Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 10

GLScene (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

At at least one point in time, this article was English: http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLScene It shouldn't have been deleted; it should have been reverted to this earlier version. DanielPharos (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by mistake, I didn't check the history thoroughly. Undeleted and restored to English version. JIP | Talk 16:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've manually copied the Portugese version to the Portugese WikiPedia, so let them figure it out :0) --DanielPharos (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Draugiem.lv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

the most popular site of a European country merits inclusion on it's own right, I think. (a while ago I left a comment on the repeatedly deleted article's talk page with links to alexa rankings etc., but it's purged again) Lysis rationale (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, since you haven't provided any reason to restore the old article content, and the AfD was closed just fine. However, I suggest you work on a draft in your userspace (at, say User:Lysis rationale/Draugiem.lv) and make sure that the article doesn't still fail the policies cited at the AfD, then put it back into mainspace. Or, since the most recent deletion was over a year ago, you might want to try just writting a better version in mainspace itself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically what you're saying is that it can't be restored by now...? I think the old content was just fine, I actually never saw it hehe as it has been deleted forever since, anyway there's no way it could have been an advertisement as was mentioned in the AfD discussion, the site is property of Lattelecom and Lattelecom is property of Telia Sonera or something, I think they really have better things to do than to write vanity articles on the English Wikipedia. I however am not planning to write it nor have I been a contributor, I just thought it should be undeleted. Lysis rationale (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that the AfD was closed fine, and it appears that the deletions after that were also fine. So there's nothing wrong with the process for us to overturn here. The old content can be userfied for you to work on, if you want a starting point. But if you don't plan to write a version and can't point out why the old, properly deleted versions should be restored, I don't think there's much we can do here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Nothing new has been presented and there is no policy-based reason to relist or overturn. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse user should make a better draft with better sources and then present it again. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no valid reason given to undelete. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly a very pertinent page for the modern times. Sgt. bender (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD seems fine. 69.140.152.55 (talk) but I vote for a temporary restore so that I can at least see the condition of the article before deletion. 16:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Destrachan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello! :) In March, Destrachan was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, Secret deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 edition monsters, which which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? I have brought this up to Secret, but the user seems to be mostly inactive. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• History merge. I've gone ahead and created the redirect. If there's any useful content, it can be merged over after the history is restored. Cheers, BOZ. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) It would be great if someone could restore the edit history to the original article. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restory history and keep as redirect History merge BOZ is making a reasonable request based on new information and that does not go against the old deletion decision --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Restore the history under the redirect, the content can be merged from there if necessary. A history merge should only be used with cut and paste moves, not regular merges, since it would needlessly obfuscate the history of both articles. - Bobet 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking it should be, yes. :) BOZ (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)