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.
Drought Conditions – Restore. As for the title, I personally think creating a redirect from Drought conditions (lowercase) to Drought is the best solution. If someone typed "Drought Conditions" into the search box, they're probably more likely to be looking for this episode than "drought conditions." This is just something I think will work, so feel free to challenge it if you disagree. – King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
(I don't think the admin closed poorly here, but other considerations lead me to DRV this after speaking to him.) A sparsely-attended AfD resulted in the article on this West Wing episode being deleted early in 2010. However, not only is it literally the only episode for which we don't have an article, it also appears to be the only episode that was ever even nominated for deletion. To me, the lack of interest in deleting the others (before, after, or even during this AfD) implies a tacit consensus to cover episodes which overrides this individual AfD - consistency, and the failure of the AfD to serve as precedent for deleting similar articles, suggest that the article should be restored. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The important issue here is the idea that someone typing "Drought Conditions" into the search box is looking for a TV series episode. I think this idea is bizarre. What the AfD should have found is that Drought Conditions ought to be a redirect to Drought (disambiguation) and I suggest that we unilaterally overturn the AfD to that result. What Roscelese is asking about is whether it should be permissible to have an article called Drought conditions (West Wing episode), and I don't really care have no opinion about that.—S MarshallT/C08:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the title is the issue at all. It was never brought up in the AfD nor in my DRV post, because, of course, we can disambiguate. An article called Drought Conditions (The West Wing) (which is the standard for West Wing articles) would be perfectly acceptable - this is about the content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree. I suspect there are sources for many of these episodes, but most of the articles are so weak that a merge is a good idea at the moment anyways (I looked at the last 2 seasons articles and didn't see many (if any) reliable sources). There is a season page, so maybe just a redirect for now? Hobit (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently a redirect, but I think that the article should be restored, because the existence of over 150 similar articles suggests that the community is not overly concerned that we cover The West Wing in detail, and consistency is good. While it may not be necessary to cover individual episodes, the fact that we do means that we shouldn't have a gap between "Freedonia" and "A Good Day" that leaves readers wondering what happened. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is in essence a consensus can change argument. Rather than the normal vague wave to such, the evidence present does indeed suggest that should this be listed today there is a good possibility of a different outcome, as such this should probably be restored, if anyone feels strongly enough it could then be listed. Personally I'd go along with some of the other views above, that in fact I think there may (as some point) be a broader consensus to actually simplify the whole lot, and I'd agree with that, but that's not where we are right now. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and rename per the above "allow recreation" votes, difference being is that I believe if we're to keep an article that was deleted other than for G10-12 reasons, we should have the edit history appropriately recorded to honor the past contributors, even if what they did needs to now be completely updated to meet current inclusion standards. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon request, I contacted the National Archives and had them e-mail Wikipedia to confirm that scans from the SS record microfilms and free and public to use on this site. The archivist who e-mailed me advised that he never got any kind of a reply from Wikipedia. He e-mailed the permissions address, and a copy of his e-mail was transcribed here [1]. These SS record scans are not copyrighted, yet every few years there seems to be an effort to delete them. I ask that this file be undeleted. OberRanks (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are confirmed to be free media, then couldn't we instead re-upload it to Commons so at least they can be used by all the wikis? –MuZemike06:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A copy was deleted there, too, apparently only after a single vote. Simply listed as "doesnt appear to be Public Domain" even with a tag crediting the National Archives. Very frustrating with these SS records since every few years there appears to be attempts to delete them all from Wikipedia under the claim that they are somehow violating a copyright somewhere. I've worked with these records for twenty three years and have never encountered a copyright problem. I did recently write to College Park in hardcopy, as well. When they answer me, I'll try and scan the letter on Wikipedia so we can have a permanent record of the Archive's position on these files. -OberRanks (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the National Archives stated the SS record scans were public and free to use then why was it deleted. I have seen no reason given for the hasty deletion. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Honestly, why are we !voting on this? I thought I made myself pretty clear when I said to restore the file on receipt of OTRS permission. -FASTILY(TALK)19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
