Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7

< July 6	Deletion review archives: 2007 July	July 8 >

7 July 2007

Jocker City

This page shouldn't have been deleted. It's obscure, not a hoax article or nonsense, and it's not unencyclopedic. No reason to delete this article, especially considering its notability too. Skycrest502 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Cate

Why was this deleted? David Cate is an employee of Kingsport Times-News Idav 09:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Cate doesn't seem to have been deleted. David Cate was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cate. --W.marsh 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic_Airlines_flight_4912_&_SkyWest_Airlines_flight_5741

AFD closed less than 24 hours on a weak consensus because the article itself was only 2 days old. Overcoming the irony here, allowing the AfD to continue while others work on the article is not at cross purposes. Suggest relist and allow to run its course. InkSplotch 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy relist, non-admins should not close AFDs that are less than 5 days old, and they definitely should not close AFDs that are less than 24 hours old regardless of the arguments and age of the article. --Core desat 02:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While IMO the original AfD nomination was ill-advised, and the AfD did look like it was heading for keep, this quite speedy close was also, IMO, rather ill advised. However, in this case, it may be that the best bet would be to close this DRV discussion and allow anyone who chooses to do so to re-list the article on AfD. Reviving the earlier AfD with its arguments on the propriety of the nomination seems counter-productive to me, as opposed to simply starting a new, clean AfD, if anyone now things that the article should in fact be deleted. I would advise the closer in this case that speedy closing of an AfD should be done quite carefully, and quite often causes more trouble than it saves. DES ^(talk) 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]