| Revision as of 18:42, 14 August 2006 editStriver (talk | contribs)39,311 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:15, 16 August 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| The article apparently had an incorrect link to ] & 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). ] 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | The article apparently had an incorrect link to ] & 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). ] 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Close'''. It appears to have been redirected already, which is what this nomination seems to be looking for. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Close'''. It appears to have been redirected already, which is what this nomination seems to be looking for. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 02:49, 12 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) | |||
| :**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) | |||
| :***How on earth does this not meet "Very short articles providing little or no context"? As Guy points out, this article could have been about ''anything''. It's not our business to "research and extend" and create an actual stub just because you wrote a meaningless sentence somewhere. Please read ], specifically 'Defining stub'. To quote part of it, ''"It must be long enough to at least define the article's title and its meaning in order to appear in Misplaced Pages... Nevertheless the above is not enough. It is still a stub if it does not have any general or basic coverage about the article."'' This was not a stub by any stretch of the imagination. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :****Bad try of you to make this a discussion of WP:Stub. What is violated is ] '''Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.''' Please obstain from attacks like ''It's not our business to "research and extend" and create an actual stub just because you wrote a meaningless sentence somewhere.'' ] ] 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*****Speaking of ''bad'' and ''meaning'', for German speakers a ] in front of a name makes it pretty clear that it's a spa own. For non-German speakers it means absolutely nothing. ~ ] 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :******Your last sentence is IMO a false claim as the first definately is. But even if it would not have had "Bad" in front, it would have been a WP:CSD violation. ] ] 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*******With the amount of words you've expended so far on this you could have created about four stubs that actually fulfilled the definition of a stub. I notice the article you're complaining about is still a redlink, though. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :********I don't think the words I placed here would fit into the stub. I can confirm the redlink from here, you seem to have a color screen. Furthermore I see the violation still is active, because the redlink is not a result of AfD but CSD which is a violation of WP policies. ] ] 14:53, 13 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) | |||
| **it was deleted in violation of WP:CSD, it has a ]. ] ] 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Thanks for sharing. Keep deleted, rewrite. ]|] 03:05, 13 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) | |||
| **Could you explain what you mean? ] ] 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''No''', but thanks for the link to ]. ~ ] 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:15, 16 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)
- Comment: Most of the post-expansion editors had problems with the article. Many seemed to feel that the content was valid content, but they had trouble with the article's name and the article's location. Some thought that it was a POV fork. Some thought it should be merged and redirected, but no one seemed to know where to merge and redirect. This is pretty vexatious. I cannot say that undeletion is correct, as there were a lot of problems with the content at the name, but I cannot say that the content should be lost forever. My best suggestion would be a history undeletion so that a merge could be performed, but I can't suggest that unless someone has an agreeable target. Geogre 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, how about relisting it for afd? Many people of the first half might have been missled by the poor wording of the article name, not expecting the article to touch upon the important topics that it turend up to do?--Striver 14:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion again a misuse of the DRV process, there was a clear consensus to delete. You can't add minimal content to the article and then claim that it has been "significantly expanded" to delegitimize votes for deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- JD, you are not a admin, so you do not know how much i added. Dont assume bad faith. I had expanded it from 2 lines to close to 100 lines.--Striver 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Article not needed; material covered in Ziyarat. Zora 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Zora, have you changed your mind? In any case, lest then merge all the information into ziarat, there is a lot that is not included there. --Striver 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't even know what material you are considering merging. All I know is that Muslims do ziyarat to shrines, mosques, and graves, and we now have an article explaining what that it and listing the main pilgrimage sites, by country, often with pictures. If you have any material that fits into that framework, it could be added. Zora 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remember, it had a long section about the balkan, among other things? It was well sourced, as well. --Striver 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't even know what material you are considering merging. All I know is that Muslims do ziyarat to shrines, mosques, and graves, and we now have an article explaining what that it and listing the main pilgrimage sites, by country, often with pictures. If you have any material that fits into that framework, it could be added. Zora 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Zora, have you changed your mind? In any case, lest then merge all the information into ziarat, there is a lot that is not included there. --Striver 15:26, 14 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)