| Revision as of 11:20, 30 November 2006 editFish and karate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators36,448 edits →[]: endorse← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:36, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,892 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (265 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
|
|
|
===2006 November 30=== |
|
===30 November 2006=== |
|
<!-- |
|
|
New entry right below here. Add a new entry by typing: ====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Name of deleted page}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Name of deleted page| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Reason to undelete |
|
|
|
|
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving ==page name on deletion review== |
|
|
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. on their talk page. |
|
|
--> |
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Just Dial Communications}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Just Dial Communications| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was only providing information about corporation's history. Please review. |
|
|
:'''Endorse''' until multiple third-party nontrivial reliable sources are given. Please read ]. ] 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Mesilla Valley Mall}} (]) |
|
|
Deleted as part of a mass nomination. Prior to its deletion I improved the article and added several sources, and had planned to continue adding more. If I was able to locate this much information pertaining to the structure, despite that I live nowhere near it and had never heard of it, it should be easy enough for somebody to do the same for the other items. — ] 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' your edits haven't addressed the failure to establish notability or third party sources, at a glance the main elements of the AFD arguments. The subject of the only third party source was the fact that someone "famous" (]) was arrested their, this event doesn't establish any notablility for the mall itself --] 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete'''. I see no reason why CharlotteWebb should be prevented from expanding an article she was working on. ] 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You could say that of any article which ever comes up for deletion, someone merely says I'm working on expanding it and we don't delete? This is actually the point of deletion review, if CharlotteWebb (or anyone else) can shed new light on the subject which address the issues of the AFD then we undelete, so far there hasn't been anything new offered. The sources listed on the current article are 2 sources for the arrest story, the malls own website, various satellite images and streetmap. I'm not sure which of those several sources were added but none address the issues of the AFD, just because you can find streetmaps and satellite images of somewhere doesn't make it magically notable (You can do that for my house, it isn't notable). Indeed if CharlotteWebb improved the article after the AFD commenced, I'd have hated to see it before the improvements, in it's current form there is a four sentence intro, one saying where it is located, one saying when it was built and tow listing store there. There is a section listing stores there (which essentially duplicates some of the intro), there is a larger section than the into describing the arrest for which the mall itself is effectively irrelevant, someone "famous" being arrested there does not make it a notable place, again no more than someone famous being arrested outside my house would make my house a notable place --] 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion''', created by {{vandal|Dvac}}, an employee of the mall's operating company as part of a spamming campaign. Sole claim to fame is being the place where ] was arrested, that story is already covered in Nelson's article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**"Already covered" is a bit of a misnomer, check the timestamps. — ] 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I just happened to notice that another mall deleted (speedily, in fact) by the same admin JzG is doing rather well on AFD (]). I am close to requesting that each of them (some of which I never got the chance to read) be separately listed rather than mass-nominated based on their association with this user you keep calling a vandal. — ] 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse'''. The mall article Charlotte mentions has nothing in common with this article. No problem with a referenced article that asserts notability being created on this mall. The one that was deleted was both unreferenced (the only reference was for the Tyrone Nelson thing), and failed to assert notability (all it said was ''"Mesilla Valley Mall is a shopping mall located in Las Cruces, New Mexico"'', then the inappropriate section about Nelson, then listed the stores. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Freedom Imaging Systems}} — (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides? |
|
|
|
|
|
See also: |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', read ] and ] please. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Warrant officer (Star Trek)}} — (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon (though never clearly established) and numerous times in star trek novels IIRC (not cannon but still human knowledge). It is perhaps best to toss this article to ] as a section. It should still be undeleted and 'Rediretified'. See also: |
|
|
|
|
|
--<small>] ]</small> 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*<s>'''Rediretify''' Make it so!</s> Actually, whats up with this ]? ] 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*As the closing admin, it has been requested that I provide the reasons for the deletion. I closed it as a delete because after 5 days at Afd there was an obvious consensus that it was original research. At the risk of !vote counting, there were 14 deletion votes and none in favour of keeping the article. ]] 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* This article should be restored. It was nominated by someone for deletion who has a history of quick, "in the middle of the night" purges of these Star Trek rank articles without any discussion. Also, the tone of the delete page seems t be from those with a dislike of the subject and a bias from the article. All that aside, Warrant officer has been referenced in at least 3 ] novels, one Star Trek tech manual, a comic book series, and can be found in the costume producers notes for ]. '''UNDELETE''' -] 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse closure''' (re-delete). I see no process problems with the deletion discussion and no new evidence to justify overturning the decision. In fact, it's incredibly rare to see a unanimous deletion discussion like this. Regardless of any hypotheses about the nominator's motivations, the community consensus was clear. I do note that this page was within hours of the closure of the deletion discussion. I can find no justification to support such action in the face of such a clear consensus. Redelete and strip the disputed content back out of the target page. ] <small>]</small> 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** It appears to have been turned into a redirect page now. -] 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** Yes, ''after'' an apparently unjustified undeletion. ] <small>]</small> |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' clear consensus on AfD. No opinion on whether it should be a redirect or not. ] 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Something needs doing about that target article too. I think that there's sufficient problems with verifying ''conjectured'' aspects of a fictional universe that it counts as fancruft. ] <small>] </small> 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' per nominator'sa powerful argument: ''The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon (though never clearly established)'' - i.e. ''speculative'' article on a minor aspect of a ''fictional'' universe. Otherwise known as fancruft. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''', there wasn't a single 'keep' vote - why is this even being reviewed? This has prompted me to AFD the ], which is similarly nothing but conjecture and OR. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:{{la|Cheese house}}; {{la|Cheese House}} {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheese House| — (])|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
This afd a while ago on a marginal vote - I have re-written it and would like it to have another life - but it keeps getting deleted as it has a failed afd in its history ] ] 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The article is slightly expanded from the version deleted via AfD, but no version that I can find has cited any ], which would be required to overturn the AfD. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', ] from the title on, no sources = no compelling reason to overturn AfD. Every appearance that this is a neologism used by a very small number of people. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|