Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:57, 23 May 2007 editNard the Bard (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,858 edits →[]: re-create← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:30, 23 May 2007 edit undoCrotalus horridus (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers7,850 edits Crystal Gail Mangum Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev\|pg=ARTICLE_NAME\|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->		ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev\|pg=ARTICLE_NAME\|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->

			====]====
			:{{la\|Crystal Gail Mangum}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>\|</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>\|</tt>]<tt>)</tt>

			Another controversial ] deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by ), and is a central figure in the ]. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including . Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. ] 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 04:30, 23 May 2007

< May 22	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 24 >

23 May 2007

Crystal Gail Mangum

Another controversial WP:BLP deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by ), and is a central figure in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including Fox News. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. *** Crotalus *** 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Connections Academy

The page was deleted earlier today for being a spam article, however the article did not read as an advertisement, but an a description of what the school was. I believe some of the links were not neccessary, hwoever I feel deletion of the article was not warranted. Wildthing61476 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Enchanted Forest Water Safari

Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Misplaced Pages in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family

Sourced, verifiable and free content not repeated elsewhere completely lost due to redirect. Note: the article underwent a second AfD in May, 2007; article contents were different to when first AfD conducted. G2bambino 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Undelete, redirect, protect Normally I'd be pointing out that redirections done right aren't a DRV issue. However a merge has taken place in the past (see the logs), so we need to preserve history under the GFDL. And history was deleted following AFD2. So a clear mistake has been made, and should be fixed. Redirect is the blazingly obvious consensus of the second AFD discussion. Normally I'd say that merging and redirecting is an editorial issue, subject to consensus on the target article's talk page. However, I see in the deleted history the beginnings of an edit war over where the redirection should go. So the redirect should be protected until such time as a consensus to change it is forthcoming. GRBerry 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Undelete, redirect the edit history needs to be preserved, that is important, imo. Brian | (Talk) 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Undelete all the history (including that from the first AfD, keep redirect and protect. -N 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)