories has nothing to do with competition: it's about nationality. For example, it is perfectly correct to categorise a well-known footballer of English nationality within Category:English footballers even if he hasn't played for the English national team. I would argue that to categorise athletes who compete for the British team, you want a different category: something like Category:Athletes in competition for Great Britain. This is not the same thing as Category:British athletes. -- Avaragado 21:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

!?! That is not a valid comparison. In this case, there are different governing bodies; UK athletics for the whole of the UK for athletics, the RFU, SRU, WRU for individual countries rugby (for example). You're trying to put in divisions that simply aren't there. To be a notable British athlete, one would have to compete for the British team, at some level, or one wouldn't be notable. Football is a much bigger sport, with club competition more important than internationals. However, most notable footballers would also be internationals, and those who weren't can go in the English/Scottish category without problems. As for the rowers, all British rowers should go in Category:British rowers, so Kath Grainger who's been rowing with Cath Bishop should go in there, next to each other, and not in "Scottish rowers" or "English rowers" (actually Grainger was somehow listed as an English rower). They can go in "2004 rowers" (or whatever it was) because that is a categorisation by event not nationality. Ultimately, separating them breaks the policy of using the most appropriate name, self-identification, and logic. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that Category:English footballers holds footballers who are English, but Category:British athletes holds athletes who compete for Britain. Semantically that's broken. As to using "the most appropriate name" etc, I completely agree. The point of categories is to categorise: someone can and should be a member of as many categories as is necessary to properly categorise them. And since categories (in theory) aggregate, it makes sense to categorise as specifically as possible to take proper advantage of the hierarchy. Categories are not lists. Anyhow, talking of policy: why did you not follow the policy in Ireland Information Guide:Categories for deletion? -- Avaragado 08:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that category:English footballers holds those who are English because that is who they would represent internationally if they played because of the nature of the governing body, and many of them did, and the minority of notable ones that didn't can be put in there too next to their peers. Semantically, it's fine dicdef (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=british&r=67) British meaning "Of or relating to Great Britain/United Kingdom or its people, language, or culture", so the suggestion of "category:Athletes that have competed for Great Britain" is absurd. Categories generate lists, that's people use them. Putting in unnecessary hierachy means that persons who should be listed together aren't. I didn't put it in categories for deletion as I thought no-one would be silly enough not to see the point. I should have known better, this place can get too silly for words sometimes. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put it in categories for deletion as I thought no-one would be silly enough not to see the point -- Characterising people who disagree with you as "silly" is peurile and counterproductive. How about making a case on merit, eh? PS : I would find a "Welsh athelete" category useful. As to a common governing body (UKA), there is also the Athletic Association of Wales (http://www.welshathletics.org/) and its Welsh Athletic Championship. Perhaps a super category Welsh Sportspeople, with the athletes as well as such misc figures as Tommy Farr (the Tonypandy Terror), Joe Calzaghe, Jimmy Wilde (the Ghost With The Hammer In His Hand -- surely the greatest sporting nickname ever) GWO 14:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- Hang on, there is an (almost unused) Welsh Sportspeople super category. I'm happy for our athletes to go in the top level of that...

e.g. someone like Nigel Walker should go in category:Welsh rugby union footballers and category:British athletes because he played internationaly rugby for Wales and represented Great Britain at athletics. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

where do Scott Gibbs and Johnathon Davies go, as they represented Wales and Great Britain and "Britain and Ireland" at rugby (union, league and union, respectively)? Jamie Baulch represented Wales far more often than he represented Britain over 400m. Your scheme has more holes than the Cardiff backline.

Scotty Gibbs would go in Welsh rugby union footballers, category:dual code rugby internationals and probably Welsh rugby league footballers, though I don't really have time for any game without forward play :) As he represented the he could probably go in category:British Lions, and that one's a bit more difficult. The real problem comes with the Ireland rugby team though (category:Irish rugby union footballers), in which those from the Republic and Northern Ireland play together. So Ulsterman David Humphreys should be under category:Irish rugby union footballers, next to Dubliner Geordan Murphy. Do you have stats to show regular competition of athletes under "Wales" rather than "Great Britain" at athletic meets? If that is the case, then we should add both categories to the articles. The Cardiff backline gets Freddie this year, anyway. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't possibly add any more to this debate (which I think has been fully covered above), but I would find Welsh, Scottish and English Athletes useful subcategories of British Athletes. They do compete for their separate nations in events like the Commonwealth Games and, with the resurgance of nationalism, each nation is proud of its own athletes, even when they are competing under the Great British banner. I am Welsh and would like to see Welsh athletes properly recognised as such. I suspect anyone of Welsh, Scottish or even English origin would feel the same. Would we really lose anything to subdivide Great Britain into its constituent nations? Undelete. --Viki 09:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) (forgot to sign, second edit to sign, nothing sinister, though I do relish the possibility of being Mystery Welshgirl)

August 24 (ends September 3)

Phantom mobile device vibration

Informal tally of Ireland Information Guide:Votes for deletion/Phantom mobile device vibration-1 (original vote) was 5 delete + 1 anon delete vs 5 keep. ··gracefool |☺ 03:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: On 18 August, I asked VampWillow via hisher talk page if she'd come back and explain hisher reasoning for deleting even though the official count seemed to default to "keep". HShe's not yet answered but hisher user contribution page shows that she's been off the air since earlier that same day. Rossami 04:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) (sorry)
• Undelete - I am beginning to question all of User:VampWillow's VfD deletions after seeing repeated situations where articles are deleted with no clear consensus to delete. Even if you toss out the anon vote you get 5 delete vs 5 keep. No consensus to delete. - Tεxτurε 18:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• This was clearly deleted out of process. Even if you include the anon (and they are not allowed a vote) and assume VW votes for delete ( a reasonable assumption since she deleted it) you get 7 : 5 which is 58%, i.e nowhere near consensus. So I've restored the page. Theresa Knott 15:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete Arevich 00:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• New Vote at Ireland Information Guide:Votes for deletion/Phantom mobile device vibration - Tεxτurε 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote for undeletion footer

Add new article listings above here