- Draft:Principal orbit type theorem (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
No need for deletion (since this draft article has not been abandoned. Taku (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Speedy restore as an uncontroversial restoration. The deletion log says, "G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)". Cunard (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The full, non-attack-page content was "It states a principal orbit type exists" (without even a period). —Cryptic 06:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did ask for the restoration but the deleting admin (that is, User:RHaworth) refused. Please excuse my rather colorful language. He seems to have trouble understanding the article was a draft; it is incomplete and that's precisely why it's in the draft name space. Maybe we need some explicit policy clarifying the inclusion criteria for drafts. -- Taku (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy restore per Cunard. Being in atrocious shape is not a speedy deletion criterion for drafts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy restore per HW. Also, Taku, your behavior linked to above is really unacceptable. Being right doesn't mean you get to threaten people (which is how I look that). Hobit (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've restored the draft, but I agree that Taku's behavior is unacceptable in all respects. First, the "draft" was barely a stub and ungrammatical to boot, and hadn't been edited in years. Second, right there in the deletion log, is the procedure to follow (WP:REFUND/G13). Instead, Taku goes to RHaworth's talk page and leaves a pretty rude notice (joined by a random anon), and then doubles down and implies RHaworth ought to be executed (which is perhaps the case, but unproven and unwarranted at the time). Taku then opens a DRV in which gets the name of the page wrong, leading to some confusion before the matter was sorted out. Taku isn't a new editor--in fact he's been since 2002, longer than most. There's just no excuse for this mixture of aggression and incompetence from a long-time editor. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It says that the page was deleted under WP:G13, and then again under WP:G10 a few hours later. It doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:G13 as there were no AfC templates anywhere. The undeleted revisions do not qualify for deletion under WP:G10, but maybe there were other revisions which were not undeleted for which that criterion applies. That said, the page seems to have been abandoned since 2014, and I don't see any point in having the page on Wikipedia. Maybe it should be listed at MfD. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment If Taku still wanted to create an article or a draft under this title, couldn't he have just gone ahead and done it? I know RHaworth continues to make many non-policy-compliant speedy deletions (and this looks to be another of them) but this was hardly a good example of one to make a fuss about. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is the nominator going to actually work on developing this beyond seven words, or leave it fallow for another year and a half? The article was originally created on 19 July 2014, one of a number of tiny draft substubs created by User:TakuyaMurata over time, and untouched since. What benefit does it serve to retain these drafts which he/she clearly doesn't give a fig about unless they're deleted, in which case he/she comes crying to DRV? (Previous context at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 2, final section.) Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a job for the Administrator's Noticeboard. Here at Deletion Review our primary purpose is to ensure the rules are correctly followed, and that gives us no option: we must restore the draft (as has, quite correctly, already been done). But this user's behaviour is quite surprising and I don't think it's right that he should continue to generate hundreds of words of bureaucracy over his seven-word drafts, nor that he should give administrators that amount of attitude over the same. This DRV should result in him receiving some guidance about appropriate conduct.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
