| Revision as of 14:13, 19 August 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[] (and related articles): closing (userfied)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:53, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,036 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
was deleted due to lack of sources, i present CNN prominently using the term. --] 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:AFD: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Lack of sources was <u>one</u> of the reasons cited, but not the primary one. It was an OR essay. Not one "Keep" voter offered an argument relevant under Misplaced Pages policies. ] 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't really care about the prior article, im arguing that there is enough RS to have A article. As you see, the article is now salted, a new article can not be created. --] 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. It appears to be a notable concept floating around, but so far has not been treated on by any good secondary sources and so anything that can be said about it is unverifiable. Though there seem to be a number of think-tanks and advocacy groups that support a union, an article based on the primary sources available (press releases, whitepapers, and so-on) would be OR. I will support undeletion when it stops being fringe and thus gets substantial coverage. — ] ] 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Some interesting concepts, parts read like an encyclopedia, but its still just and OR essay repeating large amounts oh history and no non-OR unique content.''']''' 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Crooked I==== |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Crooked_I |
|
|
Kingwell, August 10th, 2006 |
|
|
The article might need _one_ area cleaned up to not promote as much, but for the most part, the rest of the article was up to guidelines. |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Crooked_I |
|
|
:Have you shown that he meets the ] guideline? Until such a time, '''Keep deleted'''. ]|] 01:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====] and ]==== |
|
|
:] |
|
|
Both pages redirected to the same place. Both were closed as "delete" without adequate justification. While I fully understand that we are not voting, the tallies were 5:3 and 5:4 respectively. The only reason given for deletion was the rote "cross-namespace redirect". There is no policy forbidding the use of cross-namespace redirects. The most complete discussion I know of listing their relative advantages and disadvantages is at ] where the outcome is far from clear. At best, these two discussions would normally be interpreted as "no consensus". I request that the decisions be overturned pending a centralized answer to the question of cross-namespace redirects. ] <small>]</small> 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' until there is an actual policy, with rationale, and a method that will heal the damage done by deletion. I don't much care with the newer ones, but deleting leaves gaps, and the people doing the deleting need to realize the magnitude of what they're doing by going through every single "what links here" and fixing every single one. ] 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' the namespaces are there for a reason. Why do we need redirects that suddenly propell people from the encyclopedia to the worksings? ]] 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**By the way, deletion of cross name space redirects is a guideline. See ]. ]] 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Yes, but it has specific exceptions for redirects that "aid searches on certain terms" and those where "Someone finds them useful". ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 13:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****They refer to mainspace redirects. ]] 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I can't find any indication of that. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******No but I thought it would have been fairly obvious. People don't search for terms (ussually) when looking for something in the wikipedia mainspace and "someone finds them usefull" seems to be voided by the cross-namespace redirect rule. ]] 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******* Supporting the search engine is not the only reason we have redirects. ] <small>]</small> 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
******* I search for terms looking for Misplaced Pages: space articles all the time. I also don't see any indication that "someone finds them useful" is "voided" by the cross-namespace rule. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***There still isn't a ''rule.'' There is a ''guideline.'' In future, do not make cross namespace redirects. Okie doakie. That doesn't mean "go back through, find them all, strangle them in their sleep, and yell and people who disagree." When we have a method for healing the damage, I'll be fine with these changes. Until then, it's a net negative, esp. without process. ] 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', these two terms aren't notable enough outside of Misplaced Pages (unlike, say, ]). --] ] 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' as there was inadequate consensus to delete. These should have been closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep. I read the argument strength as slightly favoring the keep side, the nose counting as slightly favoring the delete side, but not enough to establish consensus for either result. ] 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' Arguements for deletion (esp when redirects have no incoming lings) were a lot stronger. Regards, ] 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|