Hyacinthoides

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am interested in re-creating Chelsea-Manchester United rivalry article, which was deleted by you. I wanted to know why it was deleted and if I can re-create it again with reliable sources?

Thank You! AkephalostheHeadless (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link. Sandstein 19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Quite old (2012) now, though I doubt if much has changed in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a no consensus DRV for a draftified page be treated similarly to a speedy deletion? I just absolutely fail to see how it's not ready for mainspace now, and that's not the point of draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a DRV ends in no consensus, the AfD closure at issue remains in force by default. Sandstein 07:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you have decided to redirect the Rusetroy (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Mikael Höglund Rusetroy (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) page to Rusetroy (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Thunder Rusetroy (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) i wish to have the Rusetroy (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Mikael Höglund Rusetroy (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) page deleted since i’m the author/creator of that page.[reply]

This makes no sense. Sandstein 13:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you get the article version that was deleted in the recent AfD into draft form? There was a lot of information there. MrMkG (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 07:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page and I can see respondents just saying "Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion." which is what I assume will happen here.

Even though the the page introduction says post deletion discussion pages can also be granted. But the process that I have witnessed till now, when a perfectly good article got deleted on such flimsy grounds which then no one sought to address properly, there is going to be a snowball's chance in hell that this will be granted.

It's fine you dont have to do anything but don't guide me down a dead end. I just have one question now, say hypothetically this person gets elected later or gets even more coverage at some time (although I am assuming no amount of coverage is sufficient if what is already there isn't), the article would never be created again since it is locked now. How does that work? MrMkG (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC is an option. Sandstein 19:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely surprised to see this closed as delete. Of those people who actually engaged with the sources one recommended keeping, one (me) suggested keeping or merging and one recommended deleting or merging. Of those !votes from before the sources were identified all of them are wholly or mostly invalidated by the sources and subsequent discussion of appropriate merge or redirect targets. I genuinely don't understand how you can state that there is nothing to merge, or that most of the sources are primary (3 of the five I found, and the coverage Andy Dingley mentions are secondary). Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way to look at it - another is that in three weeks, your sources convinced only one out of three subsequent commenters. So I don't think that the earlier "delete" opinions are necessarily invalidated. Sandstein 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately it's a typical one in this area - a lot of obscure machinery was built in the 1960s. This locomotive definitely did exist (there are at least four different images of it on the net, original drawings exist, and railway model makers have even produced models of it), but you try finding a reliable source with reliable information - even the sites that do talk about it can't even agree on its power units (four 375hp engines? two 750hp engines? Who knows?). That said, there's enough out there for at least a redirect to one of the targets mentioned in the AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been any credible disagreement over the engine number and power. The class 17 used a pair of untried 750 bhp Paxman engines, and had many problems with them. DHP 1 used Rolls-Royce engines from the outset and these just weren't of that size, only half of it. This isn't because of any issue with Paxman, but because of its connections to Fell and the Yorkshire Taurus (which already used R-R) [1]. If anything, DHP 1 is more of a Taurus on bogies to make it a yard switcher, rather than the canard of it being a 'hydraulic 17'. The reports of DHP 1 having two 750 bhp engines are entirely wrong, based on assumptions that it was simply a 17 with a changed transmission. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't think that the earlier "delete" opinions are necessarily invalidated. In what way are comments stating that the existence is unverifiable and that there are no sources not invalidated by the existence of multiple independent sources? Whether those sources demonstrate notability (sufficient for an article or to merge the content) is something reasonable people can disagree on, but unless and until they actually opine on the sources you can't say one way or the other.

Of the people who commented post-sources being presented, one is irrelevant as they clearly didn't even look at the sources (ADifferentMan), oaktreeb is unconvinced of standalone notabliity but expressed no opinion regarding a merge, the nom vaguely suggested delete or merge (which was actually a much stronger argument than their nomination) and Andy Dingley recommended a straight keep with a comment about additional sources (the strongest argument since mine). That's not consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'd assumed that Sandstein went with delete here just because I'd gone for keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]