Talk:Blatino
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Psychonaut in topic Blatino (undeletion request)
Entry was deleted in 2008 as a protologism, but I believe it is now in sufficient parlance to be undeleted. A Google Books search would indicate that it would pass RfV if taken there. Purplebackpack89 14:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- RFD out of scope: this was just a request for restoration, with no RFD-related reason for deletion. Since attesting quotatins are at Blatino, there is nothing more to discuss at RFD or RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- We've allowed undeletion requests before. We could add it to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header or simply not and have them done here without mentioning it in the header. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think DanP was looking for some rationale for the request, which is what we ask for. If we don't demand rationales, we won't get them. We need to make sure that we don't allow whimsy to trump group decisions. In this case, a simple explanation of the facts ("an unformatted definition without citations was deleted, but the term seems likely to be citable") would probably have been sufficient for all of us to agree with Equinox's action or at least it would have been a basis for rational discussion. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have said "RFD closed" instead. My issue was that the undeletion request was RFV-based (attestation) and not RFD-based (sum of parts). I do not really object to using RFD for this, though; it seems kind of close enough to use RFD. Maybe I should have said nothing, and archive the request seven days after Equinox posted "done". I did not really see a discussion unfolding from the closure. I do support Equinox action, and I wish that this thing gets archived ASAP :). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to policy, this page is indeed the correct place to post requests for undeletion, or at least to discuss pages deleted by administrators. See Wiktionary:Sysop deleted#What if I think the deletion was wrong?. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think DanP was looking for some rationale for the request, which is what we ask for. If we don't demand rationales, we won't get them. We need to make sure that we don't allow whimsy to trump group decisions. In this case, a simple explanation of the facts ("an unformatted definition without citations was deleted, but the term seems likely to be citable") would probably have been sufficient for all of us to agree with Equinox's action or at least it would have been a basis for rational discussion. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- We've allowed undeletion requests before. We could add it to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header or simply not and have them done here without mentioning it in the header. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)