Type 003 aircraft carrier (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Earlier in June, there was was a previous discussion which concluded to merge Type 003 aircraft carrier into Chinese aircraft carrier programme. The decision was to merge, and it was based upon this diff which was very short. I was not part of this discussion as it concluded before I started contributing to the article.

However, after the discussion closed, but before the merger was enacted, there has been significantly more information added into the article which illustrates the notability of the subject. This is the last diff of the page prior to merger being executed, which is considerably more volumnous. As can be seen, the volume of all the information that is now currently available is considerable, and cannot all be solely contained in a short section in this article.

Hence, I hereby propose that the merger of Type 003 aircraft carrier be reversed and the article be split off into its own article again, as circumstances have changed and there is now a significant load of information on the subject that now merits its own article.

N.B.: I had previously discussed this on the talk page of Chinese aircraft carrier programme, and I was advised to put it up for deletion review. —Madrenergic^talk

• Closer's comment: I wasn't contacted about this, but in my view this is something for a talk page discussion to resolve, after making sure that all AfD participants are contacted. A deleted article can be editorially recreated if the concerns that led to its deletion are addressed. The same applies mutatis mutandis to "merge" outcomes at AfD. Sandstein 17:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I had attempted a talk page discussion but was directed here instead. I have a clearer idea now. —Madrenergic^talk 17:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• !voter comment - I participated in the original AfD, and commented that this should have been a merge discussion and not an AfD. As this project progresses (assuming it is not cancelled) the viability of a standalone article increases. At the time of the AfD coverage was somewhat lacking and the article itself was in a bad state (e.g. several wrong details). If there is more coverage available now (and ot seems there was more coverage late June) and if the article has been improved, then the rationale for a meege lessens.Icewhiz (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Voter comment: Only news.com.au, globalriskinsights.com, GlobalSecurity.org, and Popular Science have direct reference of Type 003. All of them were in the article at the time of the AfD. Many of the added contents are synthesis of sources that do not mention Type 003. The Chinese sources generally refrain from referring domestically-built aircraft carriers with their type designation as there are doubts whether the ship launched in 2017 truly is designated as Type 001A. In absence of evidence, any definite claim on the type designation would require certain degrees of original research. I believe it is better to expand those content in the Chinese aircraft carrier programme for the time being. -Mys_721tx (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest the participants just have this discussion on a relevant article talk page as the result of the AfD is in no way binding here. This issue should never have been sent to AfD in the first place, as AfD is for cases where the nominator believes the article should be deleted, not merged. We do routinely overturn the results of AfDs with minimal participation if someone asks for it, and this AfD only had two participants. And as has been noted above the results of an AfD don't apply if the content has been drastically reworked. Hut 8.5 06:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD, it’s discussion and it’s close. There is no deletion to review, so close this. To reverse the decision to merge, establish a consensus at the target talk page, Talk:Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme#Proposal_to_Split_Article_for_Type_003_Aircraft_Carrier. That effort has already started, this DRV is a distraction to it, and I suggest speedy closing this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but OP was directed here, so fully reasonable they *came* here. Madrenergic, it would be good if you were to notify all the AfD participants about that discussion if you haven't already. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Live Love Laugh Foundation (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

CSD'd sans notification of author, current revisions may not reflect past articles ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going through some lists of mine and noticed that an article I created (some time last year, I'm pretty sure), The Live Love Laugh Foundation, was deleted multiple times by three admins Deb, DGG, and RHaworth, for various reasons, such as A7 G11 and G3. However, I did not receive any notices of this, and am fairly sure that the article I wrote was neither promotional, advertising, unsourced, or so poorly written as to be an A7. As best as I can tell from the logs, the article I wrote was deleted by DGG for G11, than someone else came in and wrote 3 more articles which were then deleted, and the current revision of the article doesn't reflect what I wrote. Will someone please email me a copy or restore my revision (or put it in my sandbox) (Not OWNing anything, but making a distinction from what the current and past revisions are,) and if anyone feels they should be deleted could I be sent to AFD instead of deleted speedily. Not accusing anyone of trying to subvert me, but 5 months is a pretty long delay to find out that there were issues with an article that I didn't get a chance to resolve or address. I agree that the current version is not so bueno, and so wish to compare what I wrote last year to the current copy. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking over the history, I think at least some of the WP:G11's were reasonable. It looks like this has gone back and forth between some reasonable versions and some spammy ones. The current one doesn't look too bad. In any case, I've undeleted L3X1's most recent edit for comparison. I've also semi-protected the page. I would have no objection to restoring the full history; spam needs to be reverted, but doesn't have to be deleted. For now, however, I've done the more conservative thing that addresses the specific request here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think I can help with this. I just checked and it was a blank page when I deleted it. Deb (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As is usual for discussion here, I restored the entire history, and replaced the latest version with a notice. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the version DGG deleted as spam was all that spamy [1]. No opinion on later deletions (I didn't look). But yeah, the topic may not be notable, but the text was A) short B) mostly factual C) had potentially reasonable sources. I'm fine if we restore back to that version. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it will satisfy our current requirements for notability of organizations, which require sources not based on PR--but that can be discussed in the AfD thatwil linwevitably follow any restoration. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look closely, but the sources looked credible. But yeah, it may well get deleted at AfD. I just don't think the article was much more than factual statements and it didn't seem hugely promotional. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This version by L3X1 does not seem unduly promotional; the subsequent incarnation, from revision 831803972 on, contains copyright violations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• L3X1's version is neutrally written. It does not qualify for deletion under {{db-spam}}. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]