Wikipedia:Deletion review/Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.   Decision:  Discussion subpage undeleted.  --Xoloz 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system

 * Articles for deletion/Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system
 * Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 18

Undeletion requested : I demand an undeletion. Thanks. -- Paul Martin 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reasons :
 * 1) User:J. 'mach' wust demanded a speedy delation on 18 May 2006, 09:07 (UTC) with the only justification "Original research". However: This criterion applies for articles, not for talk pages.
 * 2) The administrator Kimchi deleted on 18 May 2006, 14:47 (UTC) by stating: "The result of the debate was speedy deleted as orphaned talk page."
 * 3) There was no real debate. see archive. Other requests for SD, the same day, obtained at least several motions "Deletion". Not so this request.
 * 4) This talk page was not an "orphaned talk page". It was related to several other talk pages and mainly to Talk:Hexadecimal foot/Archive 1.


 * "Demands" are not helpful; and what traces of the discussion survive suggest that this was not a particularly persuasive argument. But the page was a subpage of the perfectly good Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement, which records it being split off. If this is an orphan, so is every archived talk page we have. No sound reason for deletion Undelete. Septentrionalis 17:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion, it's a talk page corresponding to a non-existent page, the deletion was out of process how exactly? Stifle (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Septentrionalis explained above, "the talk was being split of" in several sub-pages therefore "talk page[s] corresponding to a non-existent page[s]" "The deletion was" perhaps not "out of process", however too quick. Excepting User:J. 'mach' wust and Kimchi no one demanded it. -- Paul Martin 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, I just saw that the page had already been deleted and closed the AfD. Kimchi.sg 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse User:Kimchi, I erred. But in this case:  Who was this A.A. (anonymous administrator), who  deleted?  -- Paul Martin 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy perhaps is a reasonable alternative? It is as it always was T 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy? Perhaps, why not.  However, in this case with a REDIRECT in "bonne et due" form.  -- Paul Martin 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) PS.  To be constructive:  If an administrator makes me a REDIRECT to User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system (including old history),  I can restore this Talk Page with my own local back-ups.


 * Orphan Talk pages are always speedy deletable. Endorse deletion.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In context of this discussion: Talk:Ancient Roman weights and measures/Archive 2, I explained User:Jimp and others what's the new digital foot. So it is not an "Orphan Talk page". Even by repeating, this will not become true. How to split a talk page, if not by creating a new one. Necessarily "without article". -- Paul Martin 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Undelete Paul Martin has made a convincing case for undeletion.--WheresYerHelicopterNoo 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Undelete - didn't fall under speedy criteria. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Undelete, subpages of talk pages are not orphaned so no speedy deletion criteria applies. Thryduulf 12:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete subpage, not orphan, and WP:OR does not apply. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.