Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 15
15 January 2007[edit]
Xavier Rhone – Deletion endorsed – 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
He is getting more popular, and people need to know of him67.183.248.48 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
A Doemain of Our Own – Listed at AfD – 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Another speedy deleted webcomic by this admin Naconkantari (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#A7. The article had undergone an AfD in 2005 and should have been nominated if the admin felt that it does not belong. The comic is published by Plan 9 Publishing and is a hosted on Keenspot. I move to overturn the deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Subsidairy Alliance – Redirect set to new target subsidiary alliance – 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This redirect pointed at Subsidiary Alliance and was deleted at WP:RFD. See the RfD log from 6 January 2007 for the discussion. Now, looking at the history of the Subsidiary Alliance article, someone obviously made the typo confirming that it is a plausible typo—in fact, someone also had made the typo Subsidairy allaince which still exists. So that refutes the delete suggestions of the nominator and two of the five editors in favour of deletion who based their opinion on the fact that it's an unlikely typo. The other three who moved to delete this article relied on the comment "Seeing as how the main article isn't goin got be hanging around, no need for the redirect." This is not only poor practise, but the target will likely be merged into subsidiary alliance which is a more developed article and is not nominated for deletion. In my eyes the delete arguements are not sufficient and I suggest recreation of this redirect with subsidiary alliance as its target. BigNate37(T) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |