- )
The content of the page, although short, contain more than simple dicdef that was accused to be the only content on the page when the original proposed deletion request was written, which I believe was not an accurate description of the original content on the page. A simple dicdef would mean it only explain what is a substitute holiday. But the page did more than that, as it have also explained how those substitute holiday are arranged in calendar by different countries or government that implement such system. C933103 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The entire text of the article consisted of, Substitute holiday, compensate holiday or make up holiday refer to holidays created due to overlapping of some other holidays. In most of the cases, it happens because a holiday with a fixed date occur on weekends which is also holiday in most of the world.. It had been tagged as having no sources for five years. Surely in the five years since it was tagged, or the seven days since it was proposed for deletion, you could have found some sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The original reason for the deletion proposal was that it is dicdef, not because it have no source, so I didn't attempted to resolve that issue during that period of time. If the article can be preserved by adding sources in then I could do that. C933103 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Both reasons apply. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- it was an unsourced DICDEF. If you can't find any sources that would allow a proper article to be written, then the deletion should stand. If there are sources, you can just re-create the article. You don't need it to be undeleted for that and, in fact, none of the previous content would be of any use whatsoever. So why are we here? Reyk YO! 23:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, this was deleted via
WP:DRVPURPOSE is pretty clear on that. ƏXPLICIT 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [reply- That's certainly true, but let's be practical here. If it gets refunded and not immediately improved, it's going straight to AfD where it will stand zero chance of being kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources like this and this imply that there's scope to write a
WP:BCA in this space, but with all due respect to those who advocate continued deletion, that page should clearly be a soft redirect to Wiktionary (and specifically wikt:Mondayize) for the time being.— S Marshall T/C 16:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [reply
- No objection to the redirect. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - What is being requested or appealed? This was an expired PROD. Requests to restore expired PRODs go to ]
- Restore as expired PROD. Although the request was made in the wrong place,
this is not a bureaucracy and it's clear the intent of nominator here was to request restoration. If anyone wants to improve it or take it to AfD, they can then do so. Smartyllama ( talk) 00:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC) [reply
- Note I have restored this as requested by C933103. Personally I think this should just be on Wiktionary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @C933103: now that this has been restored, the onus is on you to bring it up to standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a short new sourced section at Holiday#Substitute_holidays, and redirected the above article to it. PamD 17:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
