Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust was deleted after more than one editor worked on the page and the creator did substantial work improving the article including uploading original artwork and image to the project. The page was linked to many other pages which now causes a bad redirect.
Comment I've fixed the listing here for you. Unfortunately the case you present here is little to do with this process, which merely considers if the deletion process was followed correctly or not. The arguments you present also have little to do with the inclusion standards of wikipedia, the amount of work done by an individual does not create an obligation for wikipedia to host it. On the many page linked, I could only see one article on wikipedia and I've fixed that since it was a completely unreferenced claim. Links external to wikipedia are of little interest since wikipedia is not a free webhost, advertising etc.. That said the article has been userfied so perhaps someone will find the appropriate sourcing etc. and it may be restored in the future when that happens. Beyond that the inclusion standards etc. seem to have been described in the deletion discussion so not much further can be added. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse userfication close. I think perhaps the nominator here has misunderstood the outcome - the article, consensus determined, did not meet our inclusion guidelines but there was a feeling among editors that it might with some work. So it has been moved away from regular article space to allow those improvements to be made. If it can be fixed, it can then be moved back into article space. So the title has been deleted but the article itself is waiting at User:Nunnsofunky/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust for improvement. Stalwart11121:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse When the notability guidelines are interpreted as hard rules, worthwhile articles can sometimes be deleted. However, consensus is required to go against guidelines and in this case there was indeed a rough consensus to userfy rather than keep (but not to delete). Reference [1] helps towards a rule-based notability quota but the additional [2] is not quite enough to clear the rather arbitrary hurdle. Thincat (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I did a bit of research around this because I ran into it at WP:REFUND. The rationale at the AFD was correct. To address the nominator's point, the article was previously transcluded in a few articles due to a template, but the link has now been removed. There are no significant backlinks to this title anymore, and there weren't before. §FreeRangeFrogcroak20:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is an example of power abuse on Wikipedia. I wish that JW or someone who understands what the project is supposed to be would please take a look at this.Obviously, the article should not be deleted.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it hasn't been deleted. It doesn't currently meet guidelines and so it has been userfied - moved into draft space - so you can work on it and substantiate notability. Stalwart11123:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and in this case I think that the closing admin handled the situation well. With a bit of work the userified version of the article will hopefully find its way back to the mainspace soon. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
