My_Tank_Is_Fight! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

My_Tank_is_Fight! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD| AfD2)

Put on proposed deletion while I was away and couldn't object. The deleting administrator said that it had been deleted before and no info had been added since the first time it was deleted, but this is not true. The page had been expanded upon greatly over the time that it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJS77 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, July 15, 2008

• Comment I think PROD deletions get restored merely by asking. Restore and list at AfD to get better resolution rather than speedy deletions. GregManninLB ( talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• While they do, it's a bit more complicated than that... See more history at My Tank is Fight! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• OK. I guess if the speedy deletion was proper, then that is valid even if the speedy deletion reason given would result in a PROD restore. I'm going to have to endorse the deletion as well. GregManninLB ( talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Looks like a case of big "I" and little "i". GregManninLB ( talk) 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Here I'm going to have to endorse the deletion, as it was a recreation of deleted material that didn't fix the issues laid out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Tank is Fight! (2nd nomination). Technically, the addition of the {{ prod}} was incorrect, but the article could merely have been deleted with a {{ db-repost}}. It still had the sourcing issues that it had previously, and I haven't seen any evidence that a good article can be written about it using sources other than Something Awful. I'd be willing to userfy for you if you wanna' have a go at working on it, though. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Recreation of deleted material, thus it will have to go through a full deletion review. Which I would support, as I supported the AfDs (a few of the reasons for deletion where very flimsy such as an editor claiming it was a hoax!) Mathmo ^Talk 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Flight Training Europe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| DRV1| AfD)

For reasons which have already been stated before when this article was previously deleted (and subsequently successfully restored), this article should be restored again due to the company's importance in european civil aviation training. Those that insist on deleting this article obviously are not employed in the world of civil aviation and therefore do not appreciate the gravity of this company's role within the training sphere. Granted, this article has not been updated of late, but this is not grounds for deletion. There are articles also on other flight training organisations such as Oxford Aviation Academy (which together with Flight Training Europe form two of only three Integrated schools approved by the Civil Aviation Authority), which do not suffer this same treatment. Please restore once again, and lets hope we don't keep going around in this circle. Surely there must be some moderators on here which understand something about civil aviation! 82.5.46.104 ( talk) 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion and close. This is not Afd X 2. If you can provide reliable sources, which the linked AfD showed was the problem with the article, then write it in User space and bring it back here. Corvus cornix _talk 20:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems in the AfD discussion nor has any new evidence been presented here which would justify reopening the decision. Unsupported appeals to authority get little weight here at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Those that insist on deleting this article obviously are not employed in the world of civil aviation..' and rightly so, the standard here is not that wikipedia editors in general understand this stuff, it is that they like the rest of the world can look to the reliable sources to understand the claim and give context. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply