List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Endorsed -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) It contained some very useful information, and was being improved by adding links and the dates they were formed and the dates they were reorganized, and which ones were discontinued and such. RobThomas15 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse looks like a perfectly valid close, the argument for deletion is well grounded, nobody was able to rebut it convincingly, and there was a substantial numerical majority for deletion. If you'd like to host the content somewhere else I'm sure it can be emailed to you. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The deletion discussion was well-attended, the consensus was reasonably clear both in number and in argument – the fact point the article runs hopelessly afoul of WP:NOTDIR was not rebutted – and I find everything has been correctly done. Deletion review is a place to deal with failures to follow deletion process, not to re-argue points that were or should have been raised at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The closing of the deletion discussion was an accurate reading of consensus, and the deletion was well-grounded in policy. SportingFlyer talk 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Endorsed -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It contained some very useful information, and was being improved by adding links and the dates they were formed and the dates they were reorganized, and which ones were discontinued and such. RobThomas15 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse looks like a perfectly valid close, the argument for deletion is well grounded, nobody was able to rebut it convincingly, and there was a substantial numerical majority for deletion. If you'd like to host the content somewhere else I'm sure it can be emailed to you. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The deletion discussion was well-attended, the consensus was reasonably clear both in number and in argument – the fact point the article runs hopelessly afoul of WP:NOTDIR was not rebutted – and I find everything has been correctly done. Deletion review is a place to deal with failures to follow deletion process, not to re-argue points that were or should have been raised at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing of the deletion discussion was an accurate reading of consensus, and the deletion was well-grounded in policy. SportingFlyer talk 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.