Undeleting outside process depends somewhat on what it was deleted by; if it was AFDed, then DRV; if it was speedied I've seen people just put them back (with the usual "please contact the removing admin to inform them about your good reason" etc caveat), but DRV works too. If it was PRODed, then I don't know; most of those seem to uncontroversially stay dead. DRV is almost certainly never the wrong answer, but under some circumstances may not be required.

On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: I pages, was It is a cardinal sin. If a page is deleted as a result of *fD it MUST go through DRV - despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", undeletion can only be done if the correct forms are filled out in triplicate, lost, found again... (I can't remember the rest of how that goes, but you end up having your house bulldozed). In addition, DRV is the place where people comment, not on the merits of the deletion, but on whether the deletion was "in process" or "out of process". It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds of "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits of deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have commented when you had the chance).

On 11/29/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alas, it's only a slight exaggeration of procedure-as-normal. However, I suspect that you meant bullshit as in 'I believe you, but it's ludicrous' rather than 'I don't believe it' ...

That's total bullshit.

One of the biggest problems with our deletion system is that the amount of crap is so overwhelming that those who regularly participate in the system get jaded and are sometimes unable to recognise the situations where an exception should be made.

On 11/29/06, Guettarda &lt;guettarda(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: things I pages, was go the process". of of <snip /> Wait... I went and read our policy on undeletion ([[WP:UNDEL]]) , and it definitely lists "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). " as a valid reason for undeletion (in fact, as the first reason). Given that we 'know' that DRV is only for process auditing, I looked farther down... behold! there is a section entitled "To request that a page (or image) be restored", except that this section only tells you to list the page on DRV... Catch -22 anyone? Either we need to change WP:UNDEL to conform to current practice, or we need to give quite a few people a cluebat beating. Sincerely, Silas Snider -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious Editing Club of Wikipedia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 11/29/06, The Cunctator &lt;cunctator(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I pages, was It is a cardinal sin. If a page is deleted as a result of *fD it MUST go through DRV - despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", undeletion can only be done if the correct forms are filled out in triplicate, lost, found again... (I can't remember the rest of how that goes, but you end up having your house bulldozed). In addition, DRV is the place where people comment, not on the merits of the deletion, but on whether the deletion was "in process" or "out of process". It doesn't matter if the article was about [[World War II]] and the discussion only involved three people would voted delete on the grounds of "never heard of it", DRV is supposed to comment on process, not merits of deletion (you'll be told "that's what *fD is for, and you should have commented when you had the chance).