Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 14

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

UNDELETE_REASON Tomseddon (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please can someone email me the content of this page that was deleted a couple of hours ago. The page was deleted most probably because i did not finnish it quick enough, i intend to finish it in my sandbox and then reinstate it

You need to specify an email address in Special:Preferences to receive email from other users. Hut 8.5 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per deleting admin comment. So, it's totally bad content. I'd suggest contacting DGG directly for a copy of the last version of the page if you want to put it up on a different wiki where this sort of articles is accepted. Userfy unless it was really bad content. I see no problem with letting him finish his article on userspace unless it's clear that it wasn't going anywhere --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I speedied it, & I'd have emailed if I had been contacted. The subject is asserted to be a secondary school physics teacher, claiming to have influenced the "World" and received a "Doughnut award" as he has "only recently fallen into the notable scientist category for his recent studies into electron relaxation." The rest of the article is similar. The law he "discovered" is a very basic textbook equation I did not regard that as a plausible claim to notability. I'm not going to userify this one. I suspect a student prank. DGG (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. General nonsense. Not useful to the encyclopedia. Also, what part of "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)" didn't register? Stifle (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve.museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm aware of this article's much deleted history (combo of speedy and AfDs) and am not doubting that it was not notable at the time. However in the interim it has received secondary coverage including The Age and The New York Times, and I've prepared a draft User:Travellingcari/Steve.museum based on that secondary coverage. I have included some of the primary sources, but that's because I believe they help explain what the project is. I have, however, removed a lot of the PR speak that was quite unencyclopedic. Keeper76 userfied this for me and I will notify him of this DRV momentarily. Thoughts? Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• ETA previous DRV, it's been through this before but that was ~18 months ago. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore article. This diff proves to me that TCari is serious, and in one edit, she took a really bad, and rightfully (at the time) deleted spam article, and made a really good, well sourced, notable article. Time healed all wounds with steve.museum. Speedy restore, as it would most certainly pass AfD at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/restore I agree that the article is improved, and these three [1] [2] [3] sources look like significant new information. From the looks of those three, it might be better to have an article on the general phenomenon than on the specific musuem, as that is where they appear to focus their coverage. But that can be debated later. I do strongly suggest losing the current image; so far as I can see it isn't associated with steve.museum at all, and is thus just decoration. GRBerry 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree and have removed the picture. I took out the others as clearly unrelated but wasn't entirely sure on this one. The specific program is steve.museum, unless I'm misunderstanding your question. Am happy to discuss that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you partially misunderstood my comment. The part that you appear to have misunderstood was understood when Enric Naval expressed it better below. GRBerry 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist: Afd closed prematurely. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted, which is separate from the AfD process. The closure of the AfD means only that it was speedied, not that the debate caused it. It's a common practice, check some of the WP:AFD logs. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And regardless, even if the AfD was closed prematurely, 69.140..., it was 18 months ago. The draft up for review here is completely refined/improved/sourced compared to the one from November of 2006. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd still vote to relist, on the grounds that "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action)." See above. After relisting, we could always vote to keep. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is the path that I desire for the article:

1. Re-list on afd. It was speedied in error, but in my opinion the correct way to remedy that is to list it on afd again, rather than overrule.
2. If it is re-listed, then I intend to vote to keep it, under its current name.

In summary I think there is a consensus that it was speedied in error, a consensus that your version is best, but no consensus on what to do about it procedurally.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it was speedied in error due to the (lack of) notability at the time as well as it being a re-creation of deleted content, etc. I'm not too fussy about whether it is restored directly or taken immediately to AfD as I think it would be kept/merged, either of which I'm fine with. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore however, given the sources, this should be restored into a "online tagging museums" article, so that other museum initiatives con be worked into the same article, and steve.museum be a redirect to this article. The NYT source talks about this type of museums on general and cites steve.museum as one of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment would you suggest a merge to Folksonomy? That appears to be what that article is discussing, although none of the sources for Steve.museum refer to it as such. I'd almost suggest Folksonomy in museums or something similar. Thoughts? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, that name sounds good. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Given the sponsors in the reritten article, I think it has a reasonable chance under its own name. DGG (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • With regard to the name of the article, most people probably don't know what Folksonomy is – I had never heard of it until I saw it on the deletion-review page. So I would be inclined keep the name of steve.museum after it survives an AFD – if it is restored directly, then steve.museum should at least redirect to it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I wasn't familiar with the term either. I think that a rename discussion is best had following a decision (either via DRV or AfD) on whether to keep the article, otherwise I see it as pointless. That said, I agree that Steve.museum would be a merge/redirect to whatever the home article is as I believe the content there has a role in the main article. Thanks for your feedback _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I think that we should just close this with a "overturn deletion due to better draft", by moving the userspace draft to Steve.museum, but putting as a condition that it's moved to Folksonomy in museums and reworked to fit the title, because an article on the museum itself might not stand on its own (no opposition on the musem being split out into its own article if/when it gets more notable). (I'm implicitely invoking WP:IAR to run loops around the DRV procedure, in case it wasn't clear to someone :) )
          • About renaming and merging, moving the whole article to Folksonomy in museums preserves the history, and editors just have to add the references to the other museums on the article. The references to the general phenomen can be easily looked up on the history and re-added as necessary. (Notice that this automatically leaves a correct redirect in place and that people searching for steve.museum will be directed to the right place). --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I oppose imposing a condition that it's moved to Folksonomy in museums. Per WP:Naming conventions (common names), "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" I doubt that somebody will type "folksonomy in museums" as the search query. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • • I'm with 69.140 here, and also for the reasons DGG mentioned. I don't think there's anything wrong with restoring it under the existing title since that project is notable and then a discussion about merging it elsewhere, if needed, can happen. There's no requirement to merge it elsewhere to preserve history and I think the folksonomy... title is very scholarly and not one the general public is likely yo use. I don't know what the right title is, but that doesn't need to be decided at DRV as I said above _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Ok, ok, you are right, no conditions on the restoring, and discussion later on talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_REASON

I don't understand why this page was deleted several times. It may have been for lack of content, however, I feel this is a very important article since it represents the first example of investigative journalism before In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. I am willing to work on developing this article, since it's important to Argentina's history and also to literary scholar's purposes, too. I feel that it may have been lacking sources in the beginning and I feel I could quickly bring this up to a average quality page by basing the article off of the Spanish version and off of sources I'm familiar with regarding Walsh. Neagley (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is Operación Masacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

At the time I deleted the article, it consisted of two sentences, a stub notice, and some categories:

Operación Masacre by Rodolfo Walsh is the name of the first book of nonfiction. Was published 9 years before In Cold Blood of Truman Capote.

I explained briefly on the talk page of the author, User talk:Diegoamo why it was deleted, and gave a more detailed explanation on the article talk page (which was deleted about a month later as a talk page without a corresponding article). I said there:

I think the claim is that this is the first non-fiction book from this author. However, the article does not have enough content to be worth keeping in the state in which it is being created. It needs to consist of more than two sentences. Saying what the book is about would be a good start. An ISBN number would be good too. It also needs to say why the book is important - see Wikipedia:Notability (books) for guidelines on what makes a book important. Some external links to scholarly reviews would also help. If the book is only available in Spanish and there are no English-language reviews, then a single link to a Spanish review would be better than nothing.-gadfium 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see there is a well-developed article at Operación Masacre. If you could translate that into English, that would be excellent.-gadfium 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can translate it, but as User:gadfium mentions, I don't think a simple translation will be adequate in either case. Neagley (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Moriori had deleted the article several times before, and had also conversed with the author on the talk page trying to explain what was necessary to make an article worth having. It appears that the author did not have a sufficient understanding of English to be able to create an article which established notability.

Unfortunately I was unable to see these conversations. I think it is important however to develop this article again. Especially since it explains anti-peronist first-hand accounts. Neagley (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to an article which gives a bit more information, including an external source, and which does establish notability. A simple translation of the Spanish article might not suffice, since I see that article has tags for lack of references and original research (it didn't at the time I deleted the article and suggested a translation).-gadfium 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on the fact that a pure translation of the Spanish article will not suffice. I believe that the Spanish article is a good start, but really needs to include some sources from the literary canon about the work. I couldn't see the discussion originally that took place and I completely agree with your original deletion. Could we work together to develop this article in terms of depth and breadth? Neagley (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no expertise in the subject, otherwise I would have fixed the article in the first place rather than deleted it. You go ahead and develop a decent article on the subject.-gadfium 08:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will begin working on it. Neagley (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as no context. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Restore. The book is probably notable. Worldcat shows the Spanish version in 156 US & international libraries, mainly academic libraries. (not including South American libraries, which it does not cover) It's been translated into German and Czech and Dutch. It's been made into a film. A Spanish book "Rodolfo Walsh : operacion masacre by Barbara Crespo" and a Portuguese thesis "Rehacer y resistir el proceso de escritura de operación masacre de Rodolfo Walsh." by Graciela Foglia; Valéria De Marco" have been written about this book specifically, not just about the author generally. That last point seems to settle notability. DGG (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Worldcat generally doesn't show any of the libraries in South America because the libraries here are not connected with Worldcat for some reason. There are many dissertations about this book in Spanish speaking countries, but they wouldn't show up in most of the western libraries unless a particular library has an interest in maintaining a specialized collection about Argentina. Likely the perceived political instability of Argentina contributes to why In Cold Blood was falsely recognized as the first example of investigative journalism, and also because radical governments following the Peronists did not want the world--or Argentina--knowing the things that these governments were doing. That's another reason in itself for why this book is notable. Neagley (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

--with respect to S America, that's exactly what I meant. WorldCat at this point includes almost all US libraries, major ones in Canada, major academic ones in the UK, and national libraries elsewhere in Europe--plus, more recently, some libraries in N Zealand & Australia. Absence of coverage for a book of primary interest elsewhere is not evidence of non-notability. To the extent US libraries have a S American book, it shows interest worldwide, & that's how I saw the holdings--as positive.DGG (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective now. I guess since I'm a student here right now I'm a little irritated at the lack of WorldCat usage in South America!Neagley (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• List. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevada State Route 805 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have no beef with how this deletion (and the others at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 26#Nevada State Route 805 → USA Parkway and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 11#Nevada State Highway 805 → USA Parkway) were handled, but I'd like to be able to recreate them because the media has used the number to refer to the road: [4] This was not mentioned in the deletion discussion. NE2 07:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation in the face of new evidence. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - One or two references in the media to "Highway 805" is not the same thing as proof that "Nevada State Route 805" is an applicable designation. As was pointed out previously, the route designation does not appear on NDOT documents anywhere. Until a source can show that NDOT has/intends to apply the state route designation to this road the redirect is not appropriate. Arkyan 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since the only possible type of highway here is a state route, it is proof that someone, somewhere, wanted it to be State Route 805. Whether or not that was NDOT is irrelevant. --NE2 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree with your assessment, and reaffirm my opinion that "someone, somewhere" does not cut it. State route numbers are under the purview of the respective state department of transportation and in my opinion they are the only source that matters. Arkyan 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just found a better source that does call it State Route 805. --NE2 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears the source is a dead link, and Google is searching a cached version. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a published newspaper article... --NE2 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist to get a better consensus. The original discussions on RfD (see links above) contained 2 votes to delete and 1 vote to keep Nevada State Route 805, 1 vote to delete State Route 805 (Nevada), 1 vote to delete SR 805 (NV) and 1 vote to delete Nevada State Highway 805. That's not a broad enough consensus for me. [By the way I briefly mentioned this page on Wikipedia talk:Notability (Places and transportation), in case anybody is interested.] 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Admins correctly assesed the consensus there. It's normal that RfDs have only 1 or 2 commenters. Remember that, on RfD, if nobody comments, then it defaults to delete. The source only stablishes that the name can be mentioned on the USA parway article. Come back when NDOT makes the name official --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If the name's mentioned in the article, what's wrong with a redirect? --NE2 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's only one mention on one article.... I know that redirects are cheap, but.... I don't oppose recreation if more mentions on media are found. When recreating, you can put the references on the talk page so that it won't get deleted again. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It's mentioned in at least three articles, once as State Route 805 and twice as Highway 805. --NE2 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation - There's nothing wrong with recreating an article if new evidence supporting the road's designation and significance can be established and written. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

College Street (TTC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Proceedural review. Additional Articles were added into the nomination by seperate Editor (not the original AFD nominator). Concerns were raised, and never addressed, involving not following the proscribed process for proposing multiple deletions. Although I feel I know what the outcome will be, AFD closers should adheer to transparency and clarity when not following guidlines and proceedures, and explain such actions clearly in the close statement. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Closing admin statement Consensus was to delete all. Although a separate editor added these, the pages were one-line mini-stubs, and any useful information was merged with another article. One article was kept because that's what consensus requested. I should have been clearer in my closing statement, but I went with consensus, and wasn't trying to avoid transparency or clarity. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 07:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Per this edit in the remaining article the bundled nominations included addition of the AFD notice. This is fairly standard and there is no requirement that a multiple nomination start that way. The objection that there were some votes before the bundling is fairly minor, as many articles change significantly during the AFD process, but the closing admin can take this into account at closure. Finally, any objection should take into account whether a change in procedure would affect the result. I see no evidence it would have. Ultimately, there's no benefit to making AFD more about process than outcomes. Everybody's a volunteer and time is limited. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. There were enough delete opinions after the extra articles were added to the AFD that the fact they were added late is immaterial. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Per above, there was sufficent comments after that addition of the articles. I agree Peter could have made this clearer in closing, but as Exit2DOS2000 says, this is mostly procedural. Pedro :  Chat  11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question if any content was merged, was WP:MAD ("Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, requires that the history of the merged text be preserved") followed? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The closure was correct. The fact that the admin could have made a better closing statement is not a reason to overturn the closure --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per E.Naval. Well said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - nothing wrong with the close but the point, made above, about preserving the history for GFDL reasons, since there seems to have been significant content merged, needs addressing. There is some discussion of the implications in the essay WP:MAD. Smile a While (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

March 23, 2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 23, 2004 was closed as no consensus. I was just about to close this as delete. The reason was that the closer wasn't willing to "create policy" however, I felt that there was precedents to delete these if desired, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 25, 1988 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 22, 1963 (which ended up redirected to one event). Plus, the consensus I saw to easily be delete. I was like to see this overturned and deleted. Wizardman 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note from closing admin - Wizardman approached me about this, and I explained that I believed the respondents on the AfD had significantly different understandings of what we should do with date pages. Since this wasn't something that could be easily handled at AfD, my very strong preference was that the community make some decisions about how to handle it. I am not comfortable with a "policy-bat" like that one a low-traffic AfD entry. I wasn't fond of creating precedent like that, either. I am glad this has come to DRV (and supported Wizardman in his suggestion to bring it here) because it gives it a wider viewership as we determine what the appropriate way to handle articles such as this are. - Philippe 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Apparently there are are a lot of pages like this. They do not really belong in the article namespace... since they exist only to be transcluded and aren't useful to view on their own (since they provide no context). I would suggest merging them all back into the month pages. --Rividian (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse decision. This is a tough one for me. While I'd like to see the article deleted, I suspect the right way to go about it is to approach this as a policy thing. There are so many articles for dates (every date from 2003 and 2004), all of which are live. Rather than delete an individual date (or all of them?), we should focus on making sure the policy is clear, and then get it all cleaned up. If/when the policy is clear, the content will need to be moved to the relevant month articles, and the ~700 procedural speedy deletes could probably go ahead. -- Mark Chovain 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  No, please do not delete the date articles. We don't merge and delete :) Just leave them as redirects. --- RockMFR 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. This would set an inappropriate precedent as well as leaving holes in the list of dates. Would recommend opening a centralized discussion topic about it, to consider merging the articles to months (or other units). Stifle (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. It appears the close suggested would set a much larger precedent than I'm comfortable letting AfD do. I'd suggest going to all the month pages, substituting the days, then making them all into redirects, as at least a temporary solution. The redirects should then not be deleted to preserve history. I believe I'll get started on that later today, when I have more time. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done January 2004. Man, is that tiring. I'll do February 2004 later, but I have work to do first. If anyone else would mind lending me a hand with these, that'd be great. It also appears that there's more than just some from 2004 that need this treatment, so it might be worth writing a bot to do all the subst'ing, fixing, and redirecting. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per closing admin's argument. That said, I see no reason at all why these articles should exist as anything more than redirects, given they are all redundant. In the case of htis specific article, it is redundant to March 2004. Not at all certain why we don't just list all of this information on the monthly article rather than transcluding a large collection of daily articles. There certainly needs to be some discussion about these. Resolute 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I too see this as a larger policy issue. Normally when dates appear in Wikipedia articles, clicking on them will not send you to a page on the specific day in question, as the month-day combination (March 23) and the year (2004) are linked separately.
  I would strongly prefer that clicking on the date send you to a page on that specific day, but that's a decision to be made on a system-wide basis, not in a piecemeal fashion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I somehow missed the AfD, and my comment now is not really a DRV comment (since DRV is not AfD2), but I do hope that you'll allow me to expand a bit and perhaps reconsider it all. I have, quite a while ago, raised the discussion to delete all date pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 16, 2005, and the consensus at the time was that we indeed don't need them, but it was unclear what was the best solution. Later, looking deeper into this, it turned out that these pages are transcluded on month pages, and were used by some predecessors of the portal current events. I have then started moving these pages to the portal current events, copying their current practice, so that their coverage is extended backwards in time. I did this for five months (August 2005 - December 2005), but then stopped for a number of reasons. The result is pages like August 2005, which are in line with what is done for August 2007 and so on. If these pages are considered useful and worth keeping, I would strongly suggest that all date pages (2003, 2004, and half of 2005) are changed to portal current events pages (a tedious job, but perhaps it can be automated?) and afterwards deleted (with removal of the few links each page has of course). Fram (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G12 this page and all the other pages for dates in March 204 as copyright violations of March 2004#March 23, 2004, the pages seem to have been copy/pasted without attribution from this version of the page and then transcluded back to the main page in this series of edits. Without attribution or a link to the previous page histories this is a violation of the GFDL license under which the content was released. Guest9999 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the copyright issues I don't see how thirty short pages make the subject matter easier to access than one reasonably sized page with exactly the same content. I would be in favour of returning the March 2004 page to its pre-transcluded state (which would also restore the table of contents making it easier to navigate) and having the individual dates redirect to the appropriate sections. This doesn't really appear to be a question of content as much as one of style and presentation and I really don't see the need to have more than thirty articles where one will suffice. Guest9999 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note - I've started a discussion involving this page at the administrators noticeboard. Guest9999 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've worked though the day pages for March '04, so I'm pretty sure this has been handled and can be closed. As a side note, I'm very confused as to what to do about April 2004. I've also asked for help with it at WP:AN#Hundreds of cut and paste moves. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For some reason these were supposedly speedy deleted under CSD T3. There was no discussion about deleting these under the template talk pages I could find, (self-comment-edit snip confused junk) --Mysidia (talk) Withdrawn --Mysidia (talk)

• Comment - It appears that {{HurricaneActive2}} was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 28#Template:HurricaneActive2, then the subpages were T3ed because of their similarity to {{HurricaneActive}} or subpages of it (I don't see any indication that there are any). I could be competely wrong though. It also appears that this took place about two years ago. I'm not sure what we can do about this here, but an easier solution might be to have it userfied or something then merge it with the current {{HurricaneActive}}. This would avoid having two separate templates, one of which would have to be phased out. Hope this helps. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • • Thank you for finding that.. i've looked at it further, and it appears the deletion is good.. --Mysidia (talk)