Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 13

Calin chi wong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

deleting admin might not have caught this but the subject WAS after all the subject of stories at the highest reaches of the print and broadcast media (London Times, New York Times, CBS Evening News, etc. JeanLatore (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I might have !voted to keep the article, but DRV is not AfD, and there is nothing to suggest that the AfD discussion, which plainly bore out a consensus for deletion, was somehow flawed or was undertaken without respect to, or explicitly in contravention of, policy and practice; those participating considered that the subject was the/a subject of various stories and nevertheless adjudged Wong to be non-notable or to have been covered as a primary subject insufficiently to merit encyclopedic treatment. To be sure, if new sources the presence of which one might reasonably expect would have changed the AfD result present themselves, one might try DRV, in order that the community might consider the new information, but there is nothing new, AFAICT, to consider here. Joe 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse near-unanimous deletion, WP:TABLOID. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus in the AFD, decision in line with policy, and no new data in the nomination. GRBerry 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per GRBerry. DRV is not round 2 of AFD, nor is it a place to try speculative relistings in the hope of getting a more sympathetic outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Starsonata-small-banner-logo.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Also nominating Image:Ss palaceattack.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These images were deleted as orphaned fair use after the deletion of Star Sonata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which has since been overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4; the article was subsequently retained per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination). I therefore request that the images be restored so they can be added to the article. John254 19:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore both. They were deleted only because they were orphaned fair-use, and under the circumstances it makese sense. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore both but be prepared to immediately update the image tagging; the old tagging doesn't meet current standards. GRBerry 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image_tags (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Helpful redirect EdwinHJ | Talk 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• This was a helpful rd to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and had been around for several years, deleted and another editor restored it. Deleted again without much process. It does no harm and is useful, no real reason to get rid of it. EdwinHJ | Talk 16:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Redirects#D5 - cross namespace redirects from article to wikispace are not allowed. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• As the deleting administrator, I am firmly neutral. Although it is eligible for deletion because it's a cross-namespace redirect (and if it doesn't, the criteria for speedy deletion should be amended to reflect common practice), I think it's quite a useful and harmless redirect to have around, and wouldn't mind undeleting it. east.718 at 09:14, April 14, 2008
• Endorse deletion - WP:USEFUL isn't going to get us far. Cross-namespace redirects are problematic, and I don't see any reason to give an exception here. -- Kesh (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the consensus, however much I am against it, that cross-namespace redirects aren't allowed. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)