Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Recovered/Wikiquote, Recovered/Template


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

The result was: deleted.. — Aphaia 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Recovered/Wikiquote, Recovered/Template
Another set of double redirects. Is there any reason we need to keep them? --Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
 * Vote closed: Result: deleted. (2 deletes without the requester, no dissent). --Aphaia 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Question: What is the purpose of the 26 current pages that begin with "Recovered" and have subpages representing existing articles (mostly from Wikiquote: namespace):
 * Although the two currently nominated for deletion are one-edit pages, some of these have long histories. I don't feel comfortable voting until I understand why they exist in the first place. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just assumption. They were once in the project namespace, they were named "wikipedia" (because then the site was "quote.wikipedia.org"). From some point, Wikipedia:XX can't be accessed as a page on Wikiquote, and then those files were recovered by a developer and then moved to the current places by Kalki, around 17 July 2004. So I guess those files (including redirects) aren't necessary to keep, but also not neccesary to delete. They occupy "Ancientpages" and some special pages and a bit annoying but it would be okay simply to turn them to redirects.
 * Those two merged because they were double-redirects; I fixed them to the correct descinations. --Aphaia 23:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete them all. The main article namespace shouldn't have titles like "Recovered", even if they're redirects. As long as the page histories are intact in the current articles (and based on a few spot checks, it looks like they are), we should get rid of all of these unneeded and confusing pages left over from a maintenance operation. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. There seems not to be anything worthwhile in page histories we need to keep. jni 06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.