Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluxx goals (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   redirect to Fluxx. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fluxx goals
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated for deletion, resulted in merge. That was over a month ago, no merge done, so renominating for deletion. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Comment, you can just redirect it to the merge target and any editor who cares can go in the history to get text to complete the merge. 24.211.34.78 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect I tend to agree with the anon. I don't see why we should delete material when it isn't merged soon enough. According to the deletion policy, deletion is for harmful material or material that cannot be saved. Since this can be merged, that is not an issue. There is also no deadline. (Incidentally, I still haven't discovered how the claim that something has to be merged promptly became part of the merge template to begin with.) Redirecting would still allow someone to merge at a later date without leaving the page lying around in the mean time. Use NOINDEX if there are concerns about its appearance on Google. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect There's no time limit for merges, so no reason to delete. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Content doesn't seem salvageable.--Sloane (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep We already have a result as the nomination says - we shouldn't need more discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as no valid reason has been given for deletion. There is no policy or guideline that says that the failure by "someone" to perform a merge is a reason for deletion. No editor has any more or less ability or responsibilty to perform the merge than any other, so if an editor is concerned that a merge hasn't happened then the solution is simply to do it, not to renominate the article for deletion. I am concerned that the Template:Afd-mergeto appears to encourage editors to renominate in this way. If anyone else has any opinion about the wording (either for or against) then I would encourage them to join the discussion at Template talk:Afd-mergeto. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple blank and redirect - What is there to merge? The article for AfD is a how-to essay at best, which if brought to standards would be reduced to the blurb already present on the "Rules and Gameplay" section of the game article. I don't understand what would be merged here. If the article is notable enough to have its own article, that's fine. But a detailed manual on how to play one of its variants is a bit too much. § FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 7 March 2009 (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.