Talk:Kendra Wiseman

Defend This Article

Untitled
The Church Of Scientology will want this article removed. Defend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.134.194 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's delete this one. She was tagged for lack of notability last year. Still not notable.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

redirected to Exscientologykids.com
There doesn't appear anything notable here that's not covered in the new article Exscientologykids.com, so I've redirected. Please give me your reasons if you object.--Scott Mac 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * you originally proded the page for deletion, and when that was rejected suddenly the page disappears through a redirect. Redirection is used to reroute similar names or popular search terms, not to make content disappear. If you want this page gone then take it to an AFD.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There is no need for an afd to direct something. What happens is you do it, and if it is reverted you discuss it on the talk page - and reach consensus. I redirected it with a note here to discuss it. It was reverted (fine) but those redirecting didn't bother to come and discuss it, they just kept reverting. Reverting without engaging is discussion IS edit warring. Now, if you object to this being redirected please state why, and where my reasoning that all the notable content is elsewhere is wrong.--Scott Mac 19:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has lots of articles that have similar content. If you want to remove any of those articles an AFD is necessary to gain a community consensus.  A deletion through redirect can be seen as an attempt to avoid community involvement in the decision to remove the content of an article.  A Redirect is an article with no content, this is an article with content.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. No. An AfD is not required for a redirection or a merge. If content overlaps, a merge is normally preferred. Please can you give CONTENT reasons why you are opposed to this?--Scott Mac 20:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, you deleted all the content.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK< say I merge the content. Any objections?--Scott Mac 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's merge, transferring the relevant content to the other article, which can have some bio data for the three founders of the site. -- JN 466  21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kendra Wiseman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-scientology3mar03%2C0%2C7615291%2Cfull.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-tuesday26feb26%2C0%2C4723523.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629080414/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004259790_scientology05.html?syndication=rss to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004259790_scientology05.html?syndication=rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312043439/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/scientologists-not-as-litigious-as-previously-thought.php to http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/scientologists-not-as-litigious-as-previously-thought.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)