Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 26: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Aice5]]: closing (del. endorse, but unprot.) |
→[[Emmalina]]: closing (unprotect only; see extended closing remarks) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' |
|||
<!-- |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/NAMESPACE:PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} For a DRV, this is a complex case. Numerically, we've got a "tie" between relisters and endorsers with Hahnchen's "unprotect" stuck right in the middle. Hahnchen gets to play [[King Solomon]] today, showing the way to a compromise. I will unprotect the redirect, and allow normal editorial processes to proceed. If Emmalina is resurrected as a validly-sourced article, it may have a new AfD -- an outcome which is not offensive to common sense, since GRBerry's valid point about a change in circumstance has equal support below; if editors decide (via talk-page consensus or merely lack of interest in rewriting) to maintain Emmalina as redirect, that too is a sound outcome, consistent with the discussion below. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Emmalina]]==== |
====[[Emmalina]]==== |
||
Line 50: | Line 57: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion / subsequent redirection / closure'''. The right decision was made. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion / subsequent redirection / closure'''. The right decision was made. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Restore article''' due to deletion of [[Notable YouTube memes]]. I was content with having the latter page suffice for this, but since the absurd decision was taken to delete it, all notable YouTubers now need independent articles. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Restore article''' due to deletion of [[Notable YouTube memes]]. I was content with having the latter page suffice for this, but since the absurd decision was taken to delete it, all notable YouTubers now need independent articles. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div> |
Revision as of 17:15, 31 October 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)