From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators'
mouths as acceptable.
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the
information must be kept. A merge can be undone by any editor,
resulting in the status quo ante. It follows that a merge is a keep
by another name. it's merely an editing operation and one that can be
(and sometimes is) performed by a non-admin editor after an AfD close.
Merge votes are typically "merge whatever is useful". It's not an
endorsement of the current contents, certainly not all of them, and it's
definitely a statement that wherever the contents should be, it's not
*here*. Some editors pretend that 10 deletes, 4 merges, and 3 keeps means
the article should stick around, when, in fact, it's a strong statement that
*this* article should not exist, though it's possible that the information
in it belongs somewhere else.
Jay.