- Litton Industries bombing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Deleted out of process, just minutes after it was created despite a notice that the article was being worked on by two active contributors. An attempt to speak to the administrator who deleted it resulted in unprofessional "take it to DRV" when I pointed out he was acting out of process and simply "voting with the delete button". LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, he deleted it based on A10, which says "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages."
- Clearly this article, a split page with a substantial page history considering it was created only 20 minutes earlier and had 20 improvements by two authors, and substantially expanded on the small paragaraph in the Squamish Five article by writing an entire article on the bombing...did not qualify for Speedy. DRV does not need to decide whether or not it deserves to live, it just needs to restore the page and let any user who wants it deleted find a valid reason to propose their idea. But deleting out-of-process without reason is not what WP is about. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an idea; could you work on the draft version of the article, at your own leisure, at a subpage in your userspace, and when it is relatively ready-to-go move it to the mainspace? Just a thought. --Jayron32 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn/ An A10 at the start of an article split justifies the doubts that I and others had when the criterion was suggested, that it would be used for BITE. At the time of the deletion, the split article already contained more detail about the reaction to the bombing than was in the main article. It is perfectly permissible to work on developing an article in mainspace, and except for recreation after repeated deletions, nobody should fell obliged to do otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn without seeing the article. I'll agree with DGG to a point on this criteria. The tools admins have tend to be rather blunt, so require interaction and care when used. I'm quite happy with the idea of A10, but it's one of those where if it's challenged and discussion should occur poiting out the other article, if the author still wants to persist (even if it seems to be heading the POV fork way or whatever) then speedy is probably not the best way to take things forward. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DGG and nomination. The speedy criterion used, A10, specifically does not apply to split pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Speedy deletion has been contested by people other than the original creator of the article, and that is enough to revert the deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DGG's very sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've undeleted the history so everyone can evaluate what was there before the deletion. Courcelles 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. This was a completely incorrect use of A10. First, this was an attempt to split a subtopic out of a parent article, and A10 does not apply to page splits. Second, the Litton Industries bombing article had additional sourced, relevant information beyond what was in the Squamish Five article, and A10 does not apply to articles that expand on the coverage of a topic beyond what is in existing articles. Third, the new article was a plausible redirect (the deleting admin even redirected it himself), and A10 does not apply to articles that are plausible redirects. With so many provisions of the A10 criteria not followed, it really seems like the deleting admin has no idea what A10 is for and how it is supposed to work. Calathan (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow overturn per, er, absolutely everyone, but I want to note that RHaworth's words did not seem "unprofessional" to me at all. RHaworth was reasonably polite and approachable.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - per everyone. Rather than pile on, I was hoping for an apology from admin RHaworth as in "Sorry guys. I'm doing so much work in this area that I'm bound to make a mistake. Overturn as well." WP:A10 excludes "A recently created article ... where the title is not a plausible redirect." At 23:50, 8 December 2010, RHaworth A10 deleted Litton Industries bombing.[1] A minute later at 23:51, RHaworth redirected Litton Industries bombing to Squamish Five.[2] At the time of the A10 deletion, RHaworth believe that the title of the recently created Litton Industries bombing was a plausible redirect. By his own actions, RHaworth knew that Litton Industries bombing did not qualify for A10. On RHaworth's talk page, he quickly accused LikeJudasOfOld of being a sock puppet. Even if LikeJudasOfOld is a sock puppet as RHaworth inappropriately was quick to accuse, knowingly or recklessly misusing A10 to handle the situation was not the Wiki way. The failure to recognize this even after all the above discussion is problematic as well. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. I suggest working in a different admin area for a while to re-embrace administrator aspirations. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|