Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 December 23
2010 December 25 >

24 December 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Agdaban massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
Garadaghly Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
talk:Agdaban massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
talk:Garadaghly Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

User:Buckshot06 used his administrative privilege to delete Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre articles without reviewing the case, participating in or awaiting the outcome of discussions on the talk pages. The deletion, as admitted by deleting administrator here, was carried out solely at the suggestion of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom case participant, currently under editing restrictions per A-A Arbcom, User:MarshallBagramyan. Two administrators at WP:AN already opined here and here that the deletion of articles did not follow the appropriate procedure. I kindly request that the articles are restored and the proper procedure is followed for either deleting topical pages without selection of backgrounds or keeping them. ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Er, couple of minor points. Firstly, you're under A-A2 restrictions yourself, Atabey. Also, as User:Atabek, you were among the initial parties of the whole A-A2 case itself. Secondly, while one of the comments linked above is from an admin, the other is not. Third, previous discussion regarding this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Buckshot06. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • My original description of my actions was: ':::Hi all. The discussion and the original issue can be viewed at User talk:Buckshot06#New section, including the original request by User:MarshallBagramyan. The question at issue was whether the articles asserted that the massacres did take place without any question, or, whether they should reflect ambiguity over whether the incidents had taken place in the manner described. Not being able to read all the language refs provided (I don't speak Azeri or Armenian), I had to follow the English and what I could of the Russian, and decided that the articles did in fact posit the events had taken place, while they should have only been describing allegations. Therefore, I decided to delete the articles in accordance with WP:IAR so that better redrafting could take place.
    Since then I've been attacked by what appear to be a number of nationalistic POV-pushers. Yet they do have a point; I probably should have sent the articles to a deletion debate instead. I would welcome attacks over potential misuse of process, but I am annoyed by those who imply a New Zealander is taking the 'wrong' view in a Azeri-Armenian dispute. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)' reply
  • Thank you. But these points have nothing to do with deletion procedure being carried out improperly by yourself (as indicated here and here), based solely on suggestion of A-A participant and your personal view of him. Moreover, similar concerns raised in Maraghar Massacre article where most references were actually made up before, did not seem to cause a similar concern on your behalf. Again, whether I was participant of A-A or not, or what faith you assume about myself or other editors, summarizing one group of them as "nationalist POV pushers", is not really relevant to this deletion review. Looking forward for neutral administrators to look into the subject matter. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 02:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Based on a review of the Google cached versions, the articles are clearly not attack pages or negative unsourced BLPs. The deference due to speedy deletions for which WP:BLP is invoked as a justification carries with it a corollary requirement not to invoke the policy in defense of obviously unjustified speedy deletions. WP:IAR, which the deleting administrator is now noting as a reason for his actions, isn't applicable, since speedy deletion of these articles doesn't really improve Wikipedia: it is far easier to correct a perceived WP:NPOV problem in an existing article than to redo all of the work needed to find sources, and rewrite the article from scratch. The exact source list from a deleted article, though temporarily available in cached versions, can't easily be used, since contributors would not be properly credited. Chester Markel ( talk) 02:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for review. If the articles can be restored now, I can proceed with researching and adding appropriate references. Atabəy ( talk) 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not so fast: because the deleting administrator cited WP:BLP in the deletion log, according to arbcom the articles cannot be restored until a full discussion of not less than seven days occurs, with sufficient participation to discern a consensus for restoration, even if this takes more than seven days due to the celebration of the Christmas and New Years holidays by large portions of the world. This is why inappropriate deletions for which WP:BLP is invoked can cause so much disruption. Chester Markel ( talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as out-of-process deletion. No prejudice to taking all three of these to AFD for discussion. -- Jayron 32 03:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest the deleting admin revert the close They recognize above they should probably have sent the article to AfD instead--I urge them to simply revert their own close, and to do just that. Nothing at all prevents any admin from reversing themselves when they realize they have made an error. Otherwise, I see no reason not to restore this immediately. As arb com has repeatedly said, BLP is not a free pass. These deletions were out of process; the reason given by the deleting arb does seem adequate: they were concerned over the exact wording, and therefore choose to delete the articles, admitting that there was no reason but IAR. The proper use of IAR is to restore the articles now, one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • DRV has a long history of taking a dim view of IAR speedy deletions, and in my view that's quite right. Administrators are elected because they can be trusted to follow the processes correctly. Overturn and immediately list at AfD so that the community can make this call.— S Marshall T/ C 12:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, more or less per DGG and Jayron. I'd don't even see a credible basis for deletion. The cited Time magazine source sums up the matter well -- While the details are disputed, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno- Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of dead -- the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians were slaughtered, most of them women and children -- is unknown. But the facile explanation offered by the attacking Armenians, who insist that no innocents were deliberately killed, is hardly convincing -- and its core content is backed up by the various citations to reliable human rights groups. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The Time article above is referring to an entirely different event - Khojaly - not the one in the title of this discussion.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 23:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This is all going one way. Should I undelete the article? I've been a little reluctant to do so because I wanted to avoid any more process short-cuts, but I'm quite happy to if that is the consensus. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I would recommend so. The use of unilateral administrator privileges outside of process works well when administrators are willing to accept feedback that a discussion would have been the more appropriate process. Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I've restored the article. I will keep an eye on potential edit-warring over it for a while; it may be nominated for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per out-of-process deletion. Buckshot should be finally warned for using his administrative privilege to shut articles without informing and constructive position.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 11:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It's not helpful to ask DRV to sanction administrators. Even if Buckshot deserves sanction (and he doesn't), DRV doesn't have the authority. And we do routinely close DRVs where editors accuse closers, or each other, of bad faith. Basically, DRV is concerned only with content, and has no interest in conduct matters at all.

    Apart for the most blatant cases which belong at Arbcom, there is in fact no effective mechanism for disciplining administrators on Wikipedia. Users intent on trying this are usually pointed to WP:RFC/U, which has never accomplished anything remotely useful in terms of administrator conduct, ever. However, it does helpfully contain the drama safely away from the content-related parts of the encyclopaedia.— S Marshall T/ C 14:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • most admins when their decisions are overturned here, do as I did when it happened, and learn from it, and there is no need to even think about it being a matter of sanctions. WEe should not hesitate to bring what we think erroneous closes or deletions here, & doing so does not imply any great malfeasance, just error. An admin who defiantly continues to make the same error after being repeatedly corrected would be another matter, but such cases I hope would be rare (and in fact, I can think of only a very few admins who might fall into that category about deletions and even they might learn if corrected sufficiently): most people, whether or not they admit they're wrong, do learn from the public reaction. Of course asking them quietly to reconsider is the first step, but it not, it helps if several people do so , and out here where it's very public. Buckshot, as I would have expected, has now handled this right. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It's up to the nominator to name every page to be considered. The only page being considered here was Agdaban massacre, as it was the only one in the heading of this DRV in {{ DRV links}}. To add the others and then pretend they were always there is abusive and misleading. I won't revert it, but I would advise you to consider instead starting a new deletion review for those. -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • All three articles were mentioned in the nominator's statement [3] as being considered for restoration at this DRV. I merely clarified the header. The only way the deleting administrator could have missed the presence of the request to restore the other articles is if he didn't read the statement by the nominator, just as it seems you didn't. Chester Markel ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • If they are being considered, why wouldn't the nominator have properly formed the DRV header? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Being inexperienced with the deletion review process, the nominator probably formed the DRV listing using the provided template, which only allows one article title to be entered. The nominator's statement very plainly requests the restoration of all three articles [4]. Chester Markel ( talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • A comment by another user participating in this DRV, prior to my fixing the headers, also recognizes that the nominator's statement requests the restoration of three articles [5]. Please take the time to read discussions before closing them. Chester Markel ( talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'll endeavor to do so, but it would be better if you could correct malformed headers as soon as you notice them, to lessen the likelihood of mistakes. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn All If the article for Agdaban massacre is any indication, these are not attack pages eligible for G10 speedy deletion and it would appear that there are sources available to support notability. I would question the identification of each of these incidents using the word "Massacre" (with an initial capital), as this would make it appear that there is general consensus on the naming of the incidents. Alansohn ( talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Youi're gonna get a higher error rate under these circumstances and any error by Buckshot06 is explained by that. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm concerned about my inability to find any news sources or books using the names given in the titles of any of these articles. Does restoring articles with those names help Wikipedia? Dougweller ( talk) 08:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The deleted articles, whose Google cached versions are still viewable, contain adequate sources to support the notability of their subjects. If the articles are at the wrong titles, page moves are far more efficient than deletion and rewriting from scratch at new locations. Chester Markel ( talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree with Chester Markel. Garadaghly Massacre and Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre articles should follow the suit and be restored as soon as possible since they were in a batch of incorrectly deleted articles. That fact has already been established. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Process - The original Agdaban massacre DRV listing was non-admin closed because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion. [6] A new editor (editing since 6 December 2010) reopened the non-admin closure and added a few more articles well after discussion had taken place. [7]. I posted a notice at ANI. [8] Enough time has passed and no action has been taken to close this DRV, so it appears that the present DRV is not out of process. Carry on. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn all as out-of-process deletion. Not sure why it hasn't already been done. If things are not handled via established process, unfairness results. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by nominator. When I filed this report, I did not want to copy the same description for all three pages, instead listed three pages under one report. The same issue with deletion procedure applies to all three pages, not just Agdaban massacre. If I have to file separate reports for other two to be considered, please, let me know. Thank you and Happy Holidays! Atabəy ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you, I just followed your suggestion here. Happy New Year to all. Atabəy ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, the deleting administrator has silently refused to restore the remaining articles. Chester Markel ( talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I should imagine the closer of this DRV will know what to do about that without any prompting from us. :)— S Marshall T/ C 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Hi all, I've just been alerted by User:EdJohnson that this DRV is still open. Of course I'll undelete the other articles; please hold on. Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (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/2010_December_24&oldid=1138436769"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 December 23
2010 December 25 >

24 December 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Agdaban massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
Garadaghly Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
talk:Agdaban massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
talk:Garadaghly Massacre ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

User:Buckshot06 used his administrative privilege to delete Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre articles without reviewing the case, participating in or awaiting the outcome of discussions on the talk pages. The deletion, as admitted by deleting administrator here, was carried out solely at the suggestion of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom case participant, currently under editing restrictions per A-A Arbcom, User:MarshallBagramyan. Two administrators at WP:AN already opined here and here that the deletion of articles did not follow the appropriate procedure. I kindly request that the articles are restored and the proper procedure is followed for either deleting topical pages without selection of backgrounds or keeping them. ( talk) 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Er, couple of minor points. Firstly, you're under A-A2 restrictions yourself, Atabey. Also, as User:Atabek, you were among the initial parties of the whole A-A2 case itself. Secondly, while one of the comments linked above is from an admin, the other is not. Third, previous discussion regarding this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Buckshot06. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • My original description of my actions was: ':::Hi all. The discussion and the original issue can be viewed at User talk:Buckshot06#New section, including the original request by User:MarshallBagramyan. The question at issue was whether the articles asserted that the massacres did take place without any question, or, whether they should reflect ambiguity over whether the incidents had taken place in the manner described. Not being able to read all the language refs provided (I don't speak Azeri or Armenian), I had to follow the English and what I could of the Russian, and decided that the articles did in fact posit the events had taken place, while they should have only been describing allegations. Therefore, I decided to delete the articles in accordance with WP:IAR so that better redrafting could take place.
    Since then I've been attacked by what appear to be a number of nationalistic POV-pushers. Yet they do have a point; I probably should have sent the articles to a deletion debate instead. I would welcome attacks over potential misuse of process, but I am annoyed by those who imply a New Zealander is taking the 'wrong' view in a Azeri-Armenian dispute. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)' reply
  • Thank you. But these points have nothing to do with deletion procedure being carried out improperly by yourself (as indicated here and here), based solely on suggestion of A-A participant and your personal view of him. Moreover, similar concerns raised in Maraghar Massacre article where most references were actually made up before, did not seem to cause a similar concern on your behalf. Again, whether I was participant of A-A or not, or what faith you assume about myself or other editors, summarizing one group of them as "nationalist POV pushers", is not really relevant to this deletion review. Looking forward for neutral administrators to look into the subject matter. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 02:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Based on a review of the Google cached versions, the articles are clearly not attack pages or negative unsourced BLPs. The deference due to speedy deletions for which WP:BLP is invoked as a justification carries with it a corollary requirement not to invoke the policy in defense of obviously unjustified speedy deletions. WP:IAR, which the deleting administrator is now noting as a reason for his actions, isn't applicable, since speedy deletion of these articles doesn't really improve Wikipedia: it is far easier to correct a perceived WP:NPOV problem in an existing article than to redo all of the work needed to find sources, and rewrite the article from scratch. The exact source list from a deleted article, though temporarily available in cached versions, can't easily be used, since contributors would not be properly credited. Chester Markel ( talk) 02:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for review. If the articles can be restored now, I can proceed with researching and adding appropriate references. Atabəy ( talk) 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not so fast: because the deleting administrator cited WP:BLP in the deletion log, according to arbcom the articles cannot be restored until a full discussion of not less than seven days occurs, with sufficient participation to discern a consensus for restoration, even if this takes more than seven days due to the celebration of the Christmas and New Years holidays by large portions of the world. This is why inappropriate deletions for which WP:BLP is invoked can cause so much disruption. Chester Markel ( talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as out-of-process deletion. No prejudice to taking all three of these to AFD for discussion. -- Jayron 32 03:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest the deleting admin revert the close They recognize above they should probably have sent the article to AfD instead--I urge them to simply revert their own close, and to do just that. Nothing at all prevents any admin from reversing themselves when they realize they have made an error. Otherwise, I see no reason not to restore this immediately. As arb com has repeatedly said, BLP is not a free pass. These deletions were out of process; the reason given by the deleting arb does seem adequate: they were concerned over the exact wording, and therefore choose to delete the articles, admitting that there was no reason but IAR. The proper use of IAR is to restore the articles now, one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • DRV has a long history of taking a dim view of IAR speedy deletions, and in my view that's quite right. Administrators are elected because they can be trusted to follow the processes correctly. Overturn and immediately list at AfD so that the community can make this call.— S Marshall T/ C 12:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, more or less per DGG and Jayron. I'd don't even see a credible basis for deletion. The cited Time magazine source sums up the matter well -- While the details are disputed, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno- Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of dead -- the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians were slaughtered, most of them women and children -- is unknown. But the facile explanation offered by the attacking Armenians, who insist that no innocents were deliberately killed, is hardly convincing -- and its core content is backed up by the various citations to reliable human rights groups. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The Time article above is referring to an entirely different event - Khojaly - not the one in the title of this discussion.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 23:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This is all going one way. Should I undelete the article? I've been a little reluctant to do so because I wanted to avoid any more process short-cuts, but I'm quite happy to if that is the consensus. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I would recommend so. The use of unilateral administrator privileges outside of process works well when administrators are willing to accept feedback that a discussion would have been the more appropriate process. Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I've restored the article. I will keep an eye on potential edit-warring over it for a while; it may be nominated for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per out-of-process deletion. Buckshot should be finally warned for using his administrative privilege to shut articles without informing and constructive position.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 11:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It's not helpful to ask DRV to sanction administrators. Even if Buckshot deserves sanction (and he doesn't), DRV doesn't have the authority. And we do routinely close DRVs where editors accuse closers, or each other, of bad faith. Basically, DRV is concerned only with content, and has no interest in conduct matters at all.

    Apart for the most blatant cases which belong at Arbcom, there is in fact no effective mechanism for disciplining administrators on Wikipedia. Users intent on trying this are usually pointed to WP:RFC/U, which has never accomplished anything remotely useful in terms of administrator conduct, ever. However, it does helpfully contain the drama safely away from the content-related parts of the encyclopaedia.— S Marshall T/ C 14:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • most admins when their decisions are overturned here, do as I did when it happened, and learn from it, and there is no need to even think about it being a matter of sanctions. WEe should not hesitate to bring what we think erroneous closes or deletions here, & doing so does not imply any great malfeasance, just error. An admin who defiantly continues to make the same error after being repeatedly corrected would be another matter, but such cases I hope would be rare (and in fact, I can think of only a very few admins who might fall into that category about deletions and even they might learn if corrected sufficiently): most people, whether or not they admit they're wrong, do learn from the public reaction. Of course asking them quietly to reconsider is the first step, but it not, it helps if several people do so , and out here where it's very public. Buckshot, as I would have expected, has now handled this right. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It's up to the nominator to name every page to be considered. The only page being considered here was Agdaban massacre, as it was the only one in the heading of this DRV in {{ DRV links}}. To add the others and then pretend they were always there is abusive and misleading. I won't revert it, but I would advise you to consider instead starting a new deletion review for those. -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • All three articles were mentioned in the nominator's statement [3] as being considered for restoration at this DRV. I merely clarified the header. The only way the deleting administrator could have missed the presence of the request to restore the other articles is if he didn't read the statement by the nominator, just as it seems you didn't. Chester Markel ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • If they are being considered, why wouldn't the nominator have properly formed the DRV header? -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Being inexperienced with the deletion review process, the nominator probably formed the DRV listing using the provided template, which only allows one article title to be entered. The nominator's statement very plainly requests the restoration of all three articles [4]. Chester Markel ( talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • A comment by another user participating in this DRV, prior to my fixing the headers, also recognizes that the nominator's statement requests the restoration of three articles [5]. Please take the time to read discussions before closing them. Chester Markel ( talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'll endeavor to do so, but it would be better if you could correct malformed headers as soon as you notice them, to lessen the likelihood of mistakes. Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn All If the article for Agdaban massacre is any indication, these are not attack pages eligible for G10 speedy deletion and it would appear that there are sources available to support notability. I would question the identification of each of these incidents using the word "Massacre" (with an initial capital), as this would make it appear that there is general consensus on the naming of the incidents. Alansohn ( talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Youi're gonna get a higher error rate under these circumstances and any error by Buckshot06 is explained by that. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm concerned about my inability to find any news sources or books using the names given in the titles of any of these articles. Does restoring articles with those names help Wikipedia? Dougweller ( talk) 08:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The deleted articles, whose Google cached versions are still viewable, contain adequate sources to support the notability of their subjects. If the articles are at the wrong titles, page moves are far more efficient than deletion and rewriting from scratch at new locations. Chester Markel ( talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree with Chester Markel. Garadaghly Massacre and Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre articles should follow the suit and be restored as soon as possible since they were in a batch of incorrectly deleted articles. That fact has already been established. Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Process - The original Agdaban massacre DRV listing was non-admin closed because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion. [6] A new editor (editing since 6 December 2010) reopened the non-admin closure and added a few more articles well after discussion had taken place. [7]. I posted a notice at ANI. [8] Enough time has passed and no action has been taken to close this DRV, so it appears that the present DRV is not out of process. Carry on. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn all as out-of-process deletion. Not sure why it hasn't already been done. If things are not handled via established process, unfairness results. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by nominator. When I filed this report, I did not want to copy the same description for all three pages, instead listed three pages under one report. The same issue with deletion procedure applies to all three pages, not just Agdaban massacre. If I have to file separate reports for other two to be considered, please, let me know. Thank you and Happy Holidays! Atabəy ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you, I just followed your suggestion here. Happy New Year to all. Atabəy ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, the deleting administrator has silently refused to restore the remaining articles. Chester Markel ( talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I should imagine the closer of this DRV will know what to do about that without any prompting from us. :)— S Marshall T/ C 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Hi all, I've just been alerted by User:EdJohnson that this DRV is still open. Of course I'll undelete the other articles; please hold on. Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (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/2010_December_24&oldid=1138436769"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE