Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Haddock


 * 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   merge to A. P. Herbert. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Albert Haddock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

pseudonym article, where article about actual person already exists. Redirected. Reverted by creator. Content should be merged and redirected. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, this is why people kinda give up editing Wikipedia. There is some information in that article, and actually other contributors have come in and added more, that make Wikipedia better by providing better search and more information. It isn't at the moment but this morning it was a redlink and searching by Google or Wikipedia's search for "Albert Haddock" would not lead you to A. P. Herbert.


 * Are we here to make the encyclopaedia better or worse?


 * In the end, it should be a redirect to A. P. Herbert but not right now, because the links I and others have made to the work that APH did, via his döppelganger Albert Haddock, are written in law. Someone just change my redlink to a DAB page for the Matrimonial Law Act, and then I could improve on that and change it to the specific Matrimonial Law Act


 * It seems to me obviously in time Albert Haddock should be incorporated and become part of that article. But to go deleting content without ANY consensus, this is the first time here at AFD there has been a chance to argue it, not been said on my user page, and not in the article page (you only have to look at the history) seems ridiculous, and also infuriating. I am here to make things better not worse.


 * So my goal was to merge the content intto A. P. Herbert then redirect, but it is not complete enough for that now (but still useful enough to be a good search term). But this kinda crosses so many boundaries because I imagine the proposer will then complain about a merge, and complain about a redirect, or complain about the sun not shining on them today. The thing is, try to make Wikipedia better


 * Si Trew (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you just add that content in as a subsection on the main article, and create a redirect? You did all the work from scratch anyway, why not just do it in the right place? The redirect (and the content in the right location) would satisfy any internal search, or google search quite well.  There are specific policies in place talking about the duplication and forking of articles, so rather than accusing me of not doing the right thing, you should perhaps take a look at the policies regarding article creation to begin with. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural Close . Nominator isn't actually asking for deletion, and you don't need an AFD to merge or redirect. Why wasn't this discussed on the article's talk page first? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I already redirected and it was reverted. Merge/redirect are valid results from AFD, and there is no consensus saying that this is not a valid avenue for discussion. There is in fact a large discussion regarding the appropriateness of AFD for merge/redirect issues in the AFD talk page currently. The page is (imo) in clear opposition to the standards, and no pre-consensus is required. WP:BRD (guess which part we are in now?) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously - my concern was more that we jumped from "Revert" straight to AFD, with no intervening discussion - or even attempts at discussion. The talk page is a redlink, for example. And here we have Si Trew agreeing with you - he planned to merge over and redirect, but thought that the material wasn't ready. In discussion, you might have caught that - and given him a day to finish it off, helped him userfy it, or whatever. I think this could have been handled better. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it isn't ready to be a section of an existing article, then it certainly isn't ready to be a separate article and should be in user space. (although I disagree that it isn't ready actually. I think it would make a fine subsection of the main article) Frankly I think I'm being generous with the AFD, since I believe it probably qualifies for CSD under A10. The redirect did not lose any of his work, the text was all there waiting for him to take it out of history and put it where it belongs in the real article or in a userfied article to work on later. Yes, this could probably be handled better (by me, and by him) but frankly, 9 times out of 10, if you go the extra mile on the wiki, you get someone who thinks you are violating their rights and censoring them every time you suggest things. So I am becoming a bit jaded on it. The people that are reasonable take it to some sort of discussion, and it all works out in the end. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors jaded? On Wikipedia? No, I don't believe it. But I get where you're coming from, and support a Merge and Redirect as you propose. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge - Clearly this should be merged and redirected. We do not have multiple articles on the same topic. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * merge Merging seems to be the sensible course here. It does not make sense to just redirect is there is material worth including in the hope that someone will drag it out it later from the old history. We merge, and for a dispute where merge is one of the possibilities, AfD is a reasonable place to get a conclusion. We're NOT BURO. Any place is a good place, it if gets the right results.  DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 1 February 2012 (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.