Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:38, 10 July 2006

10 July 2006

King's Highway (Ontario)

14:41, 10 July 2006 Royboycrashfan (Talk | contribs) deleted "King's Highway (Ontario)" (R3 content was: '{{db|R3}}#REDIRECT List of Ontario provincial highways')

I don't understand this. Presumably Royboycrashfan was simply assuming good faith on the part of the person who tagged it R3 ("implausible typo"). But these highways - or rather the ones with low numbers - are known as King's Highways. Who tagged it and can someone speedily undelete it? --SPUI (T - C) 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Course in Miracles (book)

This article was deleted even though the outcome of the AfD discussion was "nomination withdrawn." —Antireconciler 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the AfD, take a look at the second nomination (below the first), it looks like this was renominated but, for some reason, placed in the same page rather than in a new page. I don't have time to split the histories and bring the second nomination into a seperate page, but perhaps another admin has the time and knowhow to do so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways or motorways

Discussion here

The closer was heavily involved in the discussion, and failed to take into account that CFD is not a vote. The current title is misleading (see limited access road), and the only non-ambiguous terms brought forward with the correct scope were "freeways" and "freeways and motorways".

Here is a breakdown of the "votes":

SPUI: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
Scott5114: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
Freakofnurture: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
Youngamerican: "freeways" (never responded to my question about whether "freeways and motorways" is acceptable)
William Allen Simpson: opposed any change (and closed the discussion)
Chicheley: "freeways and motorways"
David Kernow: "freeways and motorways" or "expressway" (an ambiguous term)
Calsicol: "freeways and motorways"
Vegaswikian: "expressway" (an ambiguous term)
Pegship: "high-speed roadways" (an even more ambiguous term)

--SPUI (T - C) 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-list without William Allen Simpson's participation. He closed it as keeping the status quo, however, it is readily apparent that he is the only user in favor of the status quo. — Jul. 10, '06 [15:51] <freak|talk>
Comment: I've notified William Allen Simpson of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, considering that there was approximately 2:1 in favour of ~~not~~ renaming the category, a "no consensus" decision should definitely have been left up to a neutral admin. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, amazing what a word will do to an argument. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I have no opinion on the underlying topic, but it's generally inappropriate for those involved in a debate to also close it. Nandesuka 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted as requested.
- However, just for the record, the previous Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently renamed pursuant to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30, where "Freeways and motorways" was rejected in favor of the current title.
  1. Clearly, I stated Oppose.
  2. User:Chicheley clearly stated Oppose.
  3. User:Vegaswikian clearly stated Strong Oppose.
  4. There was no agreement on any other name that would encompass the category definition "Autobahn, Autoroute, Expressway, Freeway, Highway, Motorway, Superhighway, or Throughway."
  5. With the others suggesting various names and without agreement, no consensus to rename seemed rather obvious to me....
  --William Allen Simpson 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - You counted votes rather than paying attention to the arguments. --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- also worth noting for the record that SPUI wrote the article limited access road (he cited above) after the discussion began, and no professional in the field agrees with his definition; nor his re-write of freeway this week, either. It's very hard to come to consensus when one of the disputants is re-writing the underlying articles at the same time. --William Allen Simpson 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"no professional in the field agrees with his definition" - what the hell are you talking about? Do you have a custom JS that disables citations? --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law School Ranking deletes

I am not sure how to do this, but Crzrussian has deleted some great information that I posted regarding law schools. I was posting the US News Ranking and the Brody and Associate Ranking of numerous law schools. I believe this information to be extremely important. I understand that Crzrussian may have deleted my post because he is a current law student and may have a bias on this issue. I would like the postings to be reviewed by a non-law student who will be able ot be more objective about the usefulness of this information. I do not use this website often, so I am hoping that someone will tell me if I am doing this wrong. Thanks for your time

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 I don't understand this. Presumably [[User:Royboycrashfan|Royboycrashfan]] was simply assuming good faith on the part of the person who tagged it R3 ("implausible typo"). But these highways - or rather the ones with low numbers - are known as King's Highways. Who tagged it and can someone speedily undelete it? --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lumber_Cartel]]====
-As far as I'm concerned abuse of administrative powers. The AfD was only 2 days old, and more people suggested it be deleted than keep, so in no way should it have been closed let alone as a keep. Re-open the AfD and I'd like the admin reviewed for his behaviour. --[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-:As a note I'm reverting it, this admins decision was obviously flawed, but I still want his behaviour reviewd. As far as I'm concerned this is using admin powers to push PoV. At 12 deletes, 5 keeps and a couple of merges, there IS no concensus for keep, or closure at this point.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-:Already re-opened, Dragonfly reverted, and I've re-opened again and hope that Dragon won't war further, and we can let this run its course. Rewrites of articles during the AfD should be discussed during that same AfD. Personally, if I close an AfD where the article has been improved midway through it, I give less weight to editors who argue for deletion before the improvements were made unless those improvements are addressed as not being sufficient. I expect other admins do the same. There's no need to close discussions early every time an improvement is made to the article. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 20:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-::He's the one who rewrote it. Then immediately closed the AfD, he didn't allowe discussion.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-::As a side note, he's also protected the article from editing while he supposedly works on it, this is entirely inappropriate behaviour.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[A Course in Miracles (book)]]====