Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey)

[Discussion, not directly related to what to do with the articles under nomination, moved from the AfD. If you particularly object to your comments being moved here, you can always move them back. HrafnTalkStalk 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ]
 * totally the wrong place for a discussion of how to do a merge. This is appropriate for a workgroup, or perhaps more practically a discussion on the main article talk page. As the afd is not really in any reasonable sense a proposal for deletion, in spite of the pro forma statement that it is, the afd should be closed. The very attempt to introduce a formal proposal for a merge here shows that this is the wrong place--not that I  disagree with the suggestions. DGG (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "formal proposal for a merge" came not from the nom, who sounds as though s/he still advocates deletion, but from American Eagle, the articles' main defender. (Well, I too suggested redirect/merge for most of the articles, but it was an opinion, not a formal proposal, and such outcomes are common enough in AfDs. You may think that anything that can possibly be redirected or merged shouldn't be the subject of an AfD, but I think people should be allowed to discuss all the options, from outright deletion to outright retention, with everything between.) I see no reason for this to be closed at this point, and I see no reason to suppose that it "is not really in any reasonable sense a proposal for deletion." Deor (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is correct. I'm not going to close this, as I have been too involved with it, but I advise someone else to do it. I will be working on merging/redirecting the articles, per my proposal and the ones above. God bless, ✼ American Eagle  ( talk ) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Formal complaint: I wish to object strenuously to American Eagle's illegitimate alteration of my nomination of these articles for AfD. I am currently in the process of AfDing the aggregation of this OR Fancruft at Articles for deletion/List of Adventures in Odyssey sagas. 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, (i) it is my intention to AfD any further article that is created wholly or substantially from the articles under this nomination, unless and until this AfD comes to a consensus for their creation; and (ii) my silence should be taken as a !vote against any alternate proposal that I have not explicitly endorsed (the only proposal I have done this for to date is Deor's, and only as a second-best to outright deletion). HrafnTalkStalk 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At: my "illegitimate alteration of my nomination of these articles for AfD," honestly, this isn't your AfD, it is a discussion to better improve these articles, merge and redirect ones that aren't justifiable as a stand-alone article, and delete ones that contain no good content. This isn't your discussion, it's the community's. If your issue in this was my editing your comment, what do you call this? At: "my silence should be taken as a !vote against any alternate proposal that I have not explicitly endorse," again, this isn't your discussion and the community can go against your wishes, even if you do not "explicitly endorse" it.
 * I have been trying to work out this situation and work with articles. If you do as you say you will ("AfD any further article that is created wholly or substantially from the articles under this nomination"), we will never make any progress. For now, this isn't a deletion discussion, it's a merge and redirect discussion, of which we need to sort out. That is what I am trying to do, there is no need to continue to AfD everything that gives us progress, out of this mess. ♥ American Eagle  ( talk ) 05:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The AfD isn't "mine" (and I never claimed it was), but the nomination most certainly is -- hence it is was made over my signature: "HrafnTalkStalk 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)". You have not established notability for even a single one of these articles: not even trivial third party mention of their respective topics. Shuffling this non-notable material through a series of newly created articles is not "progress". HrafnTalkStalk 05:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * American Eagle, I suggest you not strike any of the noms unless Hrafn has made it explicitly clear that he no longer wishes to nominate them for deletion, just to avoid any confusion on the part of everyone discussing it.  Graymornings (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * American Eagle may also want to read WP:GD—in particular, "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy." Deor (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrafn: to "hence it is was made over my signature," true, but my 'proposal' comment above was as well. You had no right to edit my comment, it wasn't vandalism and didn't break any policies. If I can't do it, please don't edit my comments again. Also, I see the list of articles above as a project that we need to work on, not your list that can't be editing unless you say so. But, I am sorry for editing it, I will not do it again.
 * American Eagle: all that I did was (i)turn a disruptive and confusing subsection-heading into a bullet point (so that editors did not misperceive it as being part of the nomination, as DGG appeared to do), (ii) bold your !votes for greater clarity, and (iii) strike a !vote that was off-topic as it pertained to articles that had long since been removed to a different AfD. None of these refactorings are problematic within the context of an AfD, and to suggest some sort of equivalence to striking articles from somebody else's nominations is simply ludicrous. HrafnTalkStalk 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Graymornings: As I said, I won't be.
 * Deor: Again, I saw it as a to-do list we need to cleanup. I find it absolutely pointless to wait several more days before doing anything, as it is clear to all here merging is the best way to go. But, I do see your point. I suppose I will be waiting until we end this. God bless,  TheAE  talk / sign  18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)