Login
Login

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 14

{{Deletion review log header}}

=[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 14|14 December 2017]]=

class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |

  • :List of postal codes in Canada – Vacate WP:NAC and relist. I'm not a big fan of overriding NAC's just because they are NACs, but in this case, I think it's clear that WP:BADNAC #2 (The outcome is a close call) applies. Opinion in the AfD was pretty much split down the middle, and so far this DRV also looks 50/50. I suspect if I was closing this AfD, I would have not closed it, and just relisted it for another week to see if a more clear consensus would emerge. So, that's what I'm going to do. {{ping|HindWIKI}}, I don't mean to step on your toes; your efforts are appreciated, but I think this one is a little too complicated to fit WP:NAC. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

::Addendum: I just discovered that there was a second AfD on this topic, which I didn't know about when I closed the DRV. I've ranted a bit about this on ToThAc's talk page. Mentioning it here so everybody knows the full history. As I mentioned there, at this point, the best way forward seems to be to just let the original (and re-opened) AfD continue to it's conclusion. Please folks, let's try and keep things as simple and straight-forward as possible. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

:{{DRV links|List of postal codes in Canada|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Canada|article=}}

The keep votes weren't very sufficient, as the page is just a substantial duplicate of a very short list already found in a section of Postal codes in Canada. Therefore, I propose that we overturn this to either delete or redirect. ToThAc (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • reopen the current discussion, but if we have to do the discussion here, then delete The first discussion was grossly inadequate; when real issues with the article were brought up in the second discussion, the response was bureaucracy in the face of a discussion that was headed towards either deletion or redirection. That direction should either be honored now, or the discussion let run its course. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse this is basically a subjective editorial judgement: do we have this information as part of a larger article, as a standalone page, or some combination of the two? As that is just a judgement call I think the closer was right to go with the majority opinion. You don't need an AfD to redirect something, you can do it through the normal editorial process, and I don't think anyone's likely to dispute that this is a reasonable search term. Hut 8.5 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse basically, because the difference in doing it in a separate page isn't worth othering about. Considering the amount of junk we need to remove, and --equally important -- the amount of time we need to spend encouraging promising new editors, dealing receptively in detail with things like this is counterproductive DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.