| Revision as of 23:15, 16 August 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:18, 16 August 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit → |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
], 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) |
|
|
*'''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) |
|
|
*'''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. ] 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?--] 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.--] 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.--] 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' Article not needed; material covered in ]. ] 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. --] 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. ] 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Remember, it had a long section about the balkan, among other things? It was well sourced, as well. --] 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
====]==== |