Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Darling, Arizona

What's going on?
User:Tone The result was Keep per the closer. But they merged it with Winona, Arizona and created a new article Darling Cinder Pit‎. A gross discontinuity between the close and the result. Before I pursue this to review, we need to get it sorted out. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Keep" doesn't preclude a subsequent merge or rename. The reasons for this were set out in the AfD and not addressed, so I went ahead and resolved the problem. An article beginning with the words "Darling is the name of a cinder pit mine and railroad station situated in Coconino County, Arizona. Darling is both the Santa Fe railroad's name for the Winona, Arizona train station and the name of the cinder pit next to Winona." is clearly not about one subject other than a name, and this is why it was split to Darling Cinder Pit and Winona, Arizona. No content was deleted, it was all kept. Pontificalibus 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You were directly involved in the discussion. And you overruled User:Tone's decision.  This will not stand.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is stupid as shit. Darling is not a town or "populated place": the sources make quite clear the actual populated place is Winona, the station at which was known to the railroad as Darling because per the cinder pit facility there was named after Darling, not the populated place. What do you want this to say? Oh, Winona is a community, and Darling is a different community – except it's not? Reywas92Talk 22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Like did you not even read this??? Do you really think there should be a separate article calling Darling a separate populated place or what? Reywas92Talk 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is so out of process and FUBAR. You just grabbed a do-over.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 22:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Soooooo what's your solution? Have two separate articles for a single community that's been known as two names??? The consensus was clear that there is significant coverage of a large mine for cinders, so it's reasonable to have an article for such mine. The current status of one article for the one notable cinder pit and one article for the one notable populated place is hardly fucked-up beyond all repair... A "keep" closure does NOT mean "no one is allowed to do anything whatsoever to this", just that the page isn't deleted. Reywas92Talk 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The action was correct. Nothing should be deleted, and nothing was deleted. But "Darling, Arizona" is clearly the Winona train station, named "Darling" because of the cinder mine. This is clearly laid out in the AfD. As a populated place, it is a mere fiction. There's no wrongdoing here at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Tone The result was Keep per the closer. If he did not mean what he said, he should say so. Closings are supposed to have consequence as stated, and not as reconstructed by you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See the Deletion Policy which states "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate".<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 12:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, this isn't out of process; articles that aren't deleted are subject to normal editing, moving, merging, etc. Folks who would like to discuss the merits the move are welcome to do so at article talk. –dlthewave ☎ 13:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There was both a clear consensus and trend WP:HEY, and an unmistakable result. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My 2c. The article was closed as a "keep", which is a typical result when the consensus is not a "delete". A merge is a possible result later on, provided that the interested parties discuss this somewhere. So, take it easy and discuss, ideally on the talkpage of that particular article, not here. --Tone 15:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Tone  There was no discussion subsequent to your close.  It was handled peremptorily without even the facade of consultation.  My complaint was and is about process, allowing that they might have gotten it ultimately right.  Process is important, not just results.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The rename I did followed the Be bold editing guideline. The matter had already been discussed at AfD and I saw no need to rehash that in another talk page discussion. Especially as no one objected to the plan at AfD, and I could conceive of no reasonable objection to it. I note you have not yet put forth any reasoning as to why Darling Cinder Pit and the name of Winona's station ought to be discussed only in one single article. If you do have any reasoning, feel free to set it out on the relevant article talk page(s) - if others agree we can always change things back.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 18:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Restore I did not participate in the AfD but I can see that this merge is out of process. We do things by consensus on Wikipedia. And unilateral moves which disregard the XfD close are not acceptable. The XfD closer was not equivocal in the close. We should proceed according to discussion and consensus. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment we have consensus because no one has put forward any argument against this rename. It is also not out of process because renames, merges and splits following a “keep” AfD are encouraged by policy. There is no requirement to initiate talk page discussions for common-sense edits, especially those previously discussed at AfD without opposition.--<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are a good editor and that is why I am troubled by your move here. At the moment we have a unilateral move which you yourself classified as BOLD ...I would not classify it as bold. I may think there is validity in the move and might even !vote for your proposal (I have no dog in this fight), but I do not approve of your method. It is one of our pillars to seek consensus WP:5P4. You have ignored the XfD and acted on your own. Get consensus. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When splitting the content to the cinder pit and Winona articles, I directly followed the policies at WP:MOVE and WP:PROSPLIT which states "If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split." Again this was discussed at AfD with no objections raised, with even our learned friend User:7&amp;6=thirteen stating "These are good ideas". There was no indication it would be controversial. Still no one has come up with any suggestion at all as to why the article should have remained as it was, so this really just seems like Wikilawyering. If you or anyone else really thinks there was a better way to organize this content, then feel free to undo my edits and create a talk page proposal with a rationale for doing something different.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 12:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it was technically discussed at Afd and the admin who closed it chose Keep not Merge when some of the votes were merge which would mean the admin determined no consensus for merge. A discussion for merge was necessary to make your move since one had already happened and it had been rejected. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made Darling, Arizona into a dab in the meantime. ミラP 00:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sympathy - my sympathy is always with the editor who invested time in the article. 7&6 was invested in the article. 7&6 immediately objected - likely because it was a surprise to spend so much time working on something, and then have someone make a unilateral decision. I am just saying the same things over and over. Perhaps with a discussion there would not be an objection. Seems like it is what we do, when we AfD or prod, we notify the main contributor out of respect. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I think here I was equally invested having expanded it and spent time finding sources to avoid a delete, so perhaps that affected my judgement as to what 7&6 might find acceptable.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus

If the content has been kept, and a DAB is in place so that it can be found just as easily as it was before, then why all the drama? The consensus was for "keep", not "keep and never change ever again". ApLundell (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain to me exactly why this is contentious at all? It's clear from the AfD that Darling is actually just Winona, Arizona and that the Darling Cinder Pit passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to preface this with saying I am not saying the merge was right or wrong. However, the reason it is contentious is that some of the !votes were Merge and some were Keep. When the Afd was closed the admin closed it with a Keep which generally indicates that Merge was rejected since some of the votes were merge. A discussion 100% needed to happen if a merge was wanted. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is it's clear from the AfD that none of the information should be deleted, but it's also clear that Darling, Arizona isn't an actual place that needs to have an article, so it's difficult to tell from the blind !keeps whether they're voting to keep Darling, Arizona (which as noted at the AfD is technically incorrect) or to not delete any of the information here. And the closer clearly didn't consider merge as an option. Nobody wants this deleted, but those of us who have been working on improving Arizona place names want to make sure we get this correct. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Right it is impossible to tell which is why discussion had to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The complaint was about timing, manner and method. Transmutation of "keep" to "rename" and "merge" without consultation, IMMEDIATELY after and contrary to the words used by the closer "Keep" is unacceptable. You keep insisting that the ends (a right result, NOW that there has been a redirect put in, we still need a hatnote) justifies the procedural shortcoming. I trust that we can all learn a lesson from this, and forestall future conflict. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's often a judgement call to be made on whether to start discussions that consume other editors' time or to simply get on with making edits. Obviously in this case my decision turned out to be counter-productive, but we're always learning about our fellow editor's views and ways of working. As you say, we should now be able to avoid similar in future by appreciating other's motives a bit more. <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If everybody agrees that the end result is an improvement, there's no need for prolonged drama and/or debate about bureaucratic procedures. ApLundell (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely bizarre people are upset about the procedure here. It's clear from the AfD this needed to be moved on a page level and merged on another level. Blindly pointing at procedure here is simply disruptive and ignores the reliable sources on the topic. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is "absolutely bizarre" that you don't recognize WP:Dead horse when you see it. Now back away S-L-O-W-L-Y.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)