Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 July 18
2014 July 20 >

19 July 2014

  • List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies – Endorse deletion. Regarding the request to recover the original text, normally I would userfy the article, but given the WP:BLP concerns, I'm going to decline to do that in this case. If some other admin feels differently about userfying this, I won't stand in their way, but I'm going to err on the side of caution here. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't exactly understand why this article was deleted. Many of the later world cups have corresponding articles. Many of the assertions were backed up with references, so I don't think it's fair that this article wasn't given a chance. Or do you want to delete the others too becuase they are not notable? Bokoharamwatch ( talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Well, it was deleted because someone thought the article was WP:LISTCRUFT and non-notable. The nominator also thought the article was unduly negative, which is a problem when living persons are concerned. The discussion was open for ten days and no one dissented from these views. As a point of principle you probably should have asked Spinningspark to reverse himself before coming here, but he couldn't have closed it any other way. A WP:RELIST might have been possible given the low participation, but the commenters made good points, including the possibility of adding sourced commentary to 2002 FIFA World Cup. The process was entirely in order; in fact the debate ran several days longer than required. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for replying. Is there any way I can recover the source code of the article? I want to pass it through the article creation vetting process - I don't want this nonsense repeating itself. Bokoharamwatch ( talk) 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - close was sound. I wouldn't be opposed the author making a new submission via AFC but I would strongly suggest he contact at least those who participated in the discussion to ensure he has adequately addressed the concerns they raised. The BLP violations are an obvious issue and any new content would need to address that before formal submission. St★lwart 111 05:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Westshore Town Centre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Discussion with closing admin is at [1]

(1) The primary problem here is that this AfD should have been relisted instead of closed.

(2a) A secondary problem is the offer in the closing for WP:Merge and delete.  WP:Merge and delete states,

  • "The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved.",
  • "...a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect", and
  • "...admins should feel free to interpret 'Merge and delete' votes as 'Merge.' "

(2b) Another secondary problem is that of whether or not there was a consensus to delete.  Including the consideration in the close for merge and delete, if there was a consensus, it was for merge.

(2c) Another secondary problem is that there is no policy basis for a delete in this case.  As it stands, this is an unnecessary loss to the community of content contributions.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse the substance of the close, which is to axe an article about a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. The consensus was clearly against that view and there was no need for a re-listing. On a technicality: the close should be endorsed except to the extent that the article would be temporarily restored for the purposes of a merge. As the nominator states, the article's history would need to be permanently restored, underneath the redirect, for any merging of content to be properly attributed. What all of this means is that the article should be restored, and converted into a redirect, thus allowing a merger to take place. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to merge and redirect. I think Unscintillating should dial back his comments but it's a strange close that deletes but offers a temporary restoration for merging purposes. Wikipedia:Merge and delete is an essay but it captures the essential problem with that outcome, and Scottywong is too dismissive of it. Northamerica100 favored a merge, and I think it's possibly the editors who favored a redirect did as well (one of them agreed with Northamerica100 but didn't state it explicitly). Presumably Unscintillating would favor a merge over outright deletion. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Take no action. I'd normally endorse, but for the "merge and delete" offer, which of course we can't do. However, the article title has already been re-purposed for a redirect to Westshore_Town_Centre#Attractions, and the only sourced fact in the original article is already there, so I'm not sure that a "Merge" verdict would be anything other than process wonkery at this point, as there is nothing to merge. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Take no action. What Lankiveil said. His analysis hits the nail on the head. Also agree with Mkat on those points (only) where he essentially gets to the same place ("a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable"). As to the closer's view that the consensus was to close it as a delete (contra Un's assertion here), I agree with the closer. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse delete, but clarify the offer to restore. Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect (history available for merging) were all within admin discretion, but merging was not. User:Northamerica1000 failed to meet Epeefleche's challenge of WP:Merge what? (essay). ( This edit and this comment should be covered by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed.) Unscintillating had started an earlier discussion above the section already linked, as well as WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 142#Westshore Town Centre. Scottywong was unconvinced, and User:Amatulic declined the REFUND along those lines. Scottywong's exact wording in AfD's closing statement has been superseded by his rejection of Unscintillating's request. Flatscan ( talk) 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding the WP:REFUND discussion, it was not I who restored the redirect, but once it was restored, the process as per WP:DRVPURPOSE B7 is to request WP:REFUND.  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  Once consensus for the redirect (topic) existed, there was no applicable content policy for keeping the edit history (content) away from non-admins.  Likewise, [see point (2c) of the DRV request] with an alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion in the first place.  What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?  Unscintillating ( talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know how I can competently discuss "specific useful content or attribution problems" when the article has been 30 days since being deleted, and the edit history has not been restored for this DRV.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The RfC was closed with consensus for equal weight among keep, merge, redirect, and delete (prompt option #4), which is incompatible with and an implicit rejection of "deletion is a last resort". That only one participant used the exact wording is not a material criticism. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The closing had to do with comparing the weights of merge and redirect !votes with delete and keep !votes.  The closer said nothing about deletion being or not being a last resort, nor do I see any reason to think that this was being considered in the closing.  WP:Deletion policy states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  In the context, "editing" means those things that can be done without admin tools.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That RfC is long, but there are possibly four more editors who mention in passing that as a matter of policy, we should avoid deletion.  Two expressed this as, "If in doubt, don't delete."  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Whether or not deletion is the last resort, deletion was explicitly identified here as an "executive decision", i.e., WP:IAR.  Regarding my unanswered question, "What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?", the answer appears to be that there are no benefits.  On the other hand, the deletion has had WP:BURO disadvantages, because editors who have had reasons to use the edit history have not been able to do so.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding point (1) of the DRV request involving WP:RELIST: none of the four AfD commentators were agreed.  In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Looking a bit today at the sources, I see that no mention was made at the AfD of the alternate name "Canwest Mall".  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating ( talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – On User:Scottywong's talk page I have requested userfication of the deleted article to my userspace to enable a merge of some of the content to Langford, British Columbia. I recall having adding sources to the deleted article, so that content could be merged to improve the Langford, British Columbia article. NorthAmerica 1000 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question  With reference to point (1) of the DRV request involving WP:RELIST: In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  As relates to point (2c) of the DRV request, with an alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion.  Note that there is no dispute for the redirect (topic).  Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Restore the article's history under the redirect. Unscintillating, a good faith editor, believes the encyclopedia would benefit with the article's history preserved under the redirect. Unless the deleted article violated a core policy like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (no evidence of that has been presented here), I think his reasonable request should be granted. As Unscintillating writes above:

    Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?

    The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

    A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

    Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

    In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

    Cunard ( talk) 06:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Why should Unscintillating's opinion, supported by technicalities, be raised above the other AfD participants? He has had plenty of time to compose an argument on the merits: a few days between his first edit to the AfD and its closing, and a month since. If you believe that Scottywong misjudged the consensus or the value of the history, then you should recommend overturn explicitly. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
      • RoySmith, the only editor who explicitly mentioned "delete" in the AfD writes below, "agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect". I don't see a consensus to keep the article's history deleted.

        I endorse the finding that the mall is not notable and should not exist as an a stand-alone article, but disagree with the decision to keep the article history deleted after a request by a good faith editor. Cunard ( talk) 05:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Text revised. Cunard ( talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

        • Cunard -- As nom, I was another editor who explicitly sought deletion at the AfD (I nominated the topic for deletion). And I agree with Flat here. From the AfD it is clear that this was a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. Epeefleche ( talk) 17:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
          • I have fixed the typo in my previous comment. Cunard ( talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
        • I consider restoring the history to be overturning Scottywong's close, especially after he affirmed the delete by declining Unscintillating's and Northamerica1000's requests. My recommendation would be different if there were a legitimate attribution problem or if someone had advanced a convincing argument based on specific content. Flatscan ( talk) 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
          • WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply, through which it is not necessary to overturn anything to reach a proper result.  As I stated here, restoring the edit history moots my discussion with the closing administrator.  This remains true, even now.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, sort of. The only real point of non-consensus is what is the proper redirect target. Two participants suggested Langford, British Columbia, I suggested List of shopping malls in Canada. I'm perfectly happy to amend my suggestion to also support Langford, British Columbia. Now we have consensus on where to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Oh, and yes, agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_July_19&oldid=1038552419"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 July 18
2014 July 20 >

19 July 2014

  • List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies – Endorse deletion. Regarding the request to recover the original text, normally I would userfy the article, but given the WP:BLP concerns, I'm going to decline to do that in this case. If some other admin feels differently about userfying this, I won't stand in their way, but I'm going to err on the side of caution here. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't exactly understand why this article was deleted. Many of the later world cups have corresponding articles. Many of the assertions were backed up with references, so I don't think it's fair that this article wasn't given a chance. Or do you want to delete the others too becuase they are not notable? Bokoharamwatch ( talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Well, it was deleted because someone thought the article was WP:LISTCRUFT and non-notable. The nominator also thought the article was unduly negative, which is a problem when living persons are concerned. The discussion was open for ten days and no one dissented from these views. As a point of principle you probably should have asked Spinningspark to reverse himself before coming here, but he couldn't have closed it any other way. A WP:RELIST might have been possible given the low participation, but the commenters made good points, including the possibility of adding sourced commentary to 2002 FIFA World Cup. The process was entirely in order; in fact the debate ran several days longer than required. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for replying. Is there any way I can recover the source code of the article? I want to pass it through the article creation vetting process - I don't want this nonsense repeating itself. Bokoharamwatch ( talk) 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - close was sound. I wouldn't be opposed the author making a new submission via AFC but I would strongly suggest he contact at least those who participated in the discussion to ensure he has adequately addressed the concerns they raised. The BLP violations are an obvious issue and any new content would need to address that before formal submission. St★lwart 111 05:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Westshore Town Centre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Discussion with closing admin is at [1]

(1) The primary problem here is that this AfD should have been relisted instead of closed.

(2a) A secondary problem is the offer in the closing for WP:Merge and delete.  WP:Merge and delete states,

  • "The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved.",
  • "...a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect", and
  • "...admins should feel free to interpret 'Merge and delete' votes as 'Merge.' "

(2b) Another secondary problem is that of whether or not there was a consensus to delete.  Including the consideration in the close for merge and delete, if there was a consensus, it was for merge.

(2c) Another secondary problem is that there is no policy basis for a delete in this case.  As it stands, this is an unnecessary loss to the community of content contributions.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse the substance of the close, which is to axe an article about a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. The consensus was clearly against that view and there was no need for a re-listing. On a technicality: the close should be endorsed except to the extent that the article would be temporarily restored for the purposes of a merge. As the nominator states, the article's history would need to be permanently restored, underneath the redirect, for any merging of content to be properly attributed. What all of this means is that the article should be restored, and converted into a redirect, thus allowing a merger to take place. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to merge and redirect. I think Unscintillating should dial back his comments but it's a strange close that deletes but offers a temporary restoration for merging purposes. Wikipedia:Merge and delete is an essay but it captures the essential problem with that outcome, and Scottywong is too dismissive of it. Northamerica100 favored a merge, and I think it's possibly the editors who favored a redirect did as well (one of them agreed with Northamerica100 but didn't state it explicitly). Presumably Unscintillating would favor a merge over outright deletion. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Take no action. I'd normally endorse, but for the "merge and delete" offer, which of course we can't do. However, the article title has already been re-purposed for a redirect to Westshore_Town_Centre#Attractions, and the only sourced fact in the original article is already there, so I'm not sure that a "Merge" verdict would be anything other than process wonkery at this point, as there is nothing to merge. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Take no action. What Lankiveil said. His analysis hits the nail on the head. Also agree with Mkat on those points (only) where he essentially gets to the same place ("a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable"). As to the closer's view that the consensus was to close it as a delete (contra Un's assertion here), I agree with the closer. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse delete, but clarify the offer to restore. Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect (history available for merging) were all within admin discretion, but merging was not. User:Northamerica1000 failed to meet Epeefleche's challenge of WP:Merge what? (essay). ( This edit and this comment should be covered by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed.) Unscintillating had started an earlier discussion above the section already linked, as well as WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 142#Westshore Town Centre. Scottywong was unconvinced, and User:Amatulic declined the REFUND along those lines. Scottywong's exact wording in AfD's closing statement has been superseded by his rejection of Unscintillating's request. Flatscan ( talk) 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding the WP:REFUND discussion, it was not I who restored the redirect, but once it was restored, the process as per WP:DRVPURPOSE B7 is to request WP:REFUND.  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  Once consensus for the redirect (topic) existed, there was no applicable content policy for keeping the edit history (content) away from non-admins.  Likewise, [see point (2c) of the DRV request] with an alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion in the first place.  What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?  Unscintillating ( talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know how I can competently discuss "specific useful content or attribution problems" when the article has been 30 days since being deleted, and the edit history has not been restored for this DRV.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The RfC was closed with consensus for equal weight among keep, merge, redirect, and delete (prompt option #4), which is incompatible with and an implicit rejection of "deletion is a last resort". That only one participant used the exact wording is not a material criticism. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The closing had to do with comparing the weights of merge and redirect !votes with delete and keep !votes.  The closer said nothing about deletion being or not being a last resort, nor do I see any reason to think that this was being considered in the closing.  WP:Deletion policy states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  In the context, "editing" means those things that can be done without admin tools.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That RfC is long, but there are possibly four more editors who mention in passing that as a matter of policy, we should avoid deletion.  Two expressed this as, "If in doubt, don't delete."  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Whether or not deletion is the last resort, deletion was explicitly identified here as an "executive decision", i.e., WP:IAR.  Regarding my unanswered question, "What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?", the answer appears to be that there are no benefits.  On the other hand, the deletion has had WP:BURO disadvantages, because editors who have had reasons to use the edit history have not been able to do so.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding point (1) of the DRV request involving WP:RELIST: none of the four AfD commentators were agreed.  In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Looking a bit today at the sources, I see that no mention was made at the AfD of the alternate name "Canwest Mall".  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating ( talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – On User:Scottywong's talk page I have requested userfication of the deleted article to my userspace to enable a merge of some of the content to Langford, British Columbia. I recall having adding sources to the deleted article, so that content could be merged to improve the Langford, British Columbia article. NorthAmerica 1000 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question  With reference to point (1) of the DRV request involving WP:RELIST: In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  As relates to point (2c) of the DRV request, with an alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion.  Note that there is no dispute for the redirect (topic).  Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Restore the article's history under the redirect. Unscintillating, a good faith editor, believes the encyclopedia would benefit with the article's history preserved under the redirect. Unless the deleted article violated a core policy like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (no evidence of that has been presented here), I think his reasonable request should be granted. As Unscintillating writes above:

    Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?

    The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

    A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

    Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

    In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

    Cunard ( talk) 06:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

    • Why should Unscintillating's opinion, supported by technicalities, be raised above the other AfD participants? He has had plenty of time to compose an argument on the merits: a few days between his first edit to the AfD and its closing, and a month since. If you believe that Scottywong misjudged the consensus or the value of the history, then you should recommend overturn explicitly. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
      • RoySmith, the only editor who explicitly mentioned "delete" in the AfD writes below, "agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect". I don't see a consensus to keep the article's history deleted.

        I endorse the finding that the mall is not notable and should not exist as an a stand-alone article, but disagree with the decision to keep the article history deleted after a request by a good faith editor. Cunard ( talk) 05:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Text revised. Cunard ( talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

        • Cunard -- As nom, I was another editor who explicitly sought deletion at the AfD (I nominated the topic for deletion). And I agree with Flat here. From the AfD it is clear that this was a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. Epeefleche ( talk) 17:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
          • I have fixed the typo in my previous comment. Cunard ( talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
        • I consider restoring the history to be overturning Scottywong's close, especially after he affirmed the delete by declining Unscintillating's and Northamerica1000's requests. My recommendation would be different if there were a legitimate attribution problem or if someone had advanced a convincing argument based on specific content. Flatscan ( talk) 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
          • WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply, through which it is not necessary to overturn anything to reach a proper result.  As I stated here, restoring the edit history moots my discussion with the closing administrator.  This remains true, even now.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, sort of. The only real point of non-consensus is what is the proper redirect target. Two participants suggested Langford, British Columbia, I suggested List of shopping malls in Canada. I'm perfectly happy to amend my suggestion to also support Langford, British Columbia. Now we have consensus on where to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Oh, and yes, agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_July_19&oldid=1038552419"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE