Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. There was no express support shown for the nominator's merging suggestion, which can still be considered through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd Milestone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable road sign. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Appledene
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Ballacrye Corner
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Birkin's Bend
 * 5) Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner
 * 6) Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man
 * 7) Articles for deletion/School House Corner
 * 8) Articles for deletion/Signpost Corner
 * 9) Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone
 * 10) Articles for deletion/26th Milestone


 * -- do ncr  am  20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia.  This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better.  This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways.  It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes.  Outright deletion would not be justified.  This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:
 * AFD: Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
 * deletion review: Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27, followed by
 * RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man
 * The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. -- do  ncr  am  20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.