Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Conley (2nd nomination)


 * 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   take to RfD, please. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Conley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

there was recent consenus to delete and also not to redirect. this has been recreated in violation of this. see previous AfD finding. if a user is not happy with recent AfD, they should contest in via deletion review. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Close as invalid. First of all, this should be at RfD, not AfD. Second, the consensus was against a MERGE not just a plain redirect, read it again. And I'm perfectly fine with the outcome of the AfD, the article was deleted without a merge as per consensus and that's still the case, all I've done is simply created a new redirect to an existing section of an article. If a user is not happy with the redirect they should take it to RfD and not bring up an irrelevant AfD discussion. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - This is g4 material. If there are objections to that they belong at deletion review (but why waste our time with that too) Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to reread G4. This is a new redirect. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I see now that we're playing games with whether or not this is G4 or RfD material. If it should have been a redirect that issue should have been brought up at the AfD. The fact that this is renomed within 30 hours (or less) and you want to kick it around to other forums is not really encouraging. If this was an issue overlooked at the AfD I guess I'm ok hearing this here but it's out of bound a bit, and certainly there's absolutely nothing wrong with what's been nominated here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not exactly what? Not a redirect? No games here, G4 just does not apply, this is out of process and the prior AfD discussion is irrelevant to this case. And the issue wasn't brought up at the AfD so I'm free to resolve it now. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD covers a range of outcomes, including keep, redirect, merge, and delete. If on the delete option came up, then perhaps that reason hasn't been raised below. If you want to talk about the actual content of this AfD, then delete seems the clear (already endorsed) option. I'm not trying to be difficult, but why draw this out procedurally without discussion the merits? Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one dragging things out, I'd rather not have to go through any deletion process at all and just leave it be. But if we're to discuss this then we should be discussing the merits of the redirect and not in the context of an already closed prior AfD. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one dragging things out. I'm bothered because I know and generally agree with you... but the previous AfD was delete, and I am of the opinion the same reasoning still applies to delete. The "merits" in this case is people deciding to delete. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the previous AfD does not apply here because that was an article, this is a redirect, the same reasoning cannot apply here because that reasoning was based on that article. And noone has yet given a valid reason to delete this redirect. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your procedural argument is fundamentally flawed: namely, AfD discussions are precedent for other deletion discussions. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what/where in that prior AfD discussion does it provide justification for deleting this redirect? All the arguments there were against a merge (which btw doesn't make much sense itself since the content was already existing in the Dexter (TV series) article). How does it not help Wikipedia for readers entering "Andrew Conley" into the search box to not be taken to relevant existing information? -- &oelig; &trade; 09:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the observation by DGG in the AfD that was supported by several other editors: "this would imply a judgment that the show was actually responsible for the killing, which seems a judgment we should not be making." VQuakr (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but a simple redirect does not imply any judgment, if anything that argument would apply to the content already existing at the show's article, not this redirect. And the title of the redirect is simply "Andrew Conley" not "Cause of Andrew Conley's death". See WP:RNEUTRAL. -- &oelig; &trade; 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Close without prejudice to opening a discussion at RfD. The suggestion that this redirect was created because the user was unhappy with the first AfD result seems unnecessarily incendiary. VQuakr (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * close agree with vquakr Aisha9152 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (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.