Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 17: Difference between revisions
Add header |
→[[Cebu Island]]: New article created (in English), history-only undeletion request can be filed there |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
--> |
--> |
||
==== [[Cebu Island]] ==== |
|||
This was deleted last year due to non-english content. It was posibly overwritten by a foriegn language author but if there is nothing (en.wiki VER) in its history I could try to translate it back to english. --[[User:Mkouklis|Mkouklis]] 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The edit you're referring to wasn't actually non-english content, that version of the article consisted solely of an interwiki link to the Dutch article. Since then a full stub has been written. The deleted edits could be restored (you would normally use the 'history only section' of this page for that) but I don't see much point. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Walburgia]] ==== |
==== [[Walburgia]] ==== |
||
Revision as of 18:31, 19 September 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
17 September 2006
Walburgia
I nominated the article Walburgia for deletion, for being about a non-notable football (soccer) club. Two editors replied to the nomination (Fram and NawlinWiki), both agreeing with me. This to me comes across as a consensus to delete. User:Deville decided otherwise, however. He closed the discussion as "redirect to Ohé en Laak, their location, as I've already merged all the info in this article to there." [1] If there is a consensus to delete for non-notability, that imo is not solved by simply copypasting the info into another article. Ohé en Laak was a redlink, and it's great that it has been turned into a bluelink. But that should not be done by adding information that has been declared non-notable, and that had a consensus to delete. I have removed the reference to the football club from the article, but I would still like input from other editors in this matter, to establish some sort of guideline for future cases. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 11:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was the closing admin on this, and whatever people decide to do here is fine with me. The only reason I didn't delete the article is that I used the information in the earlier edits to merge into the Ohé en Laak (which, incidentally, is where that information belongs in the first place). In any case, I was under the impression that I was constrained by the GFDL to keep the history of the Walburgia article around because of that. If a deletion is acceptable under the GFDL in this case, then I am fine with a deletion. As an indepedent issue, I don't see any reason why this information shouldn't be in the article on Ohé en Laak. --- Deville (Talk) 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)