Talk:A4018 road

Comment
Hi 81.106.249.225, this is regarding the PROD you insist on replacing. If you can't sign in, I will take this to AFD per your request. If you can, please do so yourself. I don't like revert warring, so I'll wait for a few days before I reset the PROD timer. 23:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PLease do so. Though I feel your accusations of bullying when you haven't even provide a good reason for disputing deletion make you very much the pot to my kettle.

I have reinstated the article - there was an AfD debate in 2006 here, the result of which was Keep. It has been expanded (a little) since then.Mhockey (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two-year-old AfD discussions are not binding in perpetuity. It was kept on the basis that the article would be expanded with worthy content, and it has not.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot see that proviso in the original AfD debate - indeed, lack of worthy content is not itself a reason for deletion (per WP:DEL). In any event, the article has been expanded significantly (bearing in mind the subject matter, which does not call for a long article). If you think the article should not be there, I suggest that you propose it for deletion, rather than simply replace the article with a redirect. There can then be a proper debate and other people can have their say.Mhockey (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to play at lawyers, I can't see anywhere in that debate where lack of worthy content is explicitly ruled out as an argument. WP:DEL claims that not meeting WP:N or equivalent is grounds for deletion, and a cursory clance shows mostly mirrors and people giving directions - hardly non-trivial.  The last point of WP:DEL is "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia".  All of which is moot, since redirection is not and has not ever (in the phase3 era, at least) been deletion.  The most fundamental criterion of any article is that there is a substantial article there to be written in the first place.  If something "does not call for a long article", it's a pretty good indicator that it doesn't merit one  at all.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on your Talk page, because that's where others have commented on the same point.Mhockey (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Weirdoldhattie (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)