Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/19/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Isn't it? If an article gets one third "keep" votes, one third "merge" votes, and one third "delete" votes, the article gets kept. Even if an article gets 100% merge votes, it's still "kept" - the old title gets turned into a redirect and the information that was there gets moved into an existing article the redirect points to. And this isn't a binding forever and ever result like "delete" is, either, so the material could eventually get split back out and moved to the old title again one day if it grows enough to warrant it. I myself can think of two cases where I merged articles after an AfD, complaints arose from people who didn't like the resulting merged article, so I split the material back out again to the original location and that was that.
I see "merge" as a vote to keep accompanied by a recommendation for how to clean up the kept article afterward.
Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators' mouths as acceptable. If people vote merge, they aren't necessarily giving anyone permission to enterpret their vote in any other way.
Here's an illustration to clarify the point. Quite a few articles get deleted for inherently inappropriate subject matter, such as agenda-pushing conspiracy theories. Suppose someone writes [[Swiss incitement of the Paris riots]]. A nomination like this will normally see quite a few merge votes, as in "merge any verifiable information into the article about the recent civil unrest in France."
These merge votes are most certainly not votes to keep even a redirect at [[Swiss incitement of the Paris riots]]. The title is absolutely ludicrous and needs to be deleted, and these people realize that. However, they vote to merge out of concern that we salvage factual information that may not be in the real article, before deleting the bogus one.
--Michael Snow