Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 9

Baba rosa – Decision endorsed – Rlendog (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This entry was lumped together in a mass deletion of several related articles however the discussion's votes and arguments were all counted against all of them when the votes did not all reflect upon each item under discussion. Baba rosa is in fact a non controvertial Spanish term (used in Spanish wikipedia) for the subject of pink slime and per G3 "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages." So I find it odd that g3 has been cited in deletion and redeletion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC) LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endorse this. Whether or not the R3 (not G3) speedies were correct, the third deletion at RFD surely was, and it was backed by WP:REDIRECT#DELETE #8: "In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created." Same reason we have 日本→Japan but not ベルギー→Belgium. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the closing administrator. I only deleted Baba rosa redirect as all other redirects had been deleted before I closed the discussion. Ruslik_Zero 07:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note There was an additional apparently duplicate RfD for this one on April 2, [1] DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The IP editor above makes a good point, we don't have redirects for the foreign language equivalent of every article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Spanish is not a foreign language in the United States.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally irrelevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it's the pink slime article, which seems to be a somewhat U.S.-centric topic. – hysteria18 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The term "foreign language redirects" refers specifically to redirects which are in languages other than English. Such redirects are OK if they relate to a culture which speaks that language, but pink slime doesn't have any special relevance to Spanish-speaking Americans. Hut 8.5 11:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does it have to have special relevance to Spanish-speaking Americans? I think if it has special relevance to Americans, some of whom are Spanish-speaking, then that's enough. – hysteria18 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse foreign language (i.e. not English) redirects should not generally be created unless the target of the redirect relates to the language or a culture which speaks that language (WP:R#DELETE). Foreign language redirects are sometimes useful, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that they are always useful. Hut 8.5 10:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:BradTraylor/Battle_of_Imizu – Speedy closed because the nomination consists largely of personal attacks, for which this page may not be abused. The request is at any rate meritless because because no argument is made why the closer assessed consensus to delete incorrectly. Whether the deletion itself was correct or not was the subject of the MfD discussion and may not be reargued here. – Sandstein 08:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

No adequate reason was given by user Oda Mari as to why this page should be deleted. It is not part of the main encyclopedia of Wikipedia, and it was moved here specifically so that it could be cleaned up, fixed, and adequately cited. Until such time when it is adequately cited and ready for the Wikipedia main page, it should be left available to be fixed up, because obviously any questions of sources or content can't be addressed without further research. Questions and comments on the content and validity have been discussed endlessly in at least three other locations on wikipedia and as such will not be rehashed here, and shouldn't even be a consideration in deciding whether or not to delete this article due to the reason it was placed here in the first place - to be cleaned up and further researched. Furthermore, this deletion was just a continuation of Oda Mari's personal campaign against me; When I clearly illustrated numerous times her lack of the necessary knowledge of Japanese primary sources and the skills necessary to evaluate them (most notably on the talk page associated with this page), she became angry, and nominated numerous of my articles a second time for deletion (she was shot down the first time), and then went after this page (presumably out of embarrassment). She further escalated her bullying by then prompting a failed sockpuppet allegation against me. This page should be allowed to stand in order for it to be fixed up later, as mentioned before, that is why it was moved here in the first place. BradTraylor (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page's history is currently visible at User:DeltaQuad/Battle of Imizu. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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