Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Heinlein Trio (2nd vote)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Note: page was already deleted, so I am cleaning up this VfD article. Deathphoenix 00:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"A Heinlein Trio"
"Any material that was here has now been merged into Robert A. Heinlein."

I could just be hopelessly confused, but AFAICT there was a vote to merge this into Robert A. Heinlein. Whatever content there was in this page is now gone, and has apparently been merged there, so isn't it time to delete this page now?--Bcrowell 18:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The page has block compressed revisions, so it's undeletable, but I've tagged it as pending. Snowspinner 18:31, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some confusion here, of several sorts. Firstly there has never been a page at "A Heinlein Trio". Secondly, A Heinlein Trio, the page under discussion both here and on Talk:A Heinlein Trio, has significant history, and can't be simply deleted if the text has been copied elsewhere. That's why merge and delete is not a valid vote. Andrewa 20:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How on earth is merge and delete not a valid vote? Merge the current content, delete the page... this is... fairly sensible... Yes. The history gets lost. Hence merge and delete being a different vote from merge and redirect. Snowspinner 20:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete might be a valid vote, but no-one used it in this case. Kappa 21:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (Sigh) Yes, that's another puzzling thing. The decision seems to have been merge and redirect anyway, so how does deletion even arise? But see Deletion policy and a new page I've created at Wikipedia talk:Merge and delete. Andrewa 23:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge and delete is not an allowable vote in almost all circumstances because it violates the attribution requirement of GFDL.  See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.  Comment 2:  When nominating a page for the second time, please do not just start editing the archive of the prior discussion.  Also, please do not transclude it in.  Link it instead.  In this case, see the prior discussion at Votes for deletion/A Heinlein Trio.  Rossami (talk) 04:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment 3: The redirect has been restored (not sure by whom).  Challenges to the redirect decision should be taken to "Redirects for deletion".  Rossami (talk) 04:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * seems to have been deleted now. --Henrygb 19:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: More confusion. Exactly what are we voting on here? The article at "A Heinlein Trio" has never existed. The redirect at A Heinlein Trio (which I restored, in accordance with the previous VfD vote) is not a suitable candidate for VfD, it should go to redirects for deletion. No vote until I know what I'm voting for! Andrewa 20:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote to delete this VfD page, personally. Snowspinner 22:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removing it from VfD is not a bad idea IMO, but I think the text should be archived somewhere, in the hope of avoiding minimising the tendency to reinvent the wheel where some of the issues raised are concerned. Andrewa 23:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.