Talk:Duke of London

Unexplained deletions
TreasuryTag on 1 May proposed a WP:PROD on this article. Although I have made a couple of edits, overall I agree with the PROD's rationale.

What I don't agree with is an IP editor twice executing a redirect-delete before the PROD process is finished (and having the nerve to claim a "violation" of PROD). Anonymous editor, you only have to wait two more days. Surely you have the patience. YLee (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC) This is a boring and un-necessary argument. The article is redirected. I'm happy with that. I think that YLee's happy with that. The IP user is happy with that. If you're not, feel free to undo it, and I'll nominate the article for AfD. But otherwise, please let it rest. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 07:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. 76.66.202.139 is right.  Anyone can contest a Proposed Deletion.  You do not get to edit-war the tag back on to the article after someone has contested it.  76.66.202.139 didn't have any "nerve", as you put it.  On the contrary, you were the one completely in the wrong, here.  In thinking that the process of waiting for deletion to take place took priority over someone contesting that deletion, you were indeed violating the rules for, and the intent of, Proposed Deletion.  Please read and familiarize yourself with Proposed Deletion. 76.66.202.139 is even right that this is quite proper as a redirect from a sub-topic to an article on the enclosing topic where it can be found, in line with Redirect.  Xe appears to have a good grasp of our policies and guidelines as they apply here. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. As far as I can see 76.66.202.139 isn't contesting the PROD (as in wanting to keep the article as it is), but short-circuiting the ongoing process. The PROD, normally, would result in exactly what 76.66.202.139 has been doing--redirecting to the Winston Churchill article--except that it would take five days as the PROD process prescribes. What am I missing here? In any case, I don't have any vested interest in preserving this article's text, and (as noted above) agree with the rationale behind the redirect-delete anyway, so I'll shut up now. YLee (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD-contesting-step #3. If you read the prod rationale, you would have noticed it said it duplicated information found in another article. As for redirects, I have noticed that alot of prods do not result in the creation of a redirect, just redlinks. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing two things. First, you're missing the fact that removing the notice is how one contests Proposed Deletion. Doing so is not "short-circuiting" anything.  The process was designed to be easily contestable. Second, you're missing the difference between a redirect and a deletion.  The outcome of (uncontested) Proposed Deletion is, as the name of the process states, deletion, where the article content and its entire edit history are rendered inaccessible, using the deletion tool that only administrators have.  That's not the same as a redirect, which is an ordinary editorial action, taken with the "edit this page" tool that every editor, account-holder or accountless, has, and which adds to the history, rather than removing it. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)