Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Template:unblockabuse]]: closing moribund debate
→‎[[Freebord]]: closing moribund debate
Line 9: Line 9:




====[[Freebord]]====
I am not aware of the reason for deletion of this article, as it was a prod candidate. I object to the deletion based on the following two reasons: Firstly, there has been a timely and justified [[Talk:Freebord|objection to the deletion]], albeit by an anonymous user on the talk page. Secondly, because I can fully follow his arguments. Freebording is one of the most popular skateboard downhill sports, next to downhill longboarding, and imho deserves an article. -- [[User:Ravn|Ravn]] 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


*It was a PROD; see [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion]]. There were five days to object to the deletion and nobody could be bothered. I personally couldn't care one way or the other; I'm just the guy clearing out the category. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|<font color="#7b68ee">Connect</font>]]</small>)</font></span> 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
**You're not supposed to just "clear out the category", you're supposed to look at each article and only delete it if ''you'' think it should be deleted and you're supposed to provide an informative deletion summary stating your reasons. Your deletion summary was: "WP:PROD listings tagged since July 3, 2006" ([[WP:PROD]]: "If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod."). [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 10:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

*If anyone objects to a prod, even after the deletion has happened, we undelete. If anyone still wants this deleted it should be taken to deletion review. Does anyone mind if I undelete this now and close the discussion? [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
**I don't think anons should be considered to have standing to object. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
***They can remove tags, though. It's supposed to be an easy system - add the tag, if it's disputed, the tag is removed or the article is undeleted. AfD is the next stepif it's to be pursued further. Hell, I missed this tag, so if you're unhappy with the anon's dispute, I'll toss my hat in there as well. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*Hang on, there. If there is an objection, it goes to AfD, not article heaven, doesn't it? If you tag it for AfD, I have no objection. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, I'll undelete and make a procedural AfD nomination. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::Done. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

*Thanks. The article is apparently just not that big or well-monitored that a change may not go unnoticed for five days. And judging from the content, I can perfectly understand that it can get proposed by accident by someone who is not familiar with the subject. -- [[User:Ravn|Ravn]] 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*This was now out-of-process speedy kept in the corresponding AfD. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
**I have reverted Mikkalai's improper speedy close. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


====[[List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity]]====
====[[List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity]]====

Revision as of 18:13, 16 July 2006

8 July 2006

List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity

The List survived a vote for deletion, but someone deleted it anyway. It was a heated discussion, so someone may have become overzealous. All the links to it still exist in other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2nd (slightly more recent) AfD here, where, just bean-counting, there does seem to be a consensus to delete. The second one did start only just over a week after the first ended though. Maybe they remembered to pay the "Inclusionist Wikipedians group" a kickback the second time around. --W.marsh 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it wasn't "just deleted", it was AFDed and deleted. It looks like the AFD was conducted properly too (unlike the first AFD which was subjected to mass spamming of Inclusionists by the DRV submitter User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )). Anyway, I don't see any reason to overturn this AFD on the grounds of process and there's no new information. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having closed the first AfD (after someone else did, so I reverted myself), I think I'll just make a comment. I thought that spamming inclusionists to get this kept was extremely tacky. I didn't care either way whether this article is kept or deleted, but what I wanted to see was a real consensus for this article. The second AfD was nominated very soon after the first one, but it's not so bad for a "No consensus" AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid per process and per policy. Disparity of five to ten years? Perfectly normal in my parent's generation (1960s). This list would potentially cover vast numbers of "slebrity" second marriages. Just zis Guy you know? 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Conforms to process and consensus. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion, improper DRV request, there was nothing out of process in the deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as closer, I looked at the consensus, which was way obviously to delete. Therefore I deleted it. Speedy close if possible, as nothing out of process, or even questionable. Unlinke some of my other closes which make it to DRV, I didn't even have to assess the quality of comment or reasoning. Proto///type 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vokzal

Deletion out of process. User:Mikkalai deleted the article with its edit history and immedietely re-created it as a redirect (although, wrong). The deleted article's edit histery contained an informative version which should not be deleted without discussion. Besides, the article is necessary for describe Russian railroad transport features in numerous articles.--Nixer 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I have notified User:Mikkalai of this DRV. --W.marsh 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. It is an ordinary Russian word that happen to have several translations. Railway station, bus station, riverboat station. If a user wants to describe Russian rairoad transport, they better write an article Railway stations in Russia. We don't create article magazin, gazeta (wow! who would have known there is one), khleb, kolbasa, palto, obschezhitiye, etc., to describe shops, newspapers, bread, sausage, coat, dormitory, although all these things have Russian peculiarities not found elsewhere in the world. `'mikka (t) 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legend of how vokzal came to be the Russian word for station is one of my favourite urban legends. It's undoubtedly encyclopaedic, but seems to be adequately covered where it is. So endorse status quo, a reidrect to Vauxhall. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nixer's article (I undeleted the history) is nowehere close to encyclopedic. "usually contains waiting room, cargo safe chamber, cafeteria, mother and child room and other facilities" there is nothing particularly Russian: almost every reasonably large railway station in the world has this. `'mikka (t) 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD: Let the voters have a crack at this. To me, it looks like a general dictdef, which is a violation, but let's let the folks decide. If it passes there, fine. If it doesn't, fine. (It hasn't had a shot on AfD, has it?) Dictdefs are not candidates for SD, so it has to go through the slower channel. Geogre 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Mikka is right: the deleted article was completely generic and actually less informative than the redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, but this was contested. I think the end result will be deletion, which would effectively mean a redirect instead (as anyone can take that action), but we might as well satisfy the objectors so that they know that it isn't some Rouge thing. The user wants to see it get considered? Fine. We'll let him or her see what happens when it is considered, as I doubt it will be kind. Still, we could be wrong. Geogre 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The redirect into Vauxhall is not relevant. Better it should be redirected to Rail terminal rather then a borough of London.--Nixer 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no english word vokzal, so redirect to "train station" or "rail terminal" or whatever is utterly confusing. My redirect to vauxhall article at least puts the word into English context. `'mikka (t) 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word is used in numerous articles about Russian rail transport. So when a person follows the link, he expects the description connected to rail transport, but what does he see? An article about London's borough.--Nixer 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The content of the article consisted of folk etymology and original research so typical for User:Nixer. Vokzal is the Russian word for train station, hence my redirect to that article was justified. This is English Wiki, so please use English. There is no characteristic by which Russian train stations differ from train stations in other countries so as to warrant a separate entry. A slightly different case is kurzal which may deserve an article for itself. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russian vokzals differ from other Russial train stations, so it shoul be described.--Nixer 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "popular etimology" is by linguist Lev Uspenskiy--Nixer 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Ghirla. We won't make pages for each Russian word if a page in English exists... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. KNewman 10:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-add redirect, preserving edit history. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know - Vokzal means a terminal station - the end of the line - an ordinary station is a stantsia Spartaz 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Ghirla. No need for a redirect. -- JHunterJ 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_8&oldid=64147436"