Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 25: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Articles for deletion]]: closing (leave as redlink) |
→[[Template:User Socialist]]: closing (del. endorsed per GUS) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
====[[Template:User Socialist]]==== |
|||
Speedied by {{admin|Tony Sidaway}}, restored less than an hour later by {{admin|Mike Rosoft}}, and most recently speedied by {{admin|Doc glasgow}}.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Template%3AUser+Socialist] The fact that the box was so speedily unspeedied indicates to me that some discussion is needed. I suspect this deletion was frivolous for two reasons: First, it cites the nonexistent CSD T2. Second, Doc glasgow has been reprimanded for vandalism lately. (He claims to have retired from editing, but [[Special:Contributions/Doc_glasgow|hasn't]].) [[User:NeonMerlin|<span style="background-color:#000000;color:#00ff00;text-decoration:underline overline"><span style="color:#ff0000">Neon</span></span>]][[User talk:NeonMerlin|<span style="background-color:#00ff00;color:#ff0000;text-decoration:underline overline"><span style="color:#000000">Merlin</span></span>]] 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Userfy''' them somewhere per the [[Wikipedia:German userbox solution|German userbox solution]] (but I endorse the original deletion). --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep deleted''', doesn't belong in template space. The days of arguing over templated userboxes are ''long'' past. The [[WP:GUS|German userbox solution]] is here to stay. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*And by the way that is a really frivolous, ad hominem, and ultimately irrelevant attack on Doc Glasgow. How is it relevant at all if he's made two contributions within the past month? He probably still reads articles and fix typos as he sees them, he just doesn't edit regularly anymore. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Just look at his recent contributions. He's hardly retired. He would just prefer to keep a low profile. --[[User:71.36.251.182|71.36.251.182]] 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''Comment''' It's like when someone says they plan to avoid userboxes in their RfA then ends up deleting them regardless. It raises questions about how to weigh their statements & actions. It's not conclusive of anything, but it goes into the mix. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Endorse''' as usual. [[WP:GUS]] applies. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*This happened two ''months'' ago. What the deuce? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Just take a look at Doc's recent contributions. I'm not in a position to verify that all of his recent delete & protection moves follow after userfication, but I am doubtful that this is the case. He has gone on a massive spree of template deletion and protection - at the very least, it would be wise to ensure that these are userfied boxes before the deletions were implemented. Barring that, I would ask that they all be userfied to an appropriate archive in user space. --[[User:71.36.251.182|71.36.251.182]] 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Doc's made two edits in the last three weeks and is no longer an administrator (by his request). Forgive me for asking, but you do realize this is late July, yes? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep deleted and userfy code''' as per the German solution. <small>[[User:Pegasus1138|Pegasus1138]]</small><sup>[[User talk:Pegasus1138|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Pegasus1138|Contribs]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Pegasus1138|Email]]</sup> ---- 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Userfy''' as [[User:Disavian/Userboxes/Socialist]]. —[[User:Disavian|Disavian]] ([[User talk:Disavian|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Disavian|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 19:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Restore''', as the only reason it was deleted was a CSD that has been revoked. Userfying is a distant second preference. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Keep deleted'''. I think this box was already userfied somewhere anyway. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 16:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Restore''' with the understanding that [[WP:PII|process]] & [[Wikipedia:consensus|consensus]] are both valuable to this project. The back & forth on the speedy of this template is evidence that its deletion warrants discussion, not unilateralism. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep deleted''' unused - and already userfied. --[[User:Aoratos|Aoratos]] 01:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Template:User NDP]]==== |
====[[Template:User NDP]]==== |
||
Revision as of 14:48, 30 July 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)
25 July 2006
Template:User NDP
Similar reasoning as with #Template:User Socialist. Was undeleted after 14 minutes the first time; Sjakkalle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid his/her own deletion of the page. Finally deleted by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) citing WP:CSD#T1. I think some discussion is needed. NeonMerlin 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy them somewhere per the German userbox solution (but I endorse the original deletion). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, doesn't belong in template space. The days of arguing over templated userboxes are long past. The German userbox solution is here to stay. --Cyde↔Weys 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That depends, of course, on people actually implementing the solution properly. Are all of the recently deleted templates userfied? --71.36.251.182 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's the responsibility of the people who want to continue using them, really. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. If the userboxes aren't being requested, they're not really "in demand". --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's the responsibility of the people who want to continue using them, really. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That depends, of course, on people actually implementing the solution properly. Are all of the recently deleted templates userfied? --71.36.251.182 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Restore, neither divisive nor inflammatory. Userfy as a distant second solution. Note that WP:GUS is far from consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Restore per Stifle, since WP:GUS has not reached a level of consensus. Also, restore because process & consensus are both valuable to this project. The back & forth on the speedy of this template is evidence that its deletion warrants discussion, not unilateralism. --Ssbohio 00:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted or userfy is someone wants it. --Aoratos 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Dennis Allen
Stub biography on a notable and encyclopedic Australian person who is mentioned in many crime related books and newspaper articles publishing during the 1980's. Comments left when the article was proposed for deletion were This article does not establish encyclopedic notability; conviction of rape is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for an encyclopedia article; neither is allegations of murder or drug dealing. There is no evidence given for his single crime being a particular cause célèbre of the time, or having any effect on contemporary law, culture or criminology. There are absolutely no sources given, and an article such as this cannot be kept without them. References were added after being requested however the proposed deletion tag wasn't removed and the deletion went ahead. I feel this article was unfairly deleted. -- Longhair 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Articles that are deleted bcause of proposed deletion should not be sent to Deletion Review, rather they should be restored and discussion should be on AFD if necessary. I have restored it.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)