Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:36, 24 April 2009

< 2009 April 22

Deletion review archives: 2009 April

2009 April 24 >

List of topics related to Barack Obama

Yet again, a discussion in which there was no consensus has been closed as "delete". I have contacted the administrator concerned on his talk page, and he has declined to reconsider without elaborating on his reasons, so I can only presume that his reason for disregarding the consensus is based on his assessment of the weight of the arguments.

I am rather surprised that his "assessment of the weight of the arguments" is apparently "category is more appropriate", since this point was refuted in the debate—by Linguist at Large, by me, and then subsequently by DHowell and DGG.

There's a very fine line between "assessment of the weight of the arguments" and "closing administrator's personal opinion", and this DRV should consider whether it is possible that line was crossed in this case. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

As nominator, overturn to no consensus (in case that wasn't entirely clear from my nomination). I can't help wondering what's the point of contacting the closing admin on their talk page prior to opening the DRV, since I know of no case in which the closer has ever changed their mind.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus- since the reason listed for deletion is invalid. Categories and Lists can co-exist, having a category on a subject does not mean there cannot be a list. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus- Looks to me like roughly equal numbers making a roughly equal number of good and bad arguments on each side. Closing rationale picks a winner rather than reflecting a consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2009

Civony

This page was deleted within an hour or two of creation. No time was given to apply supporting references Terryrayc (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be reliable independent sources in an article when it's posted. In any case, if there are such sources that show that this game meets WP:WEB, let me know and I'll be glad to undelete. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to give Terryrayc time to add supporting references, then bring it back to DRV when he has (at which point, given decent sources, I would expect the article to be restored).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of creating this page while waiting for wife to pick me up from work. When she got there I didn't want to lose the work I had done, so I saved it, planning on continuing to work on it when I got home. Maybe that wasn't the best thing to do, but I didn't expect it to be deleted before I even go home a few hours later! Can we reinstate the article so I (and others, at least one of whom posted in this forum already) can fill out the article to the wiki standards?

If nothing else, can I at least have it restored to my personal area as I've read is possible.

As a side note, is it standard practice to delete an article so soon after creation? It was hardly up for an hour before it was deleted. It wasn't clear to me a way to save the article so I wouldn't lose my work without posting it. If an article is going to get deleted so quickly, can we improve the wiki interface so it is more clear to the user that he/she can save the article they are working on without it being posted?

If this already exists I apologize for my naivete. But, this further strengthens the reasoning behind my request for more clear instructions on saving w/out posting.

Thanks for your consideration. DrAdamInCA (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe nv

Sandstein told me the page was deleted because it lacked notability. I added several sources proving the notability. The page remained untouched, until Tone deleted it again because he thought I went against the previous deletion review without a valid reason. He told me to repost the deletion review and see what the result is now. .IT (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe NV has never existed; can we get the exact page name please? Stifle (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is Mutoh Europe nv, according to .IT's deleted contributions. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion G4 was applied even though there has never been an actual AfD. While "in DRV endorsed CSD" is almost an AfD, I'm going to suggest we recreate and List for AfD to achieve closure. This is especially true if the content was significantly different (and more sources is certainly significant). Also, I've changed the header and {{DRV links}} to the right article. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Undelete and relist per Usrnme h8er. Deletion process does not appear to have been correctly followed here. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Y'self

I created this article, and was most sickened to see the way it went. Sorry, I didn't see the way it went. It just got Speedy-Tagged, I had no time to edit the article to make it better, didn't even get told about the NOM. This is not allowed, a deletion like this, without warning the person. I am contesting the Delete, and definately the Speedy. Koshoes (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4. Article was userfied by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at Koshoes's request to User:Koshoes/Please Y'self. Koshoes later copy/pasted the exact text from the deleted article with no apparent changes whatsoever back into article space. Article AfD'd, tagged as G4, and deleted as recreation of deleted content. --auburnpilot talk 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid deletion. I think you know a lot more than you're letting on. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a fully valid G4 Speedy, the content appears to have been pretty much identical and the consensus at AfD was clear. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ::I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be [[WP:V|reliable independent sources]] in an article when it's posted.  In any case, if there are such sources that show that this game meets [[WP:WEB]], let me know and I'll be glad to undelete.  [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki|talk]]) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Userfy''' to give Terryrayc time to add supporting references, then bring it back to DRV when he has (at which point, given decent sources, I would expect the article to be restored).—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Black">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="black" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Black" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::I was in the middle of creating this page while waiting for wife to pick me up from work.  When she got there I didn't want to lose the work I had done, so I saved it, planning on continuing to work on it when I got home.   Maybe that wasn't the best thing to do, but I didn't expect it to be deleted before I even go home a few hours later!   Can we reinstate the article so I (and others, at least one of whom posted in this forum already) can fill out the article to the wiki standards?