Wikipedia:Deletion review/Jack Berman

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

The result of the debate was undelete. Restored history per consensus. --Myles Long 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Berman

(I contacted the closing admin about this a few days ago, but, in the absence of a response and noting that this decision was taken sometime ago, I thought I ought now to bring it to DRV [it may be best classified as a "History only undelete", but I concluded straight DRV was best.) The debate focused on whether the biographical subject was notable irrespective of his involvement in 101 California Street shootings or was notable only in view of his involvement with that event, for which an article ought to be created, with which the content ought then to have been merged. Because sundry participants didn't express their changing views apropos of the article in a well-formatted way, SushiGeek closed the article as delete, even as portions had already been directly merged into the new article; even as, at a cursory glance, the closing as "delete" was reasonable, the subsequent work w/respect to the new article, as discussed in the AfD debate, militates against deletion. Because preservation of the contribution history is preferred, and because the result of the debate ought properly to have been understood as "merge and redirect", the decision should be overturned and the article should be undeleted (I subsequently recreated the article as a redirect to 101 California Street shootings, but that new iteration should be deleted in order that the contribution history of the old version might be restored) and merged (here, simply redirected). Joe 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Based on notability claims on 101 California Street shootings. Having an award named after the person seems to scream notability to me. When put together with his violent death, and his reputation for pro-bono work in the city (mostly through the two organisations he helped create), it makes for a reasonable length and scope entry. Ansell 04:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, I don't think "undelete" to restore the article to be appropriate; no reasonable interpretation of the AfD, even irrespective of the original close, can leave one with "no consensus to delete" or "keep". The only issue, IMHO, is whether the article properly should have been closed as "delete" or as "merge and redirect", especially in view of the latter's having happened. Joe 04:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I am not an admin, and can hence not view the version which was debated on the AfD, however, the arguments on the AfD do not match with the notability that either the nominator or I described. Ansell 05:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom. JoshuaZ 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the history This will allow anyone to affect a merge at his/her convenience, and retain the attribution record. Xoloz 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Undelete the history for compliance with GFDL. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please for compliance and notability Yuckfoo 00:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)