Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 17

London 1850 – I'm sorry but I think this this DRV is too pointy to continue. Functionally there is no difference between a redirect and a merge in these cases as the history is still there. Just do the merge and all will be well. As no admin bits are required here there is no reason on earth why we need to debate this for 7 days - especially over so many articles. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as redirect, but this was not the consensus in the AfD discussion. A proper closure of "no consensus" or "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the page and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to it would be in order.

Redirecting articles listed at AfD in this manner without consensus, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of a potential for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that may omit information which may have needed to be preserved.

Lastly, a merge closure would then list the article at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As in the case of "University of Business & Finance Switzerland" below, this is a pointless request, since you can go ahead and merge content if you want to. Sandstein 13:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because under this line of logic, then people !voting to merge is also pointless, because under this procedure the merge is almost certain to never actually occur. The page is redirected and there are no tags prompting a merge, resulting in data loss. This also puts the responsibility of merging upon a minority of people, namely those who participated or viewed an AfD discussion, rather than prompting the community to do so using tags. People using AfD stats on Toolserver.org will see a denotation of "redirect" rather than "merge", and then not take initiative perform a merge due to this inaccuracy. How is requesting accurate closures that are based upon consensus and the will of participants in discussions pointless? Skipping the actual merge part and just redirecting certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia's integrity as an accurate source of information. Also, is WP:PRESERVE pointless? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption has been that at least one of the people who wanted the merge would proceed to do so. Presumably they have interest in the subject at hand or they would not have joined the discussion in the first place, and are more likely to do so than the "community at large" (Expecting the closer to do the merge is unrealistic, because by definition the closer is supposed not to have any strong person al concern about the topic of the article, or they would have joined the discussion.) The practical alternative is for the closer to put merge tags on the article. There might be concern that the merge would never be completed, that the people who advocated the merge may have done so only as a compromise and avoid doing the actual work. Then of course one of the people preferring delete could do so, and is likely to merge as little of the article as possible--another reason for those advocating merge to do it themselves.

My own practice when I close an AfD as merge, is that I usually put merge tags on the article and often suggest in the close who should do the merge. I think this is better than closing as a redirect, though I might close as a redirect when I think the consensus is a redirect might be enough, but that a merge of some small amount of the content would be possible. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point of this. Any interested editor is able to merge the article content, there is no technical barrier to doing so, and it doesn't require DRV. The difference between a "merge" and a "redirect" closure is largely academic, as a merge closure involves a redirect and there's nothing stopping material in a redirected article from being merged somewhere else at editorial discretion, regardless of the AfD result. A "no consensus" closure would have been strange, given that it would have resulted in no change to the article, which nobody wanted. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that this is the place to go to to contest AfD closures. Future readers and editors are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the potential for a merge, due to a lack of tags on the articles informing them. Net result = data loss and lessened data integrity. Ultimately, merge ≠ redirect only. Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy, but I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes. If I don't perform the merges, and nothing occurs as a result of these discussions, I predict that one year from now the merges will unfortunately have not occurred. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, closure reflected consensus exactly. The closing administrator is not your slave. And spamming DRV with long, identical comments for essentially identical deletion debates is much more likely to harden people against your position than to convince anyone. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of Business & Finance Switzerland – I'm sorry but I think this this DRV is too pointy to continue. Functionally there is no difference between a redirect and a merge in these cases as the history is still there. Just do the merge and all will be well. As no admin bits are required here there is no reason on earth why we need to debate this for 7 days - especially over so many articles. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as redirect, but consensus in the AfD discussion was for this article to be merged. The first !vote states "Merge/redirect" and the second states "Redirect - Should go to Geneva Business School with the information merged onto that page." The second !vote clearly suggests that merging should occur. A proper closure of "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the page and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to it would be in order.

Redirecting articles with clear consensus to be merged, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of the need for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that omit information which should have been preserved per consensus in the discussion.

Lastly, a proper closure per consensus would then list the article at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This review request is pointless. The closer wrote: "Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary". You can just go ahead with the merger if you want to. Sandstein 13:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because under this line of logic, then people !voting to merge is also pointless, because under this procedure the merge is almost certain to never actually occur. The page is redirected and there are no tags prompting a merge, resulting in data loss. This also puts the responsibility of merging upon a minority of people, namely those who participated or viewed an AfD discussion, rather than prompting the community to do so using tags. People using AfD stats on Toolserver.org will see a denotation of "redirect" rather than "merge", and then not take initiative to perform a merge due to this inaccuracy. How is requesting accurate closures that are based upon consensus and the will of participants in discussions pointless? Skipping the actual merge part and just redirecting certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia's integrity as an accurate source of information. Also, is WP:PRESERVE pointless? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above The assumption has been that at least one of the people who wanted the merge would proceed to do so. Presumably they have interest in the subject at hand

My own practice when I close an AfD as merge, is that I usually put merge tags on the article and often suggest in the close who should do the merge. I think this is better than closing as a redirect, though I might close as a redirect when I think the consensus is a redirect might be enough, but that a merge of some small amount of the content would be possible. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point of this. Any interested editor is able to merge the article content, there is no technical barrier to doing so, and it doesn't require DRV. The difference between a "merge" and a "redirect" closure is largely academic, as a merge closure involves a redirect and there's nothing stopping material in a redirected article from being merged somewhere else at editorial discretion, regardless of the AfD result. A "no consensus" closure would have been strange, given that it would have resulted in no change to the article, which nobody wanted. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that this is the place to go to to contest AfD closures. Future readers and editors are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the potential for a merge, due to a lack of tags on the articles informing them. Net result = data loss and lessened data integrity. Ultimately, merge ≠ redirect only. Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy, but I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes. If I don't perform the merges, and nothing occurs as a result of these discussions, I predict that one year from now the merges will unfortunately have not occurred. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa – I'm sorry but I think this this DRV is too pointy to continue. Functionally there is no difference between a redirect and a merge in these cases as the history is still there. Just do the merge and all will be well. As no admin bits are required here there is no reason on earth why we need to debate this for 7 days - especially over so many articles. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as redirect, but consensus in the AfD discussion was clearly for these articles to be merged to the various articles listed in the discussion. Out of the six !votes there, all six recommended merging, and only two recommended redirecting, both written in the form of "Merge/redirect", which also includes merging. A proper closure of "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the pages and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to the pages would be in order.

Redirecting articles with clear consensus to be merged, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of the need for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that omit information which should have been preserved per consensus in the discussion.

Lastly, a proper closure per consensus would then list the articles at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As in the case of "University of Business & Finance Switzerland" above, this is a pointless request, since you can go ahead and merge content if you want to. Sandstein 13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because under this line of logic, then people !voting to merge is also pointless, because under this procedure the merge is almost certain to never actually occur. The page is redirected and there are no tags prompting a merge, resulting in data loss. This also puts the responsibility of merging upon a minority of people, namely those who participated or viewed an AfD discussion, rather than prompting the community to do so using tags. People using AfD stats on Toolserver.org will see a denotation of "redirect" rather than "merge", and then not take initiative to perform a merge due to this inaccuracy. How is requesting accurate closures that are based upon consensus and the will of participants in discussions pointless? Skipping the actual merge part and just redirecting certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia's integrity as an accurate source of information. Also, is WP:PRESERVE pointless? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point of this. Any interested editor is able to merge the article content, there is no technical barrier to doing so, and it doesn't require DRV. The difference between a "merge" and a "redirect" closure is largely academic, as a merge closure involves a redirect and there's nothing stopping material in a redirected article from being merged somewhere else at editorial discretion, regardless of the AfD result. A "no consensus" closure would have been strange, given that it would have resulted in no change to the article, which nobody wanted. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that this is the place to go to to contest AfD closures. Future readers and editors are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the potential for a merge, due to a lack of tags on the articles informing them. Net result = data loss and lessened data integrity. Ultimately, merge ≠ redirect only. Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy, but I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes. If I don't perform the merges, and nothing occurs as a result of these discussions, I predict that one year from now the merges will unfortunately have not occurred. Also, !votes in this discussion were unanimous for a merge to occur (sans the nomination). Closing as a redirect comes across as rather supervote-like. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stefan Kutschke – Speedy restored. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL after his Bundesliga debut [1] 79.216.34.185 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does. And scored a last-minute goal as well, I see. Game, set and match. Speedy restore.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was valid when decided in February 2012 and the article history doesn't seem useful. Endorse, but permit recreation. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuming that the IP or someone else will make the necessary updates, this should certainly be restored as circumstances have changed and the reason for deletion no longer applies. This is probably a good candidate for a speedy closure unless someone objects in the next few hours. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was valid when it was decided. It seems the proper action would be to just create the article, not overturn the deletion. A non notable individual becoming notable 1.5 years after an AFD decision does not mean you go back and overturn a decision that was correct at the time. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but permit recreation - per Mackensen above. Deletion was the right outcome at the time but the subject is now notable. Stalwart111 12:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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