On 12/6/06, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put a {{hangon}}).
Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently bizarre redirect...
Steve
My takeaway is a) David should have given an honest edit summary b) The SD tag was fine c) Once the {{hangon}} was added it shouldn't have been deleted.
So two different people made mistakes.
On 12/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/06, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
I agree with this. A few days ago I created [[338171]]. Being rather bored at the time I gave a facetious edit summary which claimed the article was all about the number 338,171. It was swiftly tagged with a speedy delete tag, and then deleted (despite me having quickly put a {{hangon}}).
Heh, you redirected a number to a person, and were surprised it got deleted? I think the onus on weird redirects like that is on the person creating to justify its existence, not on the the potential deleter to search for any kind of rationale behind an apparently bizarre redirect...
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l