G'day geni,
On 7/21/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/20/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Its notability derives from Quackwatch.
Shouldn't it just be mentioned in the main quackwatch article then?
Is AfD now required to change an article into a redirect?
If you want the redirect to stick it may be a good option.
Funnily enough, there's a case on RfD of the inverse of that --- an article was AfDed, and someone came along later and created a redirect where the article used to be. The redirect is now up before the full panel of RfD, facing charges of ignoring consensus with malice aforethought. One hopes it'll receive a fair trial, but early reports indicate that General Melchitt has already been approached to write the majority opinion.