"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90509170448d62a36a@mail.gmail.com... On 9/17/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
... I was a little surprised today when I discovered that my attempt to boldly forge a compromise over a disputed deletion, by merging [[Harry Potter trolling]] to [[Internet troll]], got reverted
- fortunately, in a polite and professional manner - on the grounds that
this kind of resolution is not allowed while the discussion is underway.
Oddly enough, I merged the *entire contents* of that article into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince a few days ago, with barely a squeak of complaint. I've given clear instructions on the talk page of the Half Blood Prince article to the effect that the merge is entirely reversible and subject to acceptance by consensus, but after an initial revert (which someone restored) it has remained in place. Of course it'll have to be unmerged if the second AfD ends with a delete result.
Que? [checks for wax in ears] You mean "if the second AFD ends with a **keep** result", surely?
The information is valid and verifiable, and deserves to be recorded in Wikipedia somewhere. If the article dedicated to it should be kept, then it belongs there; otherwise it eblongs in the article for the book to which it most recently pertained.
...
That said, I see I am behind the times, and the deletionists have won that particular round :-(
Won't it be interesting in the future, when someone asks "why isn't there a Wikipedia article on such-and-such", and our rather lame response is "well, we didn't think anybody would be interested". <sigh>