Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back from the Grave, Volumes 1 and 2 (CD)


 * 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 delete. SpinningSpark 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Back from the Grave, Volumes 1 and 2 (CD)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These 4 albums are simply reissues of earlier releases and haven't received significant coverage thus do not have independent notability. Sources listed here either come directly from the article of the earlier release (as does much of the text), liner notes, or are about the series as a whole. I'm not debating the notability of the series or original releases. Info on the reissues are already summarized in the article for Back from the Grave (series). -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP (but open to merger): The Back from the Grave series albums are some of the most prominent garage rock compilations, so we should not delete.  Most entries in the series, and the series as a whole, have been extensively covered in the media, so any Back from the Grave release is to be considered noteworthy.  These particular entries have just been released, but are of interest to fans of the series.  However, I would be open to merge them with the corresponding LP articles--their corresponding LPs have gotten plenty of write-up.  The reason I wrote these articles separately was to avoid confusion on the readers' part: each of these particular CD' combines two whole LPs, so I was trying to make things clear and easy to understand.  However, I would be open to merging them with the LP articles--we could add the info there for the dual CDs and add additional info boxes accordingly.  If you had sent me a message about a merger (rather than proposing this Afd), I would have gladly proposed a merger myself.  I still prefer to keep the articles in the current format, but am open to a merger.  But, we should not delete them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merging the content is fine, but I'm not sure where the titles would redirect to as it would only be confusing with articles for multiple volume ones (etc.) already, and each of these CDs containing two volumes each. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Back from the Grave Series is complicated. It is essentially comprised of three sub-series:
 * a) the LP series
 * b) the traditional CD series and
 * c) the new dual-CD series (one can identify them by the vertical black stripe that appears along the right side of the front covers).
 * Volume 8 falls into both the a and b series. Volume 7 falls into only a and c.  The LP series (a )and the traditional CD series (b) are completely different--they have completely different song orderings and the songs usually appear on totally different albums.  The new dual-CD series (c) is an attempt to provide access for CD buyers who want the LP formats--for people who prefer the blending of songs on the original LPs, so it takes pairs of the LP's and combines them onto dual CDs (not double but dual).  Although I believe the song ordering to be the same (or at least very similar) to the LPs, I cannot be sure that they are exactly like the LPs--I'll go check on that, and see if there are any minor differences, I'll make the necessary modifications.  By the way, the traditional CD series (b) is still made for people that prefer it that way.  I created separate articles for the releases in the new dual-CD series (c) when they were released last year--as a way to help people understand and not get confused (oh gosh, it is confusing to say the least! I try explain the situation in the BFTG series article and in some of the preambles to the separate articles, but I don't think any amount of explanation will suffice, I'll admit).  Making things harder, it is difficult to determine which LP each new dual-CD should coincide with, because each combines two LP's onto one album.  We could either keep the dual CD articles (the ones that are currently proposed for deletion--the "c" group) for the sake of best clarity or merge them into the LP articles (we could just cover each dual-CD twice in doing so).  But, deletion is not a viable option.  Keep in mind that I worked hard to build up the articles in this series. The BFTG series is one of the most popular garage series (only Nuggets and Pebbles are more popular) and therefore any release is notable.  On top of that, the dual-CD sub-series needs to represented in some capacity.  I think the best way is for the dual-CDs to keep their own articles, but, merge is OK.  But, let's please not delete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * At the time I did the articles on the dual-CD sub-series (being considered for deletion), song lists were not yet available for all of the titles. They are now available, and upon further inspection, I have noticed that the song listings on the dual-CD series differ to some degree from the LPs.  So, there is a difference.  Currently, I am going into the articles and updating the track lists to accommodate for the differences.  One more reason for full keep.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They still have not received the independent coverage in reliable sources that would warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. The mention of these later releases within Back from the Grave (series) should be more than sufficient. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Volumes 9 and 10 have together been written up--while the review is titled to volume 9, it also covers volume 10 in the piece. The vol. 9/10 CD is the official CD version of both (the CD is exactly identical to the LPs)--so the review applies directly to it and, accordingly, our vol. 9/10 CD article should be therefore kept in its entirety.    As for the other dual-CDs, the corresponding LP write-ups can cover them, since most of the content is practically the same (they are essentially the same entities, but with a few slight differences--a couple of slight variations in what is otherwise the same thing).  But, if that is not enough to convince us to keep those dual-CD articles as free-standing, then, as I have said, we could do a merger.  I would still prefer to have free standing articles for the sake of clarity, particularly for volume 9&10, but I would accept a merger for volumes 1&2, 2&4, 5&6.  No deletes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * One needs more than a review or two to prove notability for a standalone article. I don't see notability here at all. I don't know if some kind of merge is the best way to go, though I don't oppose it--but I will note that these articles are clearly written by a fan of sorts, with all of their commentary and non-neutral phrasing ("the gritty blues-based "Like Father Like Son"" and phrases like that). Until I see some real solid evidence, delete. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Drmies, if we cannot keep them as standalone, then we can merge them into the LP articles and/or the series page. Delete is not a viable option.  I had told the previous editor on the thread that I am open to mergers.  If we can mention them elsewhere it the series, then we can technically count them as a merges, not a deletions.  I have worked hard on this series and brought most of it into existence (to go to the extent of deletion would be like a slap in the face, in light of the hard work I've done on this and so many other projects).  Please respect my wish that there be no deletions.  But, I am fine with mergers.  That would be a good solution to the dilemma without just throwing the stuff away.  I am being perfectly reasonable in accepting mergers as a workable alternative. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this not a negotiation. Drmies (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Drmies is absolutely right. You may be being perfectly reasonable, but this is an Afd and at this point it is in the hands of those who want to vote. It is not a place for anyone to barter a deal, especially if it is not policy-based. Personally, I would like to see the articles kept, but I have nothing to back that except my praise for the series which does not count towards anything here. For that reason, I am not going to vote here, but I recommend you stop trying to negotiate something that is non-negotiable (at least in the way you are doing it). Non of these two editors have anything against you, this is no "slap in the face".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no personal animosity and I'm not mad at anyone. Nonetheless, I have every right to press my case.  My position is that if the articles cannot be kept, then they should be be merged.  I think that a full delete would be detrimental.  The series is notable, so therefore everything in it has merit.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said you were mad at anyone and you do have a right to press a case. However, how you are doing it will never work. Unfortunately, I know it sounds harsh, but users do not care how much hard work you put into the articles, whether it fulfills a clarity issue, or how you barter because everything at an Afd is policy-based. If you want to merge information, I suggest you do so before the articles are removed because a merge vote (if that is the outcome, but delete looks like where the discussion will go) still means the page will no longer exist. And I agree with you, the series is notable, but these articles are merely a combination of two albums in a different track order. Also, there is no such thing as inherited notability from an album series unless, in some cases of course, it is directly from the original series.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. While the notability of the series might not, alone, merit full keep, it would still warrant them to be merged, because they are essential entities in our knowledge of the series. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * not that I question your logic, but I am wondering why it matters if it's a merge or delete? A merge is essentially a delete except you may get a brief waiting period. Ultimately, the pages still get deleted and count as a delete. I mean you can continue to contest the outcome, but wouldn't you want to make more of your time than this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish to have a merge if the articles cannot be kept. I have made myself clear.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point, I realize the futility of expecting full keeps. So, in order to ensure a smooth transition, I went into the LP articles and added, in each, a section about the dual CDs, replete with info boxes.  When I first created the series I was not aware that you could do a double entity article.  Also, at the time I felt that separate articles would help the readers avoid confusion.  Pardon me for having been a bit naive at the time.  But, the changes I just made can give us a glimpse of what the articles will look like after the separate dual-CD articles cease to exist.  I still have a few things to tidy up.  There are a few broken tags, etc.  In making these most recent changes, please do not take it as an attempt to pre-empt the process--nor does it entail people to feel obliged to vote a different way than they otherwise would.  If people don't like the changes I just made, then they can simply revert the articles to their previous state. But, if the dual-CD articles are going cease to exist (as I am now assuming that they will), then I hope that I have saved someone the extra headaches of transforming the information.  So, I hope that, in exporting the information, I have made things easier for others.  Nevertheless, I still ask we please consider a merger rather than a delete.  I have shown my good faith here to help us get it right and so that the readers can still have the helpful and accurate information they deserve.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

, again not trying to question your reasoning, but why would users consider a merge vote when you have already merged the info? If that has been completed, the only logical step to take is to delete the pages. There may also be concerns with how you merged the info because you essentially copied and pasted the CD articles into the original series (twice per CD). The dual CDs only need to be briefly explained, perhaps on the series page because they have the same songs as the original LPs. An additional track listing is a little questionable as well because it is also the same as the original series. Again, as it stands, the LP pages would look significantly less messy if the CDs were mentioned (briefly) in the series article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want me to I'll go back and revert it. Incidentally there are some slight changes in songs--they re not exactly the same.  I am trying to operate in good faith and be helpful to people--I'm trying to do the right thing here. If others have a better solution fine, but do it right and, once again, merge not delete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no one is saying you are operating in any other kind of fashion. I am just pointing out that a copy and paste solution is not the best solution, especially when the exact same info is found on two articles now. It would be much more appropriate to mention the CD releases briefly and note the slight differences in the track listing. This fixes the issues of clutter that the current copy-paste solution brought forth. And once again, I have to say users will now vote delete since you essentially have merged the articles, even though it needs some improvements like I recommended.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not think the series page is enough. I think that the dual CD's need more explication than that.  They are equal as entities to anything in the series, and deserve more than a few footnotes.  It does no help to the reader otherwise.  We have a responsibility to represent this series and its installments properly.  I think the best place to go into detail about the dual CDs is in the LP articles.  I stand by that.  I just went in and removed all of the redundancies that were currently there (I still need to go in and tidy up some things).  I have pared them down to the point where they only say exactly what is necessary.  However, it is now at the point where any further reductions will result in loss of vital information. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, my final thoughts as we enter the final stretch. Here are what I consider to be the viable options:
 * 1) Merge into LP articles. I went ahead and did the difficult footwork (so no one else has to go out of their way to do it--I have demonstrated my good faith), and we would classify the change as a merge, not a delete.  I think that option #1 is a fantastic solution.  It makes things clear and easy to understand for the readers.  We could disambiguate each of the dual-CDs to the first LP each corresponds to.  For instance, the Volumes 1 & 2 CD can disambiguate to the Volume 1 LP, the Vol. 3 & 4 CD can disambiguate to the Vol. 3 LP, etc.  Also, we could move and change the names of the LP articles, removing the term "(LP)" from the titles, as to accommodate the inclusion of the dual CD-subsections.
 * 2) Full Keep. Although this is unlikely, if it is the outcome, then I will go back and revert that changes I have made to the LP articles in the last day.  However, the Volume 9 and 10 CD is the best candidate for full keep.
 * 3) Merge into series article (i.e. do a merge, but place the information into series article). If we choose this option then, I will go back and revert the changes that I made yesterday to the LP articles and transport the information on the dual CDs into the series article.  My personal opinion is that this is not as good an option as #1 or #2, because it will not be as effective in serving the needs of the readers to understand this complicated series.  But I have put mention of this issue in the series article.  There needs to be mention of the issue there, but not there alone--my opinion is that if we can't have full keeps, then we have to have sections in the album articles dedicated to the dual-CDs on order to properly represent them as existing entities in the series.
 * So, I now appeal to a sense of fairness to do what is right (keep or merge), and not delete. I have done everything a person can possibly do to make this process work out.  I have proposed paths to reach a constructive solution. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you have already merged the information, a merge vote seems rather illogical, doesn't it? I do not see why the conclusion of the Afd matters (since keep is not a possibility by how the discussion has gone) because in the end a merge vote is essentially a delete and counts just like a delete in the end. You have done everything you were supposed to in this situation and more. I kinda wish you did not try to merge the info until the Afd concluded because it had a possibility of ending in merge. That way, users could have "forgotten" about this discussion just like a song article you made and the articles could have all been kept. But what is done is done and it would be foolish to revert the work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, a merge isn't illogical, because a merge is a merge. It is so regardless of whether it was merged past or present.  A merge does not count as a delete.  It counts as an article created that disambiguates to the merged article.  But, aside from that, it allows the dual-CD articles to be disambiguated as well for the benefit of the readers.  You may not see the point of my concern about this.  But quite frankly I don't see yours.  Just because I worked hard and spent a couple of weeks building the series doesn't mean that I have a monopoly--these articles belong to everyone, and we all have our right to speak.  However, if I worked hard on this, than I should have as much right as anyone voice my opinion and not be seen as lesser.  If I am firm about my resolution to not delete, then I can be flexible enough to explore other options.  You have every right to express your opinion, but I have mine, and I think that my position is a better solution to the issue at hand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * again, I guess I have to emphasize this, I never said you didn't have a right to express an opinion or that you are a "lesser". But delete is a viable solution, no matter how many times you say it isn't without policy-based evidence, and so far it makes the most sense, rationally speaking. If my personal opinion stood, the articles would stay. If you never saw my concern as you have stated, then you would have never merged the information into the articles like I recommended you should do at some point. I pointed it out because delete is the only logical solution I saw that others users would vote on, but clearly you do not see it. I do not see, however, why a merge vote matters other than to fulfill a personal ego, but I never pictured that in your character. I am stepping away from this Afd since I have said everything that needs to be said for a series I love and because I seem to be striking a nerve with you. At no point did I try to convince you into your own deletion; I was merely explaining why editors are thinking the way they are. I am a little confused as to how that has bad-intentions, but considering you're clearly trying to low-blow me with your ending remarks (which you removed but are still seen) I am uninterested in the explanation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are responding to some comments I just deleted for the sake of your benefit. You are bringing in personal matters here that have no place such as talk about "ego".  But, this is not the only thing that has given me reason to think your comments are not well intended, but I'd rather not get into that.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I shouldn't be encouraging this poor display, but, just curious, what is the benefit of me responding to those comments? You trying to make this a topic about my history is not going to change the Afd. I am very dissappointed in you for even attempting such a maneuver.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I had been discussing the merits of the topic at hand, and you brought personal matters into it with "ego" and all that (Wikipedians are aren't exactly known for being egoless, so what's the point?). I haven't tried to make a display.  But, I interpreted that you were turning the discussion away from the topic towards me which I didn't think was fair.  I have no ill will towards you, but I don't think you were being fair with me.  So, let me get back to the point. Full keep or merge.  Thank you.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

But commenting on an unproven past that is equally unrelated is okay? Okay, gotcha. Frankly, I don't want this to be about you and never wanted it to be. I only care about making sure the information is in the right place. So far you have yet to prove why these articles deserve full keep or merger. You simply just state you want it that way because delete is not a "viable option" which is an unfair and poor defense for such a great piece of this series. You fail to explain how it does not fail GNG, is notable outside the original series, and why a reissue needs to be independently mentioned (a slightly different track listing and "clarity" are not reasons). That is what deletionist voters will say and that is what I have been explaining to you all along. I never had bad-intentions because, honestly, I am more than happy with what I accomplished here. I don't have the time nor do I need it to one-up someone to emphasize that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We have been long time collaborators, and I have considered you a valued colleague, still do, and always will--even when I don't agree or if there are misunderstandings. But, clearly there was an issue with an editor that was harassing me and nominating Afd's that has caused me personal pain, that you got accused of, but that I have given you the benefit of the doubt.  But, this is still a painful and touchy situation for me, and any time you appear to be advocating Afd on me, I am going to get worried--not just for that reason, but because you're a close collegue.  That is a natural.  If any close colleague/collaborator nominates and article for Afd or seems to take a delete position on an Afd thread, I'm going to take it differently than if others did so.  That's just a human reaction.  I don't claim to be egoless--I take pride in the articles I've created and want to protect them, which is my right.  You want to protect your articles just as passionately, and I have rushed to the defense of several your articles on these threads on several occasions--there were a couple this summer that were some of your most vulnerable, and I rushed to add sources I had to help save them.  And, like you I would not be happy about the deletion of any article. I am arguing for merge or keep here not just for my own sake, but because I am concerned that the readers will be deprived of necessary information and guidance of the topic.  I took no offense to the two first two editors, because I know they meant well, but I just don't feel this is the best forum for you to try to convince me that it should be deleted.  You have the right to say whatever you want on any AFD thread, but I was just a bit taken aback--that's all.  As for notability, different guidelines say different things and guidelines can be interpreted in different ways.  Sometimes people can get too rigid about certain rules.  The rules are there to help insure that the encyclopedia is accurate and credible.  There has to be some bar about what is considered notable, because otherwise, people could just write an article about anything, even the house next door.  But, how the bar is interpreted is not always set in stone--the context of the situation has to be considered.  The dual CDs are equal as entities to anything else in the series.  Since the BFTG dual-CD's are essentially the LP's (with a few slight modifications), the sources that pertain to the LPs can suffice enough to justify their mention at least in the LP and/or series articles.  I'll admit that I should have put sections of them in the LP articles, not done separate articles, and I was actually recently considering asking for a merge.  When I made them I didn't know how to solve the problem of the double aspect, and I didn't know at the time that I could do dual entity articles.  I just did what I felt would help the readers.  And, I don't want to be punished for doing so much for this series of articles.  So, that is why I'm taking the position that a merge would be a good idea if we can't keep.  And, I think you could have just a little bit more understanding of where I'm coming from.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * an Afd page is not the best place to "convince you" (which I am not trying to do) that delete is a viable option? Then what place is better? You always take offense when you and me have differences in opinion, but never when Ghmyrtle thinks differently. He has had an opposite argument to yours countless times, but you hardly challenge it. Is he not a close colleague too? I stated what was the best option for these pages: merging the information. Now that it has been accomplished the next neccessary step is delete and redirect. At no point did I say delete and forget the information. But for some reason whenever I stray from your opinion the subject becomes "painful and touchy". It never had to be that way, especially when I was looking in the best interests of the information of these pages.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no use bringing in unrelated things to this topic--I've had my share of debates with others too (probably to a fault), but that is beside the point. Look, you have your perspective and I have mine--you've expressed your views about the topic and I've stated my positions.  I am tired and ready to be done with this whole thing.  When it comes to other editors, there is no one whose collaboration has meant anywhere near as much to me as yours.  I don't mean that in any way to take anything away from other wonderful people who have done so much, probably more than either of us--I just haven't gotten to know them nearly as well.  I have collaborated with them, yes, but not as often as I'd have wished--but I do regard them as close.  Whereas, because we cover much of the same topic terrain, we've collaborated day in and day out.  We have worked together, fought for causes together, conversed about so many topics of mutual interest almost on a daily basis.  We have built whole suites of articles about for major compilation series together (not his one, but some of the other ones).  You've done some kind things for which I am deeply grateful, and that is why I gave the benefit of the doubt.  I may place too much emphasis on loyalty--I realize such a concept may sound crazy on an Afd page.  But, there are standards of ethics I subscribe to that supersede even guidelines--there are just things I would never do.  I will never under any circumstances for any reason recommend (or even so much as hint at) any of your articles for deletion.  Period.  I'm not going to do that to editors I frequently collaborate with--not you or any of the other people I know.  I generally like to avoid personal conflicts, but I'll put up a fight if someone backs me into a corner.  If I'm taking this a bit hard, is should come as no surprise.  I'm just at a loss to understand this, that's all.  Its not the way I do things.  But, I accept that you have your point of view, just as I've got mine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see this is pointless. There was no personal conflict until you made it one for yourself, nor is there anything to take hard because I have done nothing that should come off as negative. You can try to interpret that anyway you want (as you already have), but in the end all I did was express the best course of action for a set of articles that are most likely going to be deleted, not by my choice or by my recommendation. And yes, I am very surprised someone who has been here for four years fails to notice my obvious attempts to help you out then goes on to write about their whole philosophy of how they do things on Wiki. It's very touching, but I came here to focus on preserving the information in a way that makes sense. I do not need to feel bad about that, nor will I, even if you think it is a swipe at our mutual loyalty for each other. I promised you long ago we would stick together, but, sadly, you only choose to remember that when it suits you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see most of your prescriptions in this thread as particularly helpful, nor beneficial in terms of preserving information. I've made more constructive recommendations.  Now let's get off this.  I am tired of this discussion.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: um, echoing Drmies reasoning back on 23 October 2016. (since further comments are needed for concensus). I pretty much take his expertise and authority as a given. Fylbecatulous talk 16:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Some who advocate full delete are making the mistake of viewing the issue of at hand as if the articles exist in a vacuum (in isolation), yet have also admitted that there is an issue of transferring of information. We can't have it both ways. If the articles cannot be retained in their present form, then the best prescription automatically becomes a merge, due to the issue of transferring the information.  These articles do not exist in isolation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh...I must ask again, how is there an issue of transfer of information when you already transferred it a week ago? I must also add that no one has brought up an issue of moving info. They simply said it would be difficult to merge anything because there is no definitive place to redirect the pages. That is all I am going to say about this because the outcome is pretty much guarenteed at this point. I just wanted you to understand why.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did that to help out and make it easier for any person doing a possible transfer--as a way of paving the way for a positive solution (but not to abrogate a possible merge). I just reverted the proto-merge changes for now and left mile-marker comments in the edit histories, so that any future merging editor will have a reference point to do a merge with ease.  In absence of a decision to merge (which is still a  possibility), the decision would be to Keep as a default.  If that happens, I will simply go to the Merge talk page and ask for the articles to be merged--and I will do everything I can to assist in that process.  I'm not so sure that they can simply delete, because it involves transfer of information, as has well been established.  I understand that you have your position and I have mine.  There's no need going on about it at this point.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2016 (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.