Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 2

2 January 2020

Cristian Pache

Cristian Pache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• 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. I should point out as well, that in instituting a redirect, the closer did not include the latest version of the article, thereby omitting much of the information that goes towards the notability of the subject of the article. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note that there was no discussion with me about this redirect before this was listed as required by the DRV instructions so input is clearly not required. I will therefore not be participating in this discussion or taking questions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I had not read that-as you say-discussion with the closer was required by the DRV instructions. Re-reading them now, I still actually do not see that as a requirement. I do though now see it mentioned as an attempt to "consider," so the closer can if there was a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding obviate the need for a discussion. Anyway, I did notify the closer, as required, so if he chooses he can write here. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I participated in the AfD so ignore me when closing this, but not only was the close consistent with the majority of !voters in the discussion (which reflects the current practice of the baseball WikiProject regarding notability of prospects and source analysis for minor league players), none of the keep !voters actually assessed which articles actually qualified Pache for WP:GNG. It is likely Pache will be notable soon, but there's nothing inconsistent with either the editor comments at the AfD or current practice. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I do not see the close as having been consistent with the majority of !voters in the discussion. And the !vote of the first !voter was, as noted, based on a false premise. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism0

Template:Uw-vandalism0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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)