Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 15

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) – While the original deletion is endorsed, there is evidence that consensus may have changed and new information for disambiguation (e.g., a new film) exempts this case from WP:CSD#G4. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I tried contacting Juliancolton (talk · contribs), but he is inactive since August 2013. I believe that consensus may change after four years of deletion. This deleted dab page is discussed in WT:DAB. Ambiguous or not, I have concerns on the original film as "primary topic", especially now that the remake is already made. Even when the franchise page is already created, dab page could be made of use for easier readability and navigation. Also, attempt to make the franchise page the broad concept or primary topic failed (see talk page of franchise article). If Resident Evil (disambiguation) can be "kept", then this dab page should be undeleted by overturning decision. George Ho (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the unanimous, 6-0 to delete, at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation). A dab page seems redundant with A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). Yes, the AfD was years ago, but the arguments that carried the AfD seem still valid. Not strongly opposed to allowing recreation and testing at AfD. Oppose the arguing of the facts at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil (disambiguation), you voted "support". How is "Resident Evil" different from this? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I did. I hadn't remembered. At DRV, we wear a different hat. The was nothing wrong that I can see with the 2009 AfD. I guess you want to use DRV to establish that WP:CCC. Ok. I support recreation, allow listing at AfD, do not allow WP:CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if "endorsed", can it be userfied as part of my user subpage? I'll make sure that I can make a current version unequivalent to the recent deleted revision. --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History undeletion is appropriate if recreation were allowed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ayaan Chawla – Nominator blocked as a sock – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article I wanted to create has been deleted by Mark_Arsten, and I talked to him regarding creating article of Ayaan Chawla as he told me to request for Un-Deletion. AdamCharles89 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion Review filings need a reason who you think the consensus to delete was wrong; "I disagree" isn't enough, and you didn't even bother to say that. I'd also note that this user recreated the article already at Ayaan C. (currently a speedy deletion nom), and that Mr. "AdamCharles89"'s account was only created on the 13th of October. Seeing how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayaan Chawla was plagued with sockpuppets, I'd like to see a check on this account too. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above discussion is totally misguided & nonsense because I am Adam Charles lives in UK, I saw Ayaan Chawla on webinar and I have searched him and I got some details, so I saw Article Ayaan Chawla which was deleted by Mark Arsten and I have contacted Mark Arsten to create Ayaan Chawla article and then I have started a article named Ayaan C.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamCharles89 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where you live has no relevance to this discussion. And neither has where you heard of Chawla. The only topic for discussion is whether the deletion discussion was properly closed. What are the grounds based on Wikipedia policy for suggesting that the closure was incorrect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this can be archived now. User:AdamCharles89 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Ron Gates, the sockmaster at the AfD for Ayaan Chawla. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.