Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 16: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:05, 16 July 2012 editMcewan (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,132 edits →Let Bartlet Be Bartlet: Clarify← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:52, 16 July 2012 edit undoDream Focus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,010 edits →Skeptoid Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:There was plenty of reason given for merge, so no the correct close is not necessarily keep. Merge decisions can be reached at AfD. The NAC was invalid and was discussed here at ANI: ], where the admin reasoning is also given. It doesn't make sense to contend that just because noone voted for deletion except the nom then we ignore merge arguments. Merge decisions are frequently arrived at, at AfD. ] (]) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)		:There was plenty of reason given for merge, so no the correct close is not necessarily keep. Merge decisions can be reached at AfD. The NAC was invalid and was discussed here at ANI: ], where the admin reasoning is also given. It doesn't make sense to contend that just because noone voted for deletion except the nom then we ignore merge arguments. Merge decisions are frequently arrived at, at AfD. ] (]) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
	*Specific (stable) link to discussion that includes my reasoning is . Specific diff where I explained my reasoning is . Note that the article was not deleted, but merged. The actual merging occurred during the AFD, so all I had to provide was the redirect.—](]) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)		*Specific (stable) link to discussion that includes my reasoning is . Specific diff where I explained my reasoning is . Note that the article was not deleted, but merged. The actual merging occurred during the AFD, so all I had to provide was the redirect.—](]) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
			*What was wrong with the non-administrator close? Wasn't there once a interaction ban Kww and Warden? I also think this counts as a supervote, as the keep votes claiming the mention was enough to indicate notability were just dismissed by Kww. The closing administrator should judge the consensus of those participating, not ignore them. Most said keep, not delete/redirect/merge. ] 22:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 22:52, 16 July 2012

< 2012 July 15 Deletion review archives: 2012 July 2012 July 17 >

16 July 2012

Skeptoid

The original close was a proper WP:NAC reverted by a WP:INVOLVED editor and then modified by an administrator without any explanation. No one voted for deletion so the correct close is Keep. CallawayRox (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There was plenty of reason given for merge, so no the correct close is not necessarily keep. Merge decisions can be reached at AfD. The NAC was invalid and was discussed here at ANI: Misplaced Pages:ANI#Invalid_closure, where the admin reasoning is also given. It doesn't make sense to contend that just because noone voted for deletion except the nom then we ignore merge arguments. Merge decisions are frequently arrived at, at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Specific (stable) link to discussion that includes my reasoning is here. Specific diff where I explained my reasoning is here. Note that the article was not deleted, but merged. The actual merging occurred during the AFD, so all I had to provide was the redirect.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
What was wrong with the non-administrator close? Wasn't there once a interaction ban Kww and Warden? I also think this counts as a supervote, as the keep votes claiming the mention was enough to indicate notability were just dismissed by Kww. The closing administrator should judge the consensus of those participating, not ignore them. Most said keep, not delete/redirect/merge. Dream Focus 22:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Let Bartlet Be Bartlet

Inappropriate non-admin closure with a redirect. My request to the editor concerned was deleted without comment. I realise this is not a delete, and I could revert it myself but would like some clarification. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a mistaken review request and should be closed. The AfD has not yet been closed and so there is nothing to review. What has happened is that somebody redirected the article. This can be reverted editorially, and I have done so. Sandstein 20:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for reverting. I'm happy to withdraw this. Just to clarfy, what confused me were the edits in the discussion which mimicked closure Mcewan (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TOFOP

The article about the podcast TOFOP was deleted due to questionable notability, as a result of insufficient sources being available. Since then, in addition to it's regular placings in the Top 10 iTunes comedy podcast charts in Australia, numerous sources have come to light which demonstrate its notability. Some of these are listed here: