Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
I think it would be best to establish once and for all that, _by itself_, "non-notability" is not a particularly good reason to delete anything.
These weren't deletes, they were merges.
Perhaps we should recognize that merges can be de-facto deletes and start treating them as such.
Indeed. They are merges only in name; in the vast majority of cases the various "list of" articles have only a tiny amount of information compared to the original articles. The only real difference between this and deletion is the ability for non-admins to go digging for the original text (assuming they know it's there for the finding, which most users wouldn't).