| Revision as of 17:07, 30 November 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 18:25, 30 November 2006 edit undoTrialsanderrors (talk | contribs)Administrators17,565 edits Gin-Sung - Speedy deletion overturned, now at AfD.Next edit → |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Gin-Sung}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gin-Sung| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] deleted this page saying that it was unsourced and probaly a hoax. The article was sourced and was not a hoax. If he didn't think the sources were reliable enough many other articles on Misplaced Pages use it as a source. Also the reasons he said he deleted it for are not proper criteria to speedy delete an article. The article was also deleted instantly within hours of its creation not giving enough time to properly source it and edit it. The article was not a good canidate for speedy deletion and should of been a normal AfD.] 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' the single source is --] 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete''' and list of AfD. AFAIK, being poorly sourced is not a reason for speedy deletion -- in fact, the idea seems to be heavily opposed. See ] and its associated talk page. ] 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''undelete''' per above. --] <small>]</small> 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' It looks very much like a hoax, thus ] comes into play; looks to me like Jaranda made the right call. ] 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**We don't speedy delete hoaxes, and for good reason. I don't know if this is a hoax or not, more reason to have a full discussion on the matter. --] <small>]</small> 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Coment''' You didnt see the text of the page. ] 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''', even if the reason given was not good. — ] | ] |
|
|
* The only source isn't no where near a valid source see ], nothing else on google, that type of article should have gotten many google hits for ''China's Bigfoot'' looks like a rather obvious hoax on that page see ], no point in relisting this in AFD only to be deleted again, '''Endorse my deletion'''. ] ] 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete''' I can't believe I'm doing this, but... my own googling for the term itself turned up enough net-noise such that I am not certain that the term is a neologism (the creature may well be a hoax, like Bigfoot, but the term isn't isolated in use). I also am aware the article currently lack WP:RS, but it appears that it ''might'' be possible to find them. We might also wish to consider whether a redirect to ], ], or even ] is appropriate. :) ] 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|