Rusthall_Evangelical_Church – This is never going to be undeleted because the text of the article was taken from the church website [1]. This is against our copyright rules and is absolute - articles need to be written in your own words not someone else's. If you want to recreate the article you should read our inclusion criteria and find independent third party sources that discuss the church in detail to demonstrate notability. Finally, give the sprinklings of "we believe" in the text I suspect you may have a connection to the church which means that you need to read our guidelines for editing while involved. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rusthall_Evangelical_Church (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Pompey123378 (talk) The page "Places_of_worship_in_Tunbridge_Wells_(borough)" lists churches in the area and has links to some extra wikipedia pages about the different churches and i dont see why some can have page but this church is deemed to not be allowed a page, The page supplies extra information about the church not already on the first page and is more appropriate on a seperate page than the "Places_of_worship_in_Tunbridge_Wells_(borough)" page.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rusthall_Evangelical_Church – This is never going to be undeleted because the text of the article was taken from the church website [1]. This is against our copyright rules and is absolute - articles need to be written in your own words not someone else's. If you want to recreate the article you should read our inclusion criteria and find independent third party sources that discuss the church in detail to demonstrate notability. Finally, give the sprinklings of "we believe" in the text I suspect you may have a connection to the church which means that you need to read our guidelines for editing while involved. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Pompey123378 (talk) The page "Places_of_worship_in_Tunbridge_Wells_(borough)" lists churches in the area and has links to some extra wikipedia pages about the different churches and i dont see why some can have page but this church is deemed to not be allowed a page, The page supplies extra information about the church not already on the first page and is more appropriate on a seperate page than the "Places_of_worship_in_Tunbridge_Wells_(borough)" page.

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian – Come on, this is ridiculous. We don't rerun a DRV because a DELREV tag is missing from a deleted page or an MfD and there were more than enough eyes on this for us to be sure that we got a decent consensus. Historically Cunard has gone through DELREVS and tagged the XfD after the DELREV has finished and we have never felt that the presence or absence of the tag has ever effected the validity of the deletion review process. This is in no way a valid reason to do this again. Enough is enough. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) relisting because required notice was not put on Mfd page when drv filed NE Ent 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Prior discussion Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16 NE Ent 12:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per overwhelming consensus at MfD and previous DRV. Time to ring down the final curtain on this regrettable and divisive drama. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] That would be a slap to me then. Did the DRV instructions say to do it? Could it be twinkleified? Does this mean another seven days? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it's Step 6 of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. Obviously an oversight; Concern was expressed on the Mfd page, which I don't feel is the proper forum (hence relisting). NE Ent 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, this had better run the full seven days, to give no possible opening for yet another relisting. JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per prior discussion; oppose speedy close of this review as it will be more disruptive in the long run. Best to let everyone have their say. NE Ent 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] If I could say it better than Writ Keeper, I would. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close and slap the childish trolling. This is beyond vexatious. A CfD on a pointless category - it gets deleted. Listed at DRV. DRV sends it back to CfD. This CfD is closed with delete. Recreated as an essay. AfD'd and deleted again. Listed at DRV. Deletion endorsed overwhelmingly at DRV. Now a DRV on the DRV on a tagging technicality that any disgruntled person was free to fix at any point - and a DRV started by someone who is endorsing the deletion. Grow up people! Someone close this, and stop this immature nonsense once and for all.--Scott Mac 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The oyster makes the pearl. We would have been done long ago if we had been "grown-up" about it; a ridiculous amount of the discussion has been due to speedy this and speedy that. Sure, you can slap a close tag on something and tell people to shut up, but unless you're willing to start indeffing critics the conversation will just bubble up again somewhere else. (And if you do indef people they'll likely to end up on wikipedia criticism websites, which can be disruptive themselves, as not all Wikipedians are smart enough to totally ignore them.) Letting any of discussions run the full time would have cut the legs out from a lot of the criticism of powers-that-be. NE Ent 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and hopefully wave goodbye. This is getting absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per each of the preceding discussions, and a round of trout for the process-worship that's forcing us to go through this again. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Are you kidding me? Haven't we had enough of this shit yet? this is an "endorse" per WP:STOPTHEMADNESS, if it needs to be spelled out Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian – Come on, this is ridiculous. We don't rerun a DRV because a DELREV tag is missing from a deleted page or an MfD and there were more than enough eyes on this for us to be sure that we got a decent consensus. Historically Cunard has gone through DELREVS and tagged the XfD after the DELREV has finished and we have never felt that the presence or absence of the tag has ever effected the validity of the deletion review process. This is in no way a valid reason to do this again. Enough is enough. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

relisting because required notice was not put on Mfd page when drv filed NE Ent 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16 NE Ent 12:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per overwhelming consensus at MfD and previous DRV. Time to ring down the final curtain on this regrettable and divisive drama. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a slap to me then. Did the DRV instructions say to do it? Could it be twinkleified? Does this mean another seven days? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Step 6 of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. Obviously an oversight; Concern was expressed on the Mfd page, which I don't feel is the proper forum (hence relisting). NE Ent 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this had better run the full seven days, to give no possible opening for yet another relisting. JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per prior discussion; oppose speedy close of this review as it will be more disruptive in the long run. Best to let everyone have their say. NE Ent 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I could say it better than Writ Keeper, I would. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and slap the childish trolling. This is beyond vexatious. A CfD on a pointless category - it gets deleted. Listed at DRV. DRV sends it back to CfD. This CfD is closed with delete. Recreated as an essay. AfD'd and deleted again. Listed at DRV. Deletion endorsed overwhelmingly at DRV. Now a DRV on the DRV on a tagging technicality that any disgruntled person was free to fix at any point - and a DRV started by someone who is endorsing the deletion. Grow up people! Someone close this, and stop this immature nonsense once and for all.--Scott Mac 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oyster makes the pearl. We would have been done long ago if we had been "grown-up" about it; a ridiculous amount of the discussion has been due to speedy this and speedy that. Sure, you can slap a close tag on something and tell people to shut up, but unless you're willing to start indeffing critics the conversation will just bubble up again somewhere else. (And if you do indef people they'll likely to end up on wikipedia criticism websites, which can be disruptive themselves, as not all Wikipedians are smart enough to totally ignore them.) Letting any of discussions run the full time would have cut the legs out from a lot of the criticism of powers-that-be. NE Ent 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and hopefully wave goodbye. This is getting absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per each of the preceding discussions, and a round of trout for the process-worship that's forcing us to go through this again. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Haven't we had enough of this shit yet? this is an "endorse" per WP:STOPTHEMADNESS, if it needs to be spelled out Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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