Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 2: Difference between revisions
→Template:Uw-vandalism0: Not a deletion issue. Ask the closer, User:Plastikspork, to relist. If he won't, raise your objection on the talk page of the redirect target. |
Cristian Pache |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Cristian Pache]]==== |
|||
:{{DRV links|Cristian Pache|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Pache|article=}} |
|||
*'''Overturn''' and '''Keep'''. Original deletion decision was not consistent with consensus editor comments at AfD and current policies. FYI, I had expressed my opinion in the discussion in favor of a keep. [[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3|2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3|talk]]) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Template:Uw-vandalism0]]==== |
====[[:Template:Uw-vandalism0]]==== |
||
Revision as of 09:05, 2 January 2020
2 January 2020
Cristian Pache
- Overturn and Keep. Original deletion decision was not consistent with consensus editor comments at AfD and current policies. FYI, I had expressed my opinion in the discussion in favor of a keep. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Uw-vandalism0
I was not notified about the TfD discussion, although I had participated in the previous (2013) discussion and it was the wording which I had proposed in that discussion which was agreed and implemented. The reason given in this new TfD was that the proposer didn't "know of any user or bot who still uses this template in 2019 or 2020 and thus the template is likely to be deprecated". I still prefer the wording to that of Template:Uw-vandalism1 (for example because it suggests looking at the welcome page, rather than pointing new users at the help page before they have been given any other advice) and I have been using it regularly (most recently at User talk:86.146.213.192 yesterday before the redirect was put in place). Those who prefer Template:Uw-vandalism1 are of course welcome to use it, but I see no reason to remove this template from those of us who have been using it. David Biddulph (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Meh. One part of me wants to say, "If somebody is still using this, then the basic premise, that it's unused, is wrong, so restore it.". The other part of me wants to say, "Who cares, it's a substituted template. Just put a copy in your user space and use that." -- RoySmith (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment post-deletion, is there any way to tell how many times this template was used in the last year? I'm for restoring it, but David, if you're one of a select few using it, I'd support the user space option proposed above. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not a deletion issue. Ask the closer, User:Plastikspork, to relist. If he won't, raise your objection on the talk page of the redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)