Wikipedia:Deletion review
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Deletion_review".

Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

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. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Active discussions

24 July 2008

Kelli Martin

Kelli Martin (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article subject has been the subject of multiple independent reliable articles, interviews, and other sources. User:Orangemike speedy deleted while initial article version was being drafted. Other editor had nommed for speedy deletion earlier, but had agreed to wait for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc. I recreated the article after Orangemike's deletion, left him a talk page message, and left a note on the article talk page asking for community discussion on subject's notability. He summarily deleted article again and protected it. I have asked him to undelete and submit to AfD for proper sense of community consensus. The sources were in notable newspapers and one was published by a major cable television network. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn There was enough coverage in reliable sources provided in the article to make at least an arguable case for notability and thus not a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Could see an AFD going either way but is not the clear cut case required for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Think About Life

Think About Life (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am bringing this here at the suggestion of the admin who closed the AfD, as I have found multiple sources that were not mentioned in the discussion; see below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Requesting overturn as per the following, copied from User talk:Waggers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Waggers. Would be be open to restoring this article you deleted? In the deletion discussion no one actually said they had made attempts to search for sources to establish notability. Yet sources exist as follows:

• "Think About Life's Van Pelt Builds Miracle Fortress", Pitchfork Media
• "Miracle Fortress and Think About Life Tour Eastern Canada", Exclaim! magazine
• "Dream team: The pop-culture pick-up games of Think About Life", Montreal Mirror
• "Accidental plan: Things go wrong the right way for Miracle Fortress", Montreal Mirror (it's about Miracle Fortress but has verifiable relevant content to add to Think About Life)
• "Fortress of solitude, Montreal Gazette (ditto)
• "Triple threat, Hour
• "Think About Life: L'Urgence de la Pop", Voir
• "Think About Life: L'harmonie du chaos", Voir

(All of those were found with Google.) There's also (found in my library):

• Dunlevy, T'Cha. "Raw, corny and somehow compelling. Let's Think About Life", Montreal Gazette, p. D3, 2006-06-08. (A 700-word article entirely about the band, with the most relevant content to add)
• Wenzel, John, "15 buzz bands at small to midsized venues", Denver Post, p. F4, 2006-04-30.

Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore based on new evidence (original closure was correct one based on the AFD). New sources providing significant coverage, which were not found during the AFD, which now appear to establish notability. Concern of the AFD was the lack of sources which has now been addressed. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore looks like good sources to me. I'm actually a little sad that I could find a number of reasonable sources by going to Google and typing '"Think About Life" band' in both news and web. While AfD close was fine based on comments, folks probably should have spent a few more moments before !voting. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion These sources are more than enough to establish notability and make a half-decent article. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - these sources appear to meet WP:RS, and establish WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Commando Krav Maga

Commando Krav Maga (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reliable references were added and advert content was deleted per original reason for deletion. All logos have been removed and only factual information remain in the latest article that was submitted Combatsurvival (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse (nb: I conducted one of 3 speedy deletions post-AfD, not at the original article location, but at Commando krav maga) - I don't think much has changed since the AfD (i.e. addressing notability). The new article was certainly bigger, but contained a huge amount of content but with little referencing (bar the introduction) or indicators as to why it was important, and still seemed rather biased to me. I think any encyclopedic notability can quite easily be covered by a small section in the main Krav Maga article. Ian¹³/t 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blockdot

Blockdot (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

G11 I have revised the article and would like to re-submit, how do I do that? Marcopollo (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the page isn't salted, so you can just do it. However, I suggest creating your suggested version in your userspace first (at, say User:Marcopollo/Blockdot) so that other editors can take a look at it and make sure it won't be speedily deleted again. Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

23 July 2008

Classic City Championship (closed)

Abubakar Bello-Osagie (closed)

Category:User talk archives

Category:User talk archives (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

I don't know where the nom got the idea that user talk categories were somehow out of the scope of WP:UCFD, but this certainly was a misplaced discussion. There's no consensus here, because only one user (the nom) supported anything. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:CFD defaults to delete in the absence of any contributions to the discussion. However, while the CFD discussion was closed as delete, the category has not actually been deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Only because it isn't emptied yet. I think the presumption was that it was a template-based category and that we were waiting on the job queue, but it seems that it's not. Anyway, what's the problem here? I'm not seeing what Ned Scott's problem with this close is, apart from the appeal to Wikipedia:Quora in deletion discussions, and that's a rather weak reed I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen a lot of out of process deletions, but that alone doesn't drive me to list something on DRV. I do have reasons for wanting the category kept, and believe others would too. See my reply to jc37 below. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. Direct from WP:UCFD: The deletion, merging, or renaming of user categories is discussed on this page. Note the link there is to Category:Wikipedians. UCFD is for categories such as "Foo wikipedians", "Wikipedians who like whatever", etc. Category:User talk archives is not a user category. It even states that This category is used for administration of the Wikipedia project. So when closing, I agreed with the nom that CFD, not UCFD, was the correct venue for the discussion. As for the lack of other participants, it was listed for the required amount of time with no opposition. Finally, it hasn't been deleted yet because while the vast majority of users were using a template, there were a small percentage who had subst'ed it. --Kbdank71 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• You must not visit WP:UCFD very often. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• relist There's a difference between someone claiming there was no quorum and having no consensus. If absolutely no one took part in a discussion and then someone else comes along and says that they object to the result that's an indication we don't have a real consensus for the action. Just because process allows us to delete it this way doesn't mean we should. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse (as nominator) - I'd like to note that I had no problem with the nom being moved to WP:UCFD, if others decided that that should be the venue. (And I noted that in the nomination.) As noone suggested that, it stayed where it was. And I think it's somewhat difficult to support lack of "quorum", considering that the nomination directly below this one on the page (Categories:Mexicans of Booian descent) had quite a few unique commenters (and there were also several other unique commenters in other discussions on the page). This is another case of where Wikipedians may choose whether they wish to join in a discussion or not. And so, in the absense of opposition, the nomination was endorsed. - All that aside, I'm also curious as to what the nominator here's argument is for wishing to keep this category. If there is none, and this is just a question of procedure (which I think I, and others above, have addressed), then I think we're probably done here. - jc37 21:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• "This is another case of where Wikipedians may choose whether they wish to join in a discussion or not." I disagree. This is a case where Wikipedians did want to join the discussion, but because it was placed in the general CFD, they did not think to look there. Even if I'm the only one who feels that way, that still would have resulted in no consensus to delete. Deletion discussion placement is very important, due to the large amount of XfDs the site deals with. On a daily bases I check MfD, RfD, uCfD, and sometimes TfD. Like most people, I don't browse daily listings of AfDs, but use delsort categories and delsort listings to find deletion discussions I'm interested in. I know I'm not the only one who checks some XfD listings and not others.

• I'm not mad at you for taking this category for deletion, or even using CfD (it's not like it was an unreasonable conclusion), but this shouldn't be deleted, and other users should get the chance to make an argument for that.

• As for the category itself, yes, I would have supported keeping it, even if only for being able to use recentchangeslinked and do occasional RC patrolling of archives, (which normally should go unchanged). I'm sure there's other good reasons to keep this category as well, including ones that both you or I haven't considered (one reason why XfD discussions are important). -- Ned Scott 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Relist, and if people are arguing about whether it should be on CFD or UCFD, ferchrissake just put it on one of them and put a note on the other pointing people towards it. "X for discussion" means for discussion, Wikipedia is not an exercise in bureaucracy. --Stormie (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernard_Edlington (closed)

US Battlefield UAVs (2) (closed)

22 July 2008

Khorne

Khorne (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly no decisive consensus to delete this article, which was nominated by a block evading sock account, and given that the article has been redirected, request undeleting the edit history, but keeping the redirect as a compromise. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion We've already established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 21 (twice) that this is not sufficient reason to overturn. Pagrashtak 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Restore history due to merge. While the stated nomination is still not a sufficient reason to overturn, GFDL compliance is. Pagrashtak 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not just that the block evading User:Killerofcruft nominated the article, but also if you look at the discussion that considerable amount of editors in good standing argued to keep. It may not be a vote, but such strong support does suggest a lack of adequate consensus. Plus, I'm not asking for a "keep" closer, merely undeleting the history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Why do you continually bring that up? The editor's former username has no impact here. It was already made clear that the block evasion has no impact here, yet you felt the need to bring that up as well. The "good standing" of editors has no impact here. A long-time editor can make a bad argument, and a new editor can make an excellent argument. The closing admin made it very clear in the closing statement that almost all keep opinions "did not address the policy-based issues raised". Please stick to the pertinent facts and quit trying to distract us with these irrelevant issues. Pagrashtak 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It matters, because it suggests that the account's purpose in nominating the article is highly suspect. And the facts are that the keep arguments presented valid reasons for at least causing a no consensus closure and again if the article is good enough to redirect than undeleting the edit history and maintaining the redirect is a fair compromise. After all, the "delete" arguments included such comments as "Consolidation to a single article" (a merge and redirect rationale) or claims of being "unnecessary" (an argument to avoid as it is mere opinion what is and is not "necessary"). The word does it at least a couple Google news hits, as well as mentions on Google books and Google scholar. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm curious. What do you suspect the nom's ulterior motive was? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Complete merger. Consensus was judged by appeal to policy and guidelines. The status of the nominator ex post facto has little to do with the community decision. I can't comment on the propriety of a history recovery and subsequent redirect. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Updated to note evidence of an attempted merger by Snidely Whiplash...errr, I mean Allemantando. Unless of course we are going to revert that because he's horrible and evil and awful.  ;) Protonk (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, per the discussions of July 21. As for the history-only deletion, a huge chunk of it is the same as what can be found at [1], plus there's some more content from [2]. --Stormie (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We should then redirect to those articles. It has to be technologically possible to redirect to other wikis, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't believe it's possible to do a redirect to another Wiki that behaves the same as an internal Wikipedia redirect (i.e. smoothly takes you to the page on the other wiki). You can do a "soft redirect" which gives you a page like French proverbs, and a while ago I tried to get some discussion going about more widespread use of them - one thread can be seen here. I never encountered much enthusiasm, though, and there was definite resistance on the grounds that Wikia is a for-profit company (a fact which I couldn't care less about, given that the contents of Wikia wikis is GFDL-licensed). --Stormie (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm just found this RFD discussion on such a redirect. --Stormie (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Restore history per the merger (maintain the redirect). The closing admin's argument is cogently given, i.e. none of the "keep" arguments (barring one of them) addressed the issue of notability of the article, but appealed to "usefulness", gave "other stuff exists" arguments, or vague generalities asserting notability without evidence to support this claim. (Of course, one editor also voted "keep" twice.) As stated above, the previous DRV's of July 21 concluded there were no compelling reasons to reverse or relist those nominations based on the status of the nominator, as the reasons for nominating those articles weren't addressed in the AFD or fixed in the articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate, I am only asking for an undeletion of the edit history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; obviously valid closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If it was "obvious", it wouldn't be up for review. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Obvious means different things to different people. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Given the lack of consensus in the AfD, I think that restoring the history, but keeping it a redirect for the time being, is an excellent suggestion. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obvious consensus to delete. With respect, LGRdC's repeated listings here when deletion discussions on fictional topics don't go his way are beginning to be disruptive. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not opposed to undeleting the history for the purpose of merging. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm finding these closes disruptive, especially when there is no obvious consensus to delete and when the nominations are made by block evading socks originally named User:Killerofcruft of all things, which is why I am listing them here. Are you opposed to those who repeatedly nominate articles for deletion when earlier discussions closed as keep or no consensus? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• endorese a relist I agree that this was nomination by a clear SPA, intended to delete as many articles as possible, probably as a good hand/bad hand account. The work done by such a disruptive account should be undone, and discussions started over free from the consequent prejudice. DGG (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think a discussion was prejudiced by the nominator being an SPA. If the SPA had nominated an article on a truly notable subject for deletion, it would have been kept by consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the keep opinions did not address the problems of the article. The fact that the nominator is a block-evading SPA isn't relevant given that there was consensus to delete without them. Hut 8.5 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Even though the nominator of the article was a sock/banned user/whatever and discounting his opinions, the consensus of the AfD was still to delete. I don't think that these sorts of nominations need to be necessarily overturned or relisted, but only reviewed in case the information causes the consensus of the discussion to change ('course, if it was that borderline it probably shoulda' been no consensus anyways...). I'm completely willing to userfy this article for anyone interested, however, and I think it might be useful to merge slightly more of it to Chaos (Warhammer). Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: AfDs may not be a vote, but for sake of argument, we had two arguing to redirect, ten arguing to keep, and only seven arguing to delete. Two of those arguing to keep produced some sources and even the nominator and some others saying to delete actually indicated merge/redirect locations/possibilities. In no way can that possibly be so decisive of a consensus to delete that we can't undelete the edit history, but maintain a redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So now it's not about the nom, you just don't like the close. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You just don't like the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I don't. But where do you see my "endorse deletion" here?
        You've shifted your reasoning (and stated goal!) a number of times. The close was against the nose count but we don't count noses. The close was against your argument because the closer didn't think it held any water. The nom was a blocked user but we don't overturn AFDs because the nom was blocked for unrelated reasons. And above all else, you came to DRV for a userfy when you could have left a note on pretty much any admin's talk page (and even if they said no you could have asked someone else). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I am not asking that this article be userfied, but that since it's redirected that the contribution history also be undeleted, but that the redirect stay in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You say it's not a vote, but then you treat it as such—"only seven" for delete. It only takes one. Do we need to go down the keep arguments? First: "Keep I personally find having seperate articles is fine, because I hate having to look at somthing that I don't want to..." WP:USEFUL. Second: "Keep - It's a good article." WP:ILIKEIT. Third: "Keep - What's wrong with having fictional content on Wikipedia?" WP:HARMLESS. Fourth: "Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience..." WP:VAGUEWAVE in combo with WP:JNN. I could just as easily say "Delete per Wikipedia:Five pillars (no notability to a real-world audience..." with equal effect. Fifth: "Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry?" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Need I go on? Pagrashtak 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And, to be strict, there's "only" nine 'keep's since once editor voted twice. I mean no disrespect to said editor, but should both those votes should be discounted as (s)he couldn't "be bothered" to check that (s)he had commented already? I mean we can keep going back and forth like this for ages. Could this be closed yet? --Craw-daddy | T | 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed as undelete edit history, but keep redirect at this time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • We can do the same for the deletes that are merely the reverse of the above, which is why they are challenged enough to allow for a redirect with undeletion of the article history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citro