Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 24

2016 Australian Open – Endorse. Absurd amount of effort devoted to an utterly trivial point, and Stifle is right about the drive-by nomination. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Not too early now, below a year. 333 -blue 13:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we restore the article, what content do you propose it would contain? Stifle (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The RFD discussion linked above was unanimous, and 333-blue doesn't seem to be suggesting that there were any procedural errors in the close, so I think this isn't even an issue for deletion review. 333-blue, are you just asking for the redirect to be restored, or was there some content in the page history that you wanted restored? Calathan (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant history, it just consisted of a straightforward redirect and then an RfD nomination. There isn't actually anything preventing someone from recreating this as a redirect, and if the "too soon" argument is no longer considered valid then it won't be deleted. Hut 8.5 22:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I don't know why anyone thought it worth creating a redirect, or why anyone thought it worth getting it deleted. Odd ways of building an encyclopedia. The test for whether we have an article is whether there is suitable content, not whether the event is less than a year away. There is no point in simply recreating the redirect, if that is what is being suggested. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.