→Gamma_Alpha_Lambda: closing: Deletion endorsed |
→Wikipedia:Long usernames: closing: Overturn to delete. |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
====[[:Wikipedia:Long usernames]]==== |
====[[:Wikipedia:Long usernames]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Wikipedia:Long usernames]]''' – '''Overturn to delete'''. Nearly everyone who expressed an opinion here — even those endorsing the decision — stated that the consensus in the MfD in question was to delete the page. Thus, consensus was interpreted incorrectly by the closing administrator; therefore, the decision is overturned to delete. – — [[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;"> // </span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{DRV links|Wikipedia:Long usernames|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long usernames|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Wikipedia:Long usernames|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long usernames|article=}} |
||
Line 47: | Line 55: | ||
*'''Blank content''', keeping the tag, and the content in history. The majority of !voters went for "delete", although many wrongly (arguably) cited WP:DENY as mandating or justifying "delete", as blanking is arguably a preferable way to deal with such things (blanking denies recognition more effectively than staging community MfD & DRV debates). I guess that the closing admin saw this, or another weakness to the delete rationales, or recognised the vary valid point that we do and should try to avoid deleing our history. If the consensus were not for a full delete, it was certainly for a '''blank and mark historical''', as per my & Ned's !votes, and consistent with Graham87's comments. The only other keep !votes by Stifle, and comment from Graeme Bartlett, did not specify whether the offensive content should or should not be removed from the continuing tagged page. Blanking the long usernames seems a pretty easy solution to most, and middle ground mostly satisfying everyone. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Blank content''', keeping the tag, and the content in history. The majority of !voters went for "delete", although many wrongly (arguably) cited WP:DENY as mandating or justifying "delete", as blanking is arguably a preferable way to deal with such things (blanking denies recognition more effectively than staging community MfD & DRV debates). I guess that the closing admin saw this, or another weakness to the delete rationales, or recognised the vary valid point that we do and should try to avoid deleing our history. If the consensus were not for a full delete, it was certainly for a '''blank and mark historical''', as per my & Ned's !votes, and consistent with Graham87's comments. The only other keep !votes by Stifle, and comment from Graeme Bartlett, did not specify whether the offensive content should or should not be removed from the continuing tagged page. Blanking the long usernames seems a pretty easy solution to most, and middle ground mostly satisfying everyone. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''', I was a bit surprised by the decision, but it's certainly well within admin discretion. It's not worth making a fuss over. Another solution would be to actually *update* the page. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''', I was a bit surprised by the decision, but it's certainly well within admin discretion. It's not worth making a fuss over. Another solution would be to actually *update* the page. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Gamma_Alpha_Lambda]] (closed)==== |
====[[:Gamma_Alpha_Lambda]] (closed)==== |
Revision as of 22:12, 19 July 2009
12 July 2009
Owl City (closed)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting Unsalting and Restoring of the prior article (which I believe was reasonably well fleshed out) because, since the last AfD, the band charted in the United States twice. Further sourcing is readily available. Chubbles (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:Long usernames (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I feel consensus was completely ignored by the closing admin Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I've tried to resolve this here, but it did not work, so I'm bringing this to DRV. Aditya α ß 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Gamma_Alpha_Lambda (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This sorority is a national organization with 4 current chapters in various universities. These chapters each have met the requirements set forth by their universities for a sorority. The organization is still young (6 years) which accounts for their relatively low notoriety amongst other areas of the country. However, much of their logo, sorority necklace, name, etc have been copyrighted with the U.S. government since their establishment and as they are now Gamma Alpha Lambda, Inc., they are no longer a "non-notable sorority" A full website is available to confirm information. This sorority is definitely notable and worthy of being on Wikipedia, especially as more chapters are added in the coming years. Gal3130 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Make It Home (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |