| Revision as of 14:59, 16 September 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:03, 16 September 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| This was deleted by a sysop under racist bias a copyright violation against the Asian-American actor and producer. Kai Wong has been on an Oscar-winning production team. Credits include film starring Naomi Watts and Kate Hudson. This is a valid wikipedia entry that should be kept, instead of being eliminated by a group of racist sysops. {{Unsigned|218.186.8.13}} 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' ] looks like a pretty clear 'delete' to me, and according to the logs the article was a repost. Note that I'm not an admin, so I can't even see what the article was about; if you have new information that might persuade the AfD commentors to change their mind, please let us know in this DRV. --] 11:35, 11 September 2006 (]]]) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. The AfD is valid, and the subject's IMDB profile gives such gems as "man in courtroom (uncredited)". Completely unfounded allegations of racism against sysops is the icing on the cake. <b>]</b> 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Some unacceptable remarks from the nominator who was rightly warned by the closing admin. AfD is valid. ] 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Note that while ] and I disagreed on attitude towards other editors, we both agreed (as did most others) that this article was a horrible piece of gunk. I also warned the nominator of this DRV to refrain from personal attacks. ~ ] 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Update''' {{User|218.186.8.13}} has been blocked for a week for making legal threats. ~ ] 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per JzG, valid AFD closure. ] 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' why are anons allowed to do this? ] 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Because many anons are good faith contributors. Unfortunately, those that aren't tend to become more visible. Engaging in discussion is considered preferrable to limiting the rights of anonymous users. ] 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:03, 16 September 2006
| < September 10 | September 12 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
11 September 2006
{{3di H1}}
This was deemed "useless" by the voters, however, the fact that this template is required by WP:IH was neglected. An IP nominated this, and it received 3 votes for deletion (one unsigned.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's still just as useless. This was a single use template with the single purpose of linking from Interstate H-201 back to Interstate H-1, an action better accomplished with a text link - like the one in the first paragraph. This setup makes sense when there is more than one auxiliary route - see Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) for an example - but it is ridiculous on I-H1. --SPUI (T - C) 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's required by WP:IH, and there are other templates that exist like this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television
When this article was put up for afd 1, it was closed with a no consensus. However, when similar afds for the closing logos of Columbia-Tristar and Tristar Television ended, they were deleted: Columbia-Tristar, Tristar TV. I have talked to the admin about this situation, and he said that I made a good case and that I should report it here, more details can be found at my talk page. In accordance to the 2 articles being deleted, I feel that the decision should be overturned to delete the Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television page as well. Renosecond 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure The one kept had a keep opiner (now unsigned, but originally not, see the history), the others didn't. That is a signficant difference in the AfD discussions. The discussion could have been relisted; relisting sometimes generates batches of comments simply because it has been relisted, but that is a discretionary action. No consensus results are essentially no precedent for further discussion. Additionally, the third linked AFD included in the nomination that that page was unneeded because this one existed, which is weak evidence of additional reason to keep this page. GRBerry 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure This is a no consensus closure, so can be sent back to AfD right away with the addditional evidence. We don't have to discuss this here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)