Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Allison Stokke

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, but not with assertation that this keep will require further deletion review then is in progress at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31 on the main article. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page for article which was Speedy Deleted. A speedy delete tag on the talk page was improperly removed by an administrator. Quatloo 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete talk pages where there is deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper forum for that is deletion review. Quatloo 00:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.. WP:CSD#G8 -- Ned Scott 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it's not eligible for Speedy Deletion but it is for MfD. Quatloo 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you cited it being a speedy as your deletion rationale, and no other reason has been given. This seems to be just over a misunderstanding, so I'm not sure why you wish to continue.. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an orphaned talk page, whose discussion belongs properly in Deletion Review. That is my reason. Quatloo 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever deleted a talk page for that reason. Just because the article is in DRV does not mean that people can't talk about it on other pages, such as that article's talk page. And if you merged the content of the discussion, you'd need to keep the talk page for it's history. I don't see what useful purpose this deletion would do, at all. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is relevant to the current BLP speedy-deletion violation of Wikipedia:Deletion process drama. -N 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my above comments, no valid reason to delete. Nom seems confused on how we deal with talk pages of deleted articles. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only misunderstood the process. The orphaned page doesn't belong. Quatloo 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having incoming links to a talk page is not an issue.. (we don't delete articles or talk pages for that reason), and it's currently an active talk page. It will also be a place to note a link to the DRV, for people who come across this later on. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Improperly removed? I removed it because I don't think this page should be deleted, much less speedily. Keep, per above. It's also entirely possible this person will be covered in sources again in a few years, if she continues to be an exceptionally good athlete. I agree we shouldn't have an article - she's one for Wikinews, if anything, but not Wikipedia. But there's no reason not to have a talk page. If people add inappropriate content, let those individual edits be deleted. Friday (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it contains historical material of relevance. Bete Noir 03:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this.-James, La gloria è a dio 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.