This page was deleted a bunch of times and salted, but since then the group has released its debut album on Tooth & Nail Records and hit the Billboard charts in the U.S.. Would like the title Unsalted now that the group passes WP:MUSIC so that I can write them a decent article. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. Uncontroversial request by an editor in good standing. Go have fun with it, Chubbles. Happy editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The typical action here is to write the article in Userspace first, perhaps at User:Chubbles/Ivoryline. That way, we can assess the new article and, if it stands up to policy, unsalt & move. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Unsalt with full history for Chubbles to improve on, to refer to, if he wishes as he writes a better article. In UserSpace first, might be prudent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the last two editors, I don't really see the need for the red tape. I'm here enough as it is. Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Chubbles, never met you before. Didn't appreciate your good standing. Unsalt as per Chubbles, he knows what he is doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. If the group has a Billboard charting album or single, that is more than sufficient for WP:MUSIC in my book. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The wrong deletion criteria was used as the speedy delete reason. G6 good housekeeping was used twice and that cannot be used twice on the same article. As it is clearly a contested and controvertial deletion. G6 is only for general housekeeping and uncontrovertial deletions. The deleting administartor has used the wrong critreia for deletion. If the administrator still believes the page should be deleted I would suggest the traditional request for deletion and not a speedy deletion. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The archives page is a directory page to the archives it was deleted without warning after the arhived talk page was deleted. This should be considered in conjunction with DRV of the archive page above. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They're not salted, and this appears to be more of a dispute with Rmhermen that we can't really help you with. I'd suggest taking it to dispute resultion. There's very little we can really do here. As for the G6's themselves, I'd have to agree that the talk page is way too short to require archiving. I'd wait until there are at least thirty threads before considering it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dispute between the users it is purly a dispute over weather the articles should have been deleted. I beleieve the process used was wrong and the articles should not have been deleted, that can only be adressed here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The talk page is far too short to require archiving and the archiving was hiding an unanswered complaint. This appeared to be yet another bad faith archiving by Somali123 of which I had to clear up 10 talk pages in total. Working through I also found user's complaining about Lucy-marie's overzealous archiving style; although her name came up first because her talk page was also incorrectly archived by Somali123. Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archives is entirely unneccessary bloat in any case. Rmhermen (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a definitive answer, the G6's were correct in the situation. Whether or not moving the content back is another matter and creating the situation, but not one DRV is concerned with. Rmhermen properly cited G6 here (G8 could've also worked, too). Basically, when they're empty, the deletion is uncontroversial. There's nothing wrong with having the content at the current Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler and no need to archive. Let's say I'm endorsing the deletions and have no opinion on any other actions involved. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Content is, as Lifebaka noted, at the main Talk page, so nothing has been lost. GRBerry 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rusty Harding – Allow recreation. It isn't protected, but once created it might it be helpful to link with {{olddrvfull}} to this DRV. – Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I recently put Boomerang engineer up for deletion. User:Pedant's comments on that article's AfD page suggest to me that, while Boomerang engineer should still be deleted, Rusty Harding, the only person that this term ever seems to have been used to describe, might be eligible for restoration, using the references cited by Pedant in the "Boomerang engineer" AfD discussion as evidence of notability. The Anome (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of Rusty Harding. User:Pedant makes a very good case at the AfD for having an article about Rusty. Using the sources and information provided there, I'm sure a fine article can be written about him. However, the cached version doesn't appear to be that. The AfD for Rusty was closed just fine, and the more recently deleted version wasn't all that great overall, so I'd say recreation is the way to go. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The article that was deleted was not very good, and had history with WP:BLP problems. But were User:Pedant to create the article proposed by his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang engineer, the re-created article would neither be an unreferenced article that fails to make a good case for notability, nor a simple re-creation of deleted content. So I say just do it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: allow recreation per my comments above. Can we close this now, since we seem to have unanimity? -- The Anome (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. (may not get done really fast though, I am swamped this month) I apologise for wasting Wikipedian resources (editor-hours that could be spent writing articles rather than deleting them) by having left such a stubby article to begin with. I must have gotten involved with something else at that time or (insert some sort of valid reason). Thanks, everyone. User:Pedant (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia, and it gets more tiresome that people nominate articles about perfectly notable articles for deletion, simply because they're stubs. I think I have a Fine Woodworking from the 70s (?) with an interview with Harding. This isn't newfound notability, either. --Blechnic (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I created this page about founder of first Serbian Web Journalism School and I wanted to put his publications when this page was deleted Iguana.dragon (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation (not that you need our permission to, the page isn't salted). Assuming the above is true, it's a valid assertion of importance. You might want to wait, however, until you can make sure that he would pass our relevant notability criteria and make sure that the information you use is verifiable in reliable sources. Feel free to ask me if you need any help with it. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close review as unnecessary. The article has not actually been deleted, so no deletion review is needed. I restored the content to the most complete version. The article can now be edited normally. Of course, the article may be considered for deletion at a later time, but right now I don't think that is appropriate. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
