Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Lists of rivers in Romania

Rivers in Romania[change source]

Request for deletion: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Lists of rivers in Romania

Hello there. Unlike the asteroid stubs, all of the rivers that you deleted were all inherently notable according to the English Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to request that All of the Romanian Rivers be undeleted, as well as a bunch of other pages that were not rivers that also got deleted. I was shocked that nobody even though to let me know via email that the Romanian River pages were up for deletion. I didn't even know that they were deleted until I just happened upon it whilst looking through the "Show any page" option on the left hand side of the screen. I just want to say that I am extremely upset that you guys found it necessary to delete pretty much all of the articles that I made for you. It is like kicking someone that is down. You are making me rethink my decision to come back to this site now. There are a number of pages which are definitely notable, including Suceava River, Moldova River, Prahova River, Siret River, and a bunch of other major tributaries that you guys just decided did not need to be put onto this Wikipedia. Why did you even bother deleting them if they were already made in the first place? They are going to need to be recreated at some point further down the road, so why not just leave them undeleted so that they are there for when we start needing articles for all the rivers of every country around the world. Rivers and other geographical places have inherent notability according to the notability guidelines on the English Wikipedia that says that things in which are places on the world are inherently notable because they are important because you may need to know all about them. They are an important part of an encyclopedia, so without them, you are kind of like cutting out a portion of editors to this site. I thought that the idea of the Simple English Wikipedia was to make an encyclopedia by writing articles in your interests. Geography is my interest, and I love Romania, so I definitely think that these should all be undeleted. This, in my opinion, was done behind my back (you waited until I retired and then put them all up for deletion. If I had still been on here, you would not have gotten the same vote for the request for deletion. I definitely believe that they are an integral part of this Wikipedia; much more so than the asteroids. I could care less about the asteroids, but when you mess with the Romanian Rivers, I get pissed off. I would like to request that the vote be redone and/or all of the articles undeleted. Thanks, Razor flame 03:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[change source]

I ask that very serious consideration and discussion be given to this request. Unlike the asteroid RFD, Razorflame was not informed of the Romanian rivers RFD since he had officially retired from the project. It must be very disheartening for any editor to have much of his work deleted from a project and I think we should seriously enter into a discussion about articles that enWP would consider notable even if they were small stubs. fr33kman ^talk 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are troubled by the lack of references for each of the articles, that can be easily remedied. I can get a whole bunch of references for every single river article that you deleted, and I can probably scrounge up some more information about a bunch of them as well. Just give me some more time and I can get them all expanded and everything. Razor flame 04:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main point of the RFD was that the articles were "flooding" the Random page" button with unreferenced, one line stubs rather than "quality" articles. Expansion of these topics should be the order of the day. Quality over quantity seemed to be what was asked for. fr33kman ^talk 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you guys just waited, the random article issue could have been remedied as well. The more articles we get other than Romanian River articles, the more chance you got of not getting a Romanian River article from the random article option. Razor flame 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best option at this point is to create a list article with a list of the rivers, which most people would not have a problem with. Individual one line articles that cannot be expanded are just not good for a wiki that is only supposed to cover the most common topics. A obscure small romanian river is not one such article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure The close was done correctly. At the time, it was thought that RF was off wiki, and notification was not done. However, a proper close was conducted and community consensus was reflected accurately. I have no issues with the process or the closer's decision. Note: I did nominate the cat, so I am biased. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closure The close was done without the knowledge of the original author so that he could get his point of view across. All the articles are inherently notable and should not have been deleted in the first place. Razor flame 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure Not to vote count, but there was a total of one keep out of eleven comments. Clear consensus to delete. As no one owns articles on Wikipedia, the fact that the original author was not notified is moot. Authors are not required to be contacted. The process was correctly followed and the consensus was clear. Either way (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support Closure Razorflame was considered gone at the time, so it seemed illogical to notify. I presume he is only mad because articles he worked on got deleted. Shappy ^talk 13:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure Per Shappy and others. Pmlineditor Talk 13:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - So your point is? They should stay because they are notable enough and EN has them? This point has been brought up by Griffinofwales during the RfD. The community did take that into consideration, but it was shot down after discussion. Chenzw Talk 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community is quite capable of deciding which articles they want and don't want on Wikipedia. There was barely any context to these articles, and they were of no help to Wikipedia. We moaned and complained about your rapid creation of thousands of articles; you chose to ignore us, and then leave. If you want these articles, the onus is on you to expand them to a reasonable length, and that doesn't mean importing the enwiki versions. I do, however, doubt you'll do that, so support closure. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[change source]

Ok guys, I understand that they should be deleted now. However, I would like to request the undeletion of the numerous lists of rivers that Creol and I made. Could we possibly discuss the restoration of the List of rivers in Romania and all of its' subpages please? Thanks, Razor flame 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which page(s) in particular? The one you linked to has no page history. Either way (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, one second.... {{Rivers in Romania}} should have had a list of these pages. I hope I got that one right. Cheers, Razor flame 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De facto, you didn't. Pmlineditor Talk 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is {{Romanian rivers}}. Chenzw Talk 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the template. Does anyone agree that we can resurrect the lists for the rivers (minus the red links, of course), and that would be it? Cheers, Razor flame 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<---) I can email you the deleted edits, but I won't be able to restore it without consensus to do so since it was deleted as a result of a RFD. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to email me the deleted edits because I remember those edits. Yes, I think that we can start garnering a concensus for the restoration of just the lists. Anyone else in agreement? Razor flame 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome[change source]

This request will close seven days after it was opened; this will be around. Sunday, 23 August 2009 at 05:00 (UTC), although it may be closed quicker because of this.

Well, I thought about it. This RFU will be closed as unsuccessful. This means: The pages (includes all the deleted rivers, templates with redlinks only and lists with redlinks only) will not be restored. The template which is mentioned above, links only to lists. The lists themselves include only or to over 90% redlinks. Therefore, I think it is useless to restore them. Above is also no concensus for restore any of the deleted pages. There were some examptions I made a few weeks ago, when I restored a few rivers, which were needed for our VGA Romania. At all, only pages/rivers, which are needed on such important pages will be restored (e.g. per request on my talk). --Barras || talk 12:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]