Hi Postdlf, did you intentionally keep the bundled article, High-level design? Or did you not notice it? Only one of the respondents addressed that second article, so maybe it's worth nominating it on its own to get more feedback. Sancho23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that was overlooked, sorry. It's a risk with the later-added articles whenever they are not formatted the same as the initial nomination; I'll have to watch for that better. I agree that there's no clear consensus to delete that second article. Two options: 1) I could reopen the AFD and relist it; or 2) I could note in my close that there is no consensus regarding the second article and explicitly suggest a second separate AFD for it. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who wrote the article, didn't start it but did write it, didn't know it was nominated for deletion because I've been away (just got back today actually). Can I get a copy of the source text? Like, the whole thing? I would've saved a copy of it if I had known it was nominated for deletion. I need it for my own personal archive. Thanks in advance.--Krystaleen07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly the same thing happened to me with my article - highest football grounds in England. It's a useful resource, a popular pub trivia question, and I know I've actually met people who have used the page! It got deleted over a weekend, so if I don't check Wikipedia over 2 days over a weekend, a whole article gets deleted? I don't know what classifies as original research these days, but surely using publicly available data and maps isn't original research? It's a collation of existing material. Gavinio (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out; the closing script I use didn't catch that because the page had been moved since the nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
