Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18: Difference between revisions
Frank Anchor (talk | contribs) |
→The Miracle of Geneva: restore |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Closing admin closed as delete after only one day (rather than the customary five) claiming [[WP:SNOW]] applied, whereas it absolutely did not. WP:SNOW states that "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." The article in question had a good chance of getting what the closing admin believes to be an "unexpected outcome" (keep), as there clearly was ''not '' a consensus to delete after a day of discussions on the AfD. Also many of the "delete" arguments are flawed in that the users only wanted to change or remove the title of the article, not the content. <font color="red">[[User:Frank Anchor|'''Frank Anchor''']]</font> <sup><font color="orange">[[User_talk:Frank Anchor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> (R-OH) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
Closing admin closed as delete after only one day (rather than the customary five) claiming [[WP:SNOW]] applied, whereas it absolutely did not. WP:SNOW states that "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." The article in question had a good chance of getting what the closing admin believes to be an "unexpected outcome" (keep), as there clearly was ''not '' a consensus to delete after a day of discussions on the AfD. Also many of the "delete" arguments are flawed in that the users only wanted to change or remove the title of the article, not the content. <font color="red">[[User:Frank Anchor|'''Frank Anchor''']]</font> <sup><font color="orange">[[User_talk:Frank Anchor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> (R-OH) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:'''Restore''' I was about to do the DRV myself but Frank beat me to it. The closing admin miss-represented the SNOW policy/guideline. There wasn't any consensus in the discussion. At the very least the page should be temporarily restored and the AfD reopened for further discussion <[[User:Baseballfan789|Baseballfan789]] ([[User talk:Baseballfan789|talk]]) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Reductio]]==== |
====[[:Reductio]]==== |
||
| Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
====[[:National Express West Midlands route 283]]==== |
====[[:National Express West Midlands route 283]]==== |
||
:{{la|National Express West Midlands route 283}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/National Express West Midlands Premier |
:{{la|National Express West Midlands route 283}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/National Express West Midlands Premier 283|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:National Express West Midlands Premier 283}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Express West Midlands Premier 283|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
I was going to be working on the articles. If the second city of the UK(Birmingham and the surrounding areas) are not alowed to have transport articles, than why should London??? Or any other area. the articles in question also include National Express West Midlands route 82 and 87 [[User:Dudleybus|Dudleybus]]<sup>[[User talk:Dudleybus|<font color="blue">please talk</font>]][[wikia:uktransport|<font color="blue">with the UK Transport Wiki</font>]]</sup> 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
I was going to be working on the articles. If the second city of the UK(Birmingham and the surrounding areas) are not alowed to have transport articles, than why should London??? Or any other area. the articles in question also include National Express West Midlands route 82 and 87 [[User:Dudleybus|Dudleybus]]<sup>[[User talk:Dudleybus|<font color="blue">please talk</font>]][[wikia:uktransport|<font color="blue">with the UK Transport Wiki</font>]]</sup> 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:33, 18 June 2008
- The Miracle of Geneva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Closing admin closed as delete after only one day (rather than the customary five) claiming WP:SNOW applied, whereas it absolutely did not. WP:SNOW states that "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." The article in question had a good chance of getting what the closing admin believes to be an "unexpected outcome" (keep), as there clearly was not a consensus to delete after a day of discussions on the AfD. Also many of the "delete" arguments are flawed in that the users only wanted to change or remove the title of the article, not the content. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Restore I was about to do the DRV myself but Frank beat me to it. The closing admin miss-represented the SNOW policy/guideline. There wasn't any consensus in the discussion. At the very least the page should be temporarily restored and the AfD reopened for further discussion <Baseballfan789 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reductio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I had the entry on Reductio deleted for copyright violation from the Reductio website (http://reductiotest.org/). I own the copyright to this website so I simply thought I'd copy some of the informative text to Wikipedia, but after reading around, I learned that I must release this text under the GFDL, which is fine by me and I have done exactly this. This can be confirmed by observing the reference to GFDL on all pages of the website at hand. Please restore the contents of the Reductio article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibblego (talk • contribs) 03:50, June 18, 2008 (UTC)
- It appears you've already recreated the page with the text. So there's nothing we can really do here. I'm just going to suggest a speedy close. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Pen y Bryn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Please restore the article to User:Geaugagrrl/sandbox so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. Many thanks ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Always in favor of restoring an article to a sandbox for further development.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- This was deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.llywelyn.co.uk The original contributor asserted in the edit summary that he/she had copyright release but provided no evidence. Unless copyright release is confirmed using the process at WP:CP, this can not be restored even to the userspace. (There were no non-infringing versions in the pagehistory.) Rossami (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment agreed. But it can still be put in the sandbox as a starting point for the editor to get up to quality, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- How can I see the page history? What evidence of copyright is needed? Who was the original contributor? Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have read WP:CP and understand what needs to be done to address the copyright issue. Now all that is needed is the page to edit. Thanks. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 14:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- National Express West Midlands route 283 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I was going to be working on the articles. If the second city of the UK(Birmingham and the surrounding areas) are not alowed to have transport articles, than why should London??? Or any other area. the articles in question also include National Express West Midlands route 82 and 87 Dudleybusplease talkwith the UK Transport Wiki 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support my own decision. This is one of a myriad articles about non-notable company bus routes. This is the kind of trainspotting fancruft that should be in the UK Transport Wiki, not in Wikipedia. If anything, there should probably be a mass AfD for the entire mess of them; I only deleted the first couple I ran across. It would be absurd to say there shouldn't be an article about transport in Brum; but there shouldn't be an article about route 283, for the same reason there shouldn't be an article about bus route 19 in Milwaukee; all such articles are speediable under A7, to my way of thinking. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep dunno how it works in the UK, but in Kansas we have gotten some good value out of our road projects, such as K-9 (Kansas highway) -- also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with a road, it refers to a bus route. It would be equivalent to having a standalone article on Kansas City Metro #129-I-29 Express (which is currently a redirect) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, Okay! The KC Metro bus route redirect example goes to "KC Metro Area" which isn't very helpful, but I don't think anyone has written a KC Metro Bus System article. In this case it might be best to merge the article in question with one on the overall bus routes or systems for the area. That said, it's still not a speedy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with a road, it refers to a bus route. It would be equivalent to having a standalone article on Kansas City Metro #129-I-29 Express (which is currently a redirect) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn. I've got no opinion on the value of the article in question, but I'm pretty sure that bus routes aren't speedy-able under A7, as they are not persons, web content, or organizations themselves ({{db-org}} specifically states that while companies are speedy-able, software and products produced by them are not). If Orange Mike would like to see these deleted, I suggest PROD or AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Steve_McKeown (closed)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. | |||
the reasons for the deletion are not correct, Steve McKeown is engaged to Michelle Bass, He is a Analyst and his book is to be published within the next 8 weeks and is called 'Slimmer Mind'. All this information can be verified and is documented on several search engines. 91.106.42.65 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The PROD rationale read "'Non notable psychtherapist, as-yet unpublished author, partner of a notable person - doesn't seem to stack up to notability'" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Since I deleted this article through Proposed deletion, and any deletions contested under this process should be automatically restored, I have undeleted the article and taken it to Articles for deletion instead. Please make any additional comments (or repeat current comments) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve McKeown. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
various cure album covers
I've noticed that several cure albums are missing cover images. Apparently, the fair use rationals weren't filled out, and it was easier to just delete than to correct the problem. However, the rationales should be fairly obvious (just like every other album), some of these are limited editions which would be difficult to replace, and the replacements would be identical anyway. So I'd like to request these images be undeleted to fix this hole in our coverage:
-Steve Sanbeg (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Steve can you confirm that you will fix the FU rationals if I undelete them? Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)