Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

14 August 2006

North American Union

was deleted due to lack of sources, i here present CNN prominently using the term. --Striver 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crooked_I Kingwell, August 10th, 2006 The article might need _one_ area cleaned up to not promote as much, but for the most part, the rest of the article was up to guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Crooked_I

Good articles and Good article

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 7#Good articles → Wikipedia:Good articles

Both pages redirected to the same place. Both were closed as "delete" without adequate justification. While I fully understand that we are not voting, the tallies were 5:3 and 5:4 respectively. The only reason given for deletion was the rote "cross-namespace redirect". There is no policy forbidding the use of cross-namespace redirects. The most complete discussion I know of listing their relative advantages and disadvantages is at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects where the outcome is far from clear. At best, these two discussions would normally be interpreted as "no consensus". I request that the decisions be overturned pending a centralized answer to the question of cross-namespace redirects. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn until there is an actual policy, with rationale, and a method that will heal the damage done by deletion. I don't much care with the newer ones, but deleting leaves gaps, and the people doing the deleting need to realize the magnitude of what they're doing by going through every single "what links here" and fixing every single one. Geogre 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the namespaces are there for a reason. Why do we need redirects that suddenly propell people from the encyclopedia to the worksings? Viridae^Talk 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, deletion of cross name space redirects is a guideline. See WP:REDIRECT. Viridae^Talk 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but it has specific exceptions for redirects that "aid searches on certain terms" and those where "Someone finds them useful". Powers ^T 13:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - They refer to mainspace redirects. Viridae^Talk 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't find any indication of that. Powers ^T 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No but I thought it would have been fairly obvious. People don't search for terms (ussually) when looking for something in the wikipedia mainspace and "someone finds them usefull" seems to be voided by the cross-namespace redirect rule. Viridae ^Talk 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, these two terms aren't notable enough outside of Wikipedia (unlike, say, be bold). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong, Research into Health Benefits

Falun Dafa or Falun Gong is a popular system of Qi Gong. Practitioners of this system report profound health benefits. The Page Falun Gong, Research into Health Benefits discussed material from preliminary research conducted in the field which included the paper from Richard Johnson, QuanZhen Li et. al.[1]

The content was being improved, continually, though a series of edits. The topic is a popular google search too. The structure of the main page of Falun Gong was decided to be such that only links to sub-pages and intros to the subsections would be left on the main page - This being the reason for the creation of the sub-page Falun Gong, Research into Health Benefits .

It is requested that the page may kindly be undeleted. Thanking You.

Dilip rajeev 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Restore the Page.

Dilip rajeev 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article on this topic already exists, it is located at Falun Gong.--SB | T 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. The one there is the undeleted one.Fnhddzs 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The page at Falun Gong is subject to protection and a mediation request, so any decisions as to shape of the content are contentious at best. There simply isn't the content to support a page on the topic seperate from the main article. Only one study has been published. Wikipedia should not have a page on every study published, rather information should be presented where it is best placed. In this instance the parent article is the best place for such information. Steve block Talk 07:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Didn't we just go through this DRV about 10 days ago? What has changed about the close? What new evidence has changed since the last DRV? Geogre 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, POV fork of Falun Gong (I don't see the DRV in the "recently concluded", but if it was, my vote would change to "speedy close"). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It could well be a name alteration by, say, a comma. That's another reason for closing. Geogre 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, I see it here. It was in July, and therefore wouldn't be in the "Recently concluded" for this month. However, being closed in July 5, that was over a month ago, so IMO, speedy close doesn't quite apply. That being said, there is no reason why this should be undeleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: Thank you, Deathphoenix, for finding the old DRV. Since the nominator hasn't introduced a new question or supplied new information that would alter that consensus, no change: keep deleted. Geogre 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]