Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 19

19 December 2011

 * If his version is to be forced onto the Mifflin E. Bell article, it would be reverted, as it is clearly lacking on all counts. –MuZemike 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF. This is about the appropriateness of Speedy Deletion.  That was inappropriate by the terms of Speedy Deletion guidelines. -- do  ncr  am  18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion Edit the current article if you wish, no reason to make a new one, at most, redirect M.E. Bell to the current article. As for what and what not should be changed, it's a matter for the talk page of the article, not DRV.  Snowolf How can I help? 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - lacking any indication that the ME Bell article was created in bad faith (and being ignorant of any history between Sarek and Doncram), and that "M.E. Bell" is a likely search term for the existing article I have restored the article history and created the redirect. This provides Doncram with any references that they might have lost with the deletion (tho I find that dubious) that can be used to improve the existing article, and gives us a current redirect. Any other issues regarding which content is verifiable and mergeable can be worked out on the talkpage. Syrthiss (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- do ncr  am  18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Putting my hands up here - should have created a redirect. More haste less speed. However....I wouldn't have done any kind of a merge - doncram's offering did not appear to have any information in it that was not in the article that already existed, and I share the concern about close paraphrasing expressed above. doncram, I recommend that in future you check the full name of an architect before you start an article on them, because the usual way to refer to an individual on Wikipedia is firstname/lastname.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks if that is an apology. This diff shows 2 wikilinks to articles for existing items, 6 additional items added, 2 photos added, a category, and other changes to the article, all from the M.E. Bell version i had drafted (not counting another photo that i also added anew).  Far more than "any information".  It is silly to chastise me for starting an article that turned out to be duplicative;  that happens all the time and causes no problem, leading obviously to a merge when a duplication is established.  The problem is only contention fostered by SarekOfVulcan here.  You could as well chastise the editors of the other version for not identifying that this is the person commonly known as "M.E. Bell". -- do  ncr  am  19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * *headdesk* -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF. That from Sarek who just exceeded 3RR at yet another article I was working on, trying to leave this one behind.  Lay off with the contention.  Good grief, get a life other than following me. -- do  ncr  am  19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you actually looked up sources instead of doing database dumps, we wouldn't have these issues now, would we? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion. More careful editing from the original contributor would have prevented this problem from occurring in the first place.  Asking for that to happen, though, is like asking Saint Anthony Falls to flow in reverse. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who is usually more active on other wiki's I'm really amazed by this discussion. Why on earth was this article nominated for speedy deletion and not just redirected like on a normal Wikipedia? Speedy deletion clearly doesn't apply so why are people endorsing this? multichill (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, that would have been the obvious way to deal with it, since A10 should not be used when the title of the new duplicate article   is a plausible redirect, as this one is. If someone made the name error once, someone will again, so such a creation is usually a clear sign a redirect is needed.   DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * undelete and redirect (basically endorse the action of Syrthiss) as this is not an A10 ("...and where the title is not a plausible redirect."), I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is if there should be a restore.  In theory a pure redirect at this point would be fine (without the restore), but I've a really big fan of a tight speedy criteria and very much prefer to get things back to the state they would have been in had the speedy not been misapplied.  Let's do things by the book unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this can be closed at this point as there is nothing to do. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }