Talk:List of towns in New Brunswick

Why no notification of AfD?
, why didn't I get notice of this AfD, especially after you originally reached out here? I was also the creator of two of the three articles yet received no notification, and the reverted of your originally undiscussed bold redirects. I've been really busy in real life (as can be seen by my lack of contributions and per my reply two days ago). I would have listed the discussion at the missing Canadian communities and Nova Scotia New Brunswick WikiProjects and voted no myself. The outcome could have been no consensus or keep if the target audiences most engaged by this AfD were actually aware of it (and the two others). , what is the process to attempt to reverse this and the other two AfDs? I feel the proper process was not followed here. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You can go to deletion review and ask for a re-assessment of my close, but you should be aware that notifying the article's creator (or substantial contributors, etc) isn't mandatory, it's a courtesy. By all other measures, the AfD followed the proper process as per WP:AFD, so I'm not sure about the chances of getting the close reversed on the grounds of process not being followed.
 * For what it's worth I'm comfortable with my close as an assessment of the consensus at the AfD, and I don't plan to reverse it myself, but I also won't participate at the DRV to contest it one way or another. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Premeditated Chaos. I don't challenge your close if you were following proper process. What I would be looking for is an opportunity to re-open the discussion so I could comment and other interested parties could be notified via WikiProjects that are interested in these sort of AfDs. I feel based on the three reasons stated above that the nominator should have given me the courtesy heads up of the AfD when originally initiated, and missed a second opportunity to give me a courtesy heads up of the in-progress AfD when I finally had a chance to reply on my talk page on a related discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not explicitly notifying you, but you saw my original WP:BOLD redirection of these redundant lists the same day, so I reasonably assumed you would see my next edit to the articles as well. I left my comment on your talk page on May 30. You did in fact have edits on June 3, June 5, and June 11 so I had no reason to assume you had not seen my message or that you were offline before nominating the article on June 12 following no response. I still see absolutely no reason to have duplicate content that is entirely redundant to the main article. This benefits no one, and I can foresee nominating further repetitive lists for discussion. Reywas92Talk 23:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes seven quick edits during the course of normal watchlist monitoring, but answering your post needed to take more time to properly articulate my argument, which I haven't had. I recognize that I could have at least dropped you a quick reply, like I did two days ago, much earlier than I actually did, requesting the necessary time. I eat crow for that. That said, you still didn't apprise me of the in-progress AfD when I actually did reply. Hwy43 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I wikilinked the article in my message, which you could have looked at then as well for other watchlist changes, but I'm sorry for not providing that courtesy. So, is there a reason why the outdated List of towns in Prince Edward Island should exist when List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island, which you also contributed to, has more information about towns, more information about municipalities and the province that relate to these towns, and the most recent population data? I can't imagine a reader caring only about the small number of towns and not other municipalities in the province when in a list context. WP:NOTPAPER you cited in the edit summary "is not a free pass for inclusion". Reywas92Talk 23:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the article is in my watchlist, but with infrequent monitoring and a lengthy list of edited articles displayed in my three-day watchlist to skim through, unluckily for me it was missed. I would be pleased to provide my reasons within an actual AfD environment, but in this venue there is no resolution to come of it. We've both been clumsy in this ordeal. In the spirit of collaboration, reasonableness, and courtesy between two editors with track records that speak for themselves, would you support my request for a deletion review/re-opening of the AfD (if such is even possible)? If the result is still redirect, so be it. At least I will have had my chance to participate. Otherwise, how is one to even try creating the article over again, even if done in a manner that addresses current concerns?, any advice? Can an AfD be re-opened if the nominator agrees? Is there a means to re-create the article in a manner that attempts to address the nominator's concern about duplication/redundancy (ultimately, these child lists could and should be more detailed than the parent lists for all municipalities)? Intent would be to avoid a second AfD, but if good faith attempts to address the concerns result in a second AfD anyway, at least I will have the opportunity to go on record with my reasons to keep. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think the consensus in this case was fairly clearly to redirect the articles. If the participation had been extremely low, or the discussion more contentious, I might be willing to re-open, but in this case I think doing so would be disregarding the strong consensus arrived at by the participants. Per the guide to deletion, that kind of thing should not be done lightly - otherwise it sets a precedent that any AfD one disagrees with can just be re-opened, even if there was consensus.
 * Rather than re-creating the articles and ignoring the result of the AfD, I would suggest initiating an RfC on the topic of "Lists of municipalities in Canada", and see what people think about having one article vs having four. You could maybe do that at one of the WikiProjects you mentioned, and then put a notification at any others you think might be interested. I would link this AfD so people know what the catalyst was, and I'd also courtesy ping the AfD participants if I was you, just to make sure you're covering your bases and getting a broad range of opinions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)