Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pam Evans


 * 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 [[Peace Mala]]. Merge and redirect (non-admin closure) ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pam Evans

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject's sole notability is as founder of Peace Mala - not a terribly large organisation in itself (to be blunt, it's a charitable company in Swansea that makes a bead bracelet) - and I don't think there's sufficient notability separate from this organisation to merit a bio article. There are strong conflict of interest aspects - what we're no longer allowed to call WP:VAIN - to this article's existence: see WP:COIN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect unless multiple reliable sources are produced to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, Delete,, Blank, Redirect: In case that sends mixed signals - what I mean is take the useful information that is not already included in the Peace Mala article, and is not self serving, and work it into the Peace Mala article. What is left simply delete blank and than redirect the Pam Evans namespace to the Peace Mala article. According to the talk page there was discussion that indicated it was "suggested that the page be merged with Peace Mala" in 2006. Where that discussion was is not clear. Was this article ever deleted before? Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In order for a merge (was typo) to be valid, the edit history of said material needs to be retained. All edits should have a paper trail that records who added what to WP. Deleting the edit history of a page after merging would be a violation of GFDL and pretty useless since you're already suggesting a redirect anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what I said was pretty clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A miscommunication by terminology, I think? Mgm is noting that we can't delete the page if we copy any material from it. We could do a history merge, but we can't simply delete the attribution history if we move content from Pam Evans to Peace Mala. Generally, after a merge, we simply redirect the article, placing it in Category:Redirects from merges. If necessary to prevent the article's being restored, the redirect can be protected. I suspect that your use of the word "delete" here is non-Wiki specific, and you simply mean to remove/erase the information, not delete the page, and redirect? Please correct me, either of you, if I'm wrong. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things - one related, one not so much. 1> "you simply mean to remove/erase the information, not delete the page" - 100% on the mark. 2> Mgm also left a msg on my talk page as well as in another discussion I am involved in and the combinations came across as they are implying that (for the other discussion) all material in userspace should be kept and never be deleted and (Msg here and on userpage) mainspace articles should never be deleted because it would be a "violation of GFDL". Perhaps this is not what the user meant but due to the current state of deletion discussions and "Keep" arguments it is very hard to maintain what users follow and why. (i.e - can't delete because it violate the license, can't delete because it isn't in mainspace, can't delete because there is no time limit, can't delete because it is a invasion of privacy, can't delete because it is interesting, can't delete because the user is active on Wikipedia, etc) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which discussion you are referring to but articles in userspace can be deleted. There is no time limit for improvement, but different people have different ideas on how long people should be allowed to keep articles in userspace before it is no longer reasonable to assume they're trying to improve it (rather than violating policy by keeping a copy of deleted material). "Can't delete because it is an invasion of privacy" is something I never remember saying. If anything, deleting material protects someone's privacy. Nevertheless, I readily admit that my interpretations of policy lean towards the inclusionist side. This particular case is not really negotiable. Policy dictates that every edit should be accompanied by an entry into an article history so editors can link every single bit of material to the author who added it. It's a basic sense of accountability at work. Besides, invoking AFD when you could create a redirect creates a lot of extra work that really isn't neccesary. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the editor was not thinking about a merge or a redirect when they made this AFD. Likewise you are harping on a non-issue. Nobody has said the edit history is to be deleted, it was not even hinted at until you brought it up and than repeated it on my talk page. Moonriddengirl cannot be the only person who understood what I said can she? Either way I am striking the link to my talk page you posted below as it is really nothing more than a rewording of what has already been said here and the slight fork has nothing to do with this AFD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the editor was not thinking about a merge or a redirect when they made this AFD
 * This has got into ludicrous overcomplication. The article looked to me borderline between a candidate for complete deletion and one for merge-and-redirect. I chose to nominate for AFD because it covers both options (merge-and-redirect being a common recommendation arising from AFD). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "This has got into ludicrous overcomplication" - I agree. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also see User_talk:Soundvisions1. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (This is just the same core conversation as here. Add nothing new or relevant to this topic) - unsigned edit by Soundvisions1 12:35, 6 February 2009 NOTE: This has been cut and pasted form where it first appeared. It was directly after my post in response to MGM. It was moved, "auto signed" as it had been now moved, and un-striking by another editor. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Gordonofcartoon. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge minimal information into Peace Mala and redirect.  Ty  11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge basic information into Peace Mala and redirect. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:26, 6 February 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.