Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 14 October 2006

< October 8	October 10 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
 -->
-====[[United States military nuclear incident terminology]]====
-[[User:Shell Kinney]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology deleted '''United States military nuclear incident terminology'''] with only the explanation ''"a5, transwikied to another project"'', leaving several broken links that need to be cleaned up.   CSD A5 says:
-<blockquote>'''''Transwikied articles.''' Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded.''</blockquote>
-I [[User talk:Shell Kinney#Page deleted without any information|asked]] the deleting administrator what the reason for deletion was, and the response was, ''"Since the page was a list of definitions and not an encylopedia article, each definition was moved to Wiktionary - when this was completed, the article was deleted."'' I have two issues with this deletion, according to this policy.  I had not seen the page prior to its deletion, but according to [http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-military-nuclear-incident-terminology Wikipedia mirrors] its content seems to suit an encyclopedia better than a dictionary.  I wouldn't even say that it is strictly a "list of definitions" but rather an article about a set of terminology (similar to many articles on Wikipedia).  Second, the transwikification ''does not'' seem to have been properly performed:
-* There doesn't seem to be ''any'' discussion at Articles for Deletion (or anywhere else)
-* Several of the definitions do not appear on Wiktionary at all (I could only find one out of several that I tried)
-* It seems no effort was made to clean up references to this article.
-Overall, this seems to me to be a sloppy deletion that has left somewhat of a mess and a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of a huge topic.  This either needs to be simply undeleted and improved, or the content needs to be moved elsewhere, but it certainly isn't worthy of deletion without discussion. -- [[User:Renesis13|Renesis]] ([[User talk:Renesis13|talk]]) 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-*In what way is this not a copy of a primary source?  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-**What primary source? I didn't think that had anything to do with it. -- [[User:Renesis13|Renesis]] ([[User talk:Renesis13|talk]]) 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn - list at afd''' I don't think these terms belong at Wikitionary and the speedy delete seems out of line with the CSD criteria asks that the issue should have been discussed at afd first. The article needs fleshing out, but there is much more to be said in the article. These are not simple dictionary definition terms, just like [[Air Force One]] and [[DEFCON]] etc. I wouldn't like each term to have its own article, but all in one article seems fine  [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 00:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  This was a mere list of codewords and their meanings with no reasonable possibility of expansion.  Allow a temporary undeletion in order to [[m:transwiki|transwiki]] any definitions which were missed or to transwiki the entire list to a [[Wikt:Category:Appendices|Wiktionary Appendix]] (my preferred solution).  The existing articles can be repointed to the Wiktionary appendix.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn, list at AfD''' [[List of glossaries|Glossaries]] are [[WP:NOT|acceptable]] at Wikipedia, deletion//transwikiing needs community consensus. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 06:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)