Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was article listed in order to contest a prod, unrequired, article undeleted --pgk 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In actuality I do not think that this page should deleted. It was listed as a PROD on May 11 for the reason of "A list of almost entirely red-links". It was deleted on May 17. I believe that this was a mistake. I quite simply dropped the ball and did not see the PRODing of the article on my watchlist. If I had I would have contested the PRODing which would have brought it here. Ihave used my admin powers to undelete it and bring it here, if I should not have done this, I will delete it and take it to Deletion Review. This list is part of a series of lists for properties on the NRHP, divided by state, and in some cases, by county. (See List of National Register of Historic Places entries for the top level list.) It is my belief that any article on any property on NRHP would easily survive AfD. This list, then, is list that is most useful, for the present, as a development list, as per WP:LIST and thus should not be deleted. Dsmdgold 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep. If you don't think that the article should be deleted, then why'd you even nominate it? Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it was a PROD, and as I understand it, birnging it to AfD is what you are supposed to do if you contest a PROD. Dsmdgold 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that was what you do only if you yourself think the article should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at the PROD page, I see that what you say is true (It's been a long time since I've paid attention to that process). However this article was deleted under PROD and I restored it, because I did not see it in time to contest it. I may be out of process here, ifI am, I will do what I can to correct it. But I suspect that if I had contested it in time it would have wound up here anyway. Dsmdgold 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy RE-DELETE Admin abused his/her powers. The article was appropriately deleted as it was 5 days after the PROD that it was deleted.  Admin was a contributor (thus personally involved) with the article prior to it's deletion.  Thus, admin should have gone through proper channels to have the deleted article reviewed.  At bare minimum, the admin should not have used his admin powers to reinstate a properly deleted article that he has a bias for.  Please note history, where his reinstate was initially undone.  This is NOT the place for deletion review.Balloonman 03:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per concerns raised by Balloonman. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article is nothing but a list of links to other articles that don't exist. andy 09:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.