[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Criteria for deletion (was: Afd "votes" with noreal reasons given)

Mon Sep 19 15:29:34 UTC 2005

"Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in 
message news:605709b90509170448d62a36a at mail.gmail.com...
On 9/17/05, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> 
wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > ... I was a little surprised today when I discovered
> > that my attempt to boldly forge a compromise over a disputed deletion,
> > by merging [[Harry Potter trolling]] to [[Internet troll]], got reverted
> > - fortunately, in a polite and professional manner - on the grounds that
> > this kind of resolution is not allowed while the discussion is underway.
> Oddly enough, I merged the *entire contents* of that article into Harry
> Potter and the Half Blood Prince a few days ago, with barely a squeak of
> complaint. I've given clear instructions on the talk page of the Half 
> Blood
> Prince article to the effect that the merge is entirely reversible and
> subject to acceptance by consensus, but after an initial revert (which
> someone restored) it has remained in place. Of course it'll have to be
> unmerged if the second AfD ends with a delete result.

Que? [checks for wax in ears] You mean "if the second AFD ends with a 
**keep** result", surely?

The information is valid and verifiable, and deserves to be recorded in 
Wikipedia somewhere. If the article dedicated to it should be kept, then it 
belongs there; otherwise it eblongs in the article for the book to which it 
most recently pertained.

...

That said, I see I am behind the times, and the deletionists have won that 
particular round :-(

Won't it be interesting in the future, when someone asks "why isn't there a 
Wikipedia article on such-and-such", and our rather lame response is "well, 
we didn't think anybody would be interested". <sigh>
-- 
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]] 