Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 11: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:18, 12 August 2006 editSamuel Blanning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,108 edits →[]: keep deleted← Previous edit Revision as of 14:24, 12 August 2006 edit undoTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 edits →[]: mNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 28: Line 28:
*speedy undelete, WP:CSD violation by admin ] -- ] ] 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) *speedy undelete, WP:CSD violation by admin ] -- ] ] 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:*'''''Eisenkappl''' (slov. Zelesna Kapla) is located in ] in ].'' Really? Is it a hamlet of five people? A city? A hotel? A business? Have you by any chance read ]? "# Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about" seems awfully close to the mark here... ] 21:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :*'''''Eisenkappl''' (slov. Zelesna Kapla) is located in ] in ].'' Really? Is it a hamlet of five people? A city? A hotel? A business? Have you by any chance read ]? "# Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about" seems awfully close to the mark here... ] 21:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:**You can well reasearch and extend, you can look for what links here. etc. But it did not meet any CSD. ] ] 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment'''. Omg this is the same debate as . Tobias, stop writing crappy stubs and give these things more context and they won't get deleted. ] | ] 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment'''. Omg this is the same debate as . Tobias, stop writing crappy stubs and give these things more context and they won't get deleted. ] | ] 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:**It's a similiar debate, about a similar abusive admin behaviour. This stub simply did not meet any CSD criteria. ] ] 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''No need to undelete'''. Just write something meaningful. ]|] 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC) *'''No need to undelete'''. Just write something meaningful. ]|] 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
**it was deleted in violation of WP:CSD, it has a ]. ] ] 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''': X is Y is not an article. It is a fact, and encyclopedias actually have to talk ''about'' a thing. Valid speedy delete G1. ] 02:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse''': X is Y is not an article. It is a fact, and encyclopedias actually have to talk ''about'' a thing. Valid speedy delete G1. ] 02:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
**There are policies in WP that admins should respect. The deletion is not justified by WP policies, thus it's admin right abuse. ] ] 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''The Usual''' ~ ] 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC) *'''The Usual''' ~ ] 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
**Could you explain what you mean? ] ] 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:24, 12 August 2006

< August 10 August 12 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

11 August 2006

Shrines, mosques and graves

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shrines, mosques and graves, most delete votes were cast when article was still a stub, but closing admin did not take that into consideration.

  • overturn and undelete --Striver 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. After the article was expanded on 18:30, 11 March 2006, the direction of the AfD did not change significantly. If you divide the AfD into two halves, 'before expansion' and 'after', then 'after' certainly has a lower proportion of delete arguments, but to close the whole AfD as delete we would need to say that all the 'before' arguments should be ignored. That would only be the case if they were based on length, which they weren't. The nomination was "Unencyclopedic and fork considering there are articles on all three already", which isn't dependant on the article's length - it means the article is a bad idea no matter how long it is. I can see one deletion argument, from Arbustoo, which was conditional on the article's length, which should have counted as a 'merge' (I don't know whether Stifle did so in his headcount and I'm not going to check - I don't think he should have included a headcount in his close as it gives the wrong idea). There was still consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jolly Roger (frog)

The article apparently had an incorrect link to Banjo-Tooie & the nominator stated that the game had no article as a result (this may have influenced the early replies). Usually articles of not notable characters are redirected to the games they originated from (it should also be noted that after someone suggested this, most replies were for merge with the exception of one). SNS 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Eisenkappel