Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:49, 7 April 2010

< 2010 April 6

Deletion review archives: 2010 April

2010 April 8 >

7 April 2010

London Buses route articles

London Buses route 66 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) – this article and the subsequent four were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77. Their page histories were deleted and redirects were later created. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the recent London Bus Route deletions were closed as keep. For those that were deleted, the lack of notability was claimed. But at the very worst, they should have been closed as a merge/redirect to a parent article, with edit history retained, so in the future, in the event sources are provided (which is very likely given some arguments), the last version can be pulled up, and improved from there. Dew Kane (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've organized the links for easier viewing of the deletion debates. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If in the future sources are provided why can't the articles go to WP:REFUND as required, why are these articles special such that we wouldn't treat them the same way as others? (See Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system for the rejected proposal to implement deletion as blanking of pages) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed PWD has had some debate recently --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(closer's comment) I don't really care whether most of the other recent debates were closed as keep or not, I can't imagine e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331 in its current state being closed as anything but a delete or a redirect (not a merge, not much use in "merging" to List of bus routes in London). The articles I deleted are now redirected, which is fine by me. If anyone wants in the future to recreate these articles when more and better sources have become available, then I have no problem with userfying them at that time. Fram (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squared Circle Wrestling

This is no longer a small wrestling company and is reference throughout wiki and desrves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.178.124 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 * If in the future sources are provided why can't the articles go to [[WP:REFUND]] as required, why are these articles special such that we wouldn't treat them the same way as others? (See [[Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system]] for the rejected proposal to implement deletion as blanking of pages) --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 06:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 ** Just noticed PWD has had some debate [[Wikipedia:VPPR#Pure wiki deletion, redux|recently]] --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
+*(closer's comment) I don't really care whether most of the other recent debates were closed as keep or not, I can't imagine e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331]] in its current state being closed as anything but a delete or a redirect (not a merge, not much use in "merging" to [[List of bus routes in London]]). The articles I deleted are now redirected, which is fine by me. If anyone wants in the future to recreate these articles when more and better sources have become available, then I have no problem with userfying them at that time. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 ====[[:Squared Circle Wrestling]]====