"Michael Pruden" <mikepruden(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:515438.44185.qm@web32604.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
...pigeonholed (i.e. as an inclusionist or a deletionist when they are
actually in the middle).
Merjists are both, and they do not need to participate in any AfD
discussion, because the articles they redirect do not actually get deleted.
IOW, any user can undo a merj, because both articles exist: Seeing the
history for the deleted articles is only a matter of either writing or
finding ?redirect=no. So, in a way, they are also neither, because deleted
material should appear at the redirection destination, so I guess they are
net inclusionists. This is of course only applicable to notable articles
that are longstanding synonyms or close cousins. I think it is also possible
to be a pre-emptive, deletionistic merjist and prevent new articles from
being created when their content already exists, elsewhere, under a synonym.
I tried doing some of that in [[recent changes#requested articles]], and I
was chastized for some of it -- did not hit the best mark, I suppose.
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/WP_CRYSTAL.HTM written from the merjist POV.