| Revision as of 03:20, 12 August 2006 editTrialsanderrors (talk | contribs)Administrators17,564 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:18, 12 August 2006 edit undoSamuel Blanning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,108 edits →[]: keep deletedNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ], most delete votes were cast when article was still a stub, but closing admin did not take that into consideration. | ], most delete votes were cast when article was still a stub, but closing admin did not take that into consideration. | ||
| *'''overturn and undelete''' --] 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''overturn and undelete''' --] 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 ], 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. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 13:18, 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)
- Close. It appears to have been redirected already, which is what this nomination seems to be looking for. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Bad Eisenkappel
- speedy undelete, WP:CSD violation by admin User:InShaneee -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eisenkappl (slov. Zelesna Kapla) is located in Austria in Völkermarkt (district). Really? Is it a hamlet of five people? A city? A hotel? A business? Have you by any chance read Bad Article Ideas? "# Anything which you cannot be bothered to write one complete sentence about" seems awfully close to the mark here... Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Omg this is the same debate as this. Tobias, stop writing crappy stubs and give these things more context and they won't get deleted. pschemp | talk 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- No need to undelete. Just write something meaningful. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:49, 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. Geogre 02:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Usual ~ trialsanderrors 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)