I believe this should be revived for two reasons, one sort of in my opinion. 1) This article should be a redirect because if someone happens to search on Wikipedia 'American Airlines Flight 633', they should be led to the information. Not stumble across a blank page. 2) I really want to see the revision history. I've forgotten the page's layout and I want to look at it one last time, but the revision history was deleted with the page.
Sahibdeep Nann (
talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I've created the redirect as it is reasonable and the AfD gave leave to do so. I'd suggest someone mail the nom the deleted article or userfy (if they think the topic has a chance) as it's a reasonable request. Then this could be closed.
Hobit (
talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Restore article as redirect.
Hobit had the right idea, but wrong implementation. Redirects are cheap. Unless there's some specific reason to hide the contents (
WP:BLP or copyright concerns, for example), and there's a reasonable redirect target, its a no brainer to redirect instead of delete. The problem is, the current redirect hides the article history. It should be deleted, the original history restored, and then redirected. --
RoySmith(talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm 100% fine with that.
Hobit (
talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)reply
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 of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
I believe this should be revived for two reasons, one sort of in my opinion. 1) This article should be a redirect because if someone happens to search on Wikipedia 'American Airlines Flight 633', they should be led to the information. Not stumble across a blank page. 2) I really want to see the revision history. I've forgotten the page's layout and I want to look at it one last time, but the revision history was deleted with the page.
Sahibdeep Nann (
talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I've created the redirect as it is reasonable and the AfD gave leave to do so. I'd suggest someone mail the nom the deleted article or userfy (if they think the topic has a chance) as it's a reasonable request. Then this could be closed.
Hobit (
talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Restore article as redirect.
Hobit had the right idea, but wrong implementation. Redirects are cheap. Unless there's some specific reason to hide the contents (
WP:BLP or copyright concerns, for example), and there's a reasonable redirect target, its a no brainer to redirect instead of delete. The problem is, the current redirect hides the article history. It should be deleted, the original history restored, and then redirected. --
RoySmith(talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm 100% fine with that.
Hobit (
talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)reply
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 of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.