Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 25

St. Mary's Catholic High School (Woodstock) – Unsalted by User:JamieS93. However, there is nothing in the history that can be undeleted- all prior versions of this article were attack pages or vandalism. Any editor is now free to write an article on this school that complies with policy. – Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page should be undeleted so that people can contribute and help make it an informative and successful wikipedia page. As a former alumni and current supporter, I would love to be able to include information regarding the school. Many other high schools have credible and informative wikipedia pages. I feel it is unfair that this page should be locked because of some minor deviance. This page should be re-opened so that people such as myself can contribute and make it better. Stmaryswarriors (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted three times because it attacked a person or some other entity. We won't undelete that kind of page. But that doesn't mean you can't re-write a new page that doesn't attack anyone. Write a draft of the page in your userspace (let me know if you need help with how to do this) - with reliable sources - and then bring it here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've unsalted the article, which is obviously what the user wanted – so this entry can be closed for housekeeping. Jamie S93^❤ 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

circle hand game – Protected redirect created. – Tim Song (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of school pranks#Circle_game Hm2k (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but DRV examined that option and rejected it in this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However I have now addressed the concerns there and added an entry to the List of school pranks which did not exist before. Therefore, this is a new request. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Create semi-protected redirect. "Necessary" (word used at AfD) is not a criterion for having a redirect. Maintenance issues of abuse of an obscure redirect can be solved by protection with no greater harm than salting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Create redirect, and recommend protection. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Udaya Dharmawardhana – Article has been recreated in a non-speediable format. – Stifle (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11)) This page was deleted by [[user:Pascal.Tesson]. I've requested un-deletion at his talk page few days back, but he didn't responded. So, i'm taking it here. Anyway i agree with [[user:Pascal.Tesson]'s claim of advertising or promotion regarding the writing style and lack of references. But I think that should have to be corrected without deleting the page. Anyway, i've created a new page for Udaya Dharmawardana in Special My Pages Section.. I think this new version is written in more neutral language and have more cites. Thank You. Nidahasa (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the page is not protected from recreation, you can just recreate it if you overcome the reasons why it was deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, a thank you to Nidihasa for responding to a speedy deletion in exactly the right way. I note you have followed Stifle's advice and the page is now back in Wikipedia space. I agree that as rewritten it is clearly not speediable and has cites. I remain a bit concerned that the documentation for notability seems rather weak. The cites I clicked through seem to be passing mentions of this director's activity rather than sources covering the director independently and more than in passing. I recognize that such sources may be in other languages than English or may be harder to find, especially online, but I suspect that if someone nominated the article for deletion (our longer deletion discussion process, not speedy deletion as happened with the original version which we all seem to agree made sense there) it might still have a rough ride in its current state. Martinp (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Courageous (film) – In so far as we can, this case is formally resolved. – Stifle (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not actually asking for undeletion, as the article has been recreated anew and meets all the concerns expressed in the 5-months past AFD. However, a user suggested that I create this review to confirm my recreation and have the situation "formally resolved". Is there any reason why the article should not remain? American Eagle (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do nothing. The article has been recreated. It hasn't been undeleted. If an admin considers the article is substantially the same as the deleted version - which seems unlikely - it can be speedily deleted. If anyone considers the article otherwise fails our inclusion standards, it can be sent to AfD. I don't think a DRV "confirmation" is at all necessary for an editor to create an article if the editor considers in good faith that the reasons it was deleted have been addressed. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ParisianBlade's mistake was understandable in the circumstances, but Mkativerata is quite right. I think this can be speedily closed. Nice article, by the way.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good use of DRV. If you fear that it might be mis-deleted by an over active deletionist, post a note on the talk page as to why it overcomes the past AfD, and keep it on your watch list. Put a link on your userpage so that you can check that it stays blue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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