Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia at the 2006 Commonwealth Games
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was all three articles moved to userspace. ugen64 21:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Australia at the 2006 Commonwealth Games[edit]
Also, Boxing at the 2006 Commonwealth Games and Basketball at the 2006 Commonwealth Games.
I think this article is a little bit premature. Delete, but allow for restore when these games actually start. Sjakkalle 08:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Radiant_* 09:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)Userfy per the below. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)- Delete, too premature. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Mgm|(talk) 10:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment, check the contributions of User:Ianblair23, he's diligently made templates for all the 2006 events too, although wikipedia is not a crystal ball there is some provision in that poilcy for templates etc being put up in advance, it uses the US presidential election for 2008 as an example. I'm not sure what to do in this instance, no vote. --nixie 12:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
G'day fellas, this Ianblair23 here, what have I done!! All I was trying to do was get ready for the Commonwealth Games. I was so impressed with the 2004 Summer Olympics layout, I was simply trying to lay the ground work for ready for next year. With a huge event such as this coming up surely there is no harm with templates sitting there ready for the results to go straight in? 13:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Is it possible to move these placeholders and templates (they are nice by the way!) to a subpage of your userpage? Then you can restore them in 2006 without having to manually recreate them. Not quite sure if that is in accordance with policy, but apart from things like profanity and personal attacks, most people are fairly tolerant of what you put on such pages. I appreciate your efforts Ianblair23, and I hope these nominations were not too discouraging. Sjakkalle 15:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy, in agreement with Sjakkalle. Credit to Ianblair23 for a good effort; it's just premature to put these things in the article namespace. Barno 16:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If Ianblair23 were to userfy the templates before the expiry of this VfD, I don't think anyone would be bothered.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy I'll assume good faith and say the creator just wasn't clear on policy. --InShaneee 19:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy userfy. I agree that the article was made in good faith. - Lucky 6.9 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy. If it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that the article was created by the original author, I'm all for userfys. Megan1967 07:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see that userfy is, or nearly is, the unanimous opinion here. Who should actually carry out the userfication? Ianblair23, the admin who closes the debate or anyone? Sjakkalle 11:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.