Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/National Capital Region Planning Board

Deletion policy
I can't verify that WP:Deletion policy lists possible outcomes. It does say, "content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page...Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." The nominator made a nonsense nomination, ignored WP:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines, and made busywork for you and many volunteers. Your result is not binding, unless you want to allow yourself to be bound into subsequent content disputes. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was a content dispute nor do I think this was a "nonsense nomination". nominated it for deletion because according to them it was an article already duplicating content of another article National Capital Region (India). I voted for a merge because I wanted to keep the edit history of this article so that someday if I am able to research enough, it will be easier to restore the article rather than start from scratch. To be honest I would have been fine with a delete as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A better wording of the nomination might have been "It seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK." That guideline, although indeed a "content guideline", recommends merger or deletion, which were discussed anyway. Regarding my subsequent contribution, I see that I should have started it with a bullet. I will gratefully receive further constructive criticism of my efforts. Batternut (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For some reason I got WP:Deletion policy confused with WP:Deletion process (which which mentions redirect in the "common outcome" list). The deletion policy on her part does mention content forking, so I do not agree that the AfD nom was outside policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no content fork here, the nom was asking permission to edit the encyclopedia. And even by the theory of WP:DEL5, DEL5 nominations appear to require evidence that any such fork is a POV fork.  If this was within policy, why did the nomination not argue that this was a POV fork?  In looking at the articles, I see some overlapping material that needs an editor to clarify the differences between the two related topics.  Your centrally-planned redirect has made the incoming links redirect to an article that is about the NCR, an article that only indirectly defines the NCRPB.  AfDs attract deletion specialists, who cannot be expected to have content knowledge on all topics within the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To me it was very clear that nominator was asking for deleting this article, because the information is already there in the NCR article. Perhaps you see it differently, but most of us in this discussion seem to have understood the intent of the nomination.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The nom had no applicable WP:DEL-REASON, and still doesn't, so when I say that the nom was requesting permission to edit the encyclopedia, that is spoken within the context that there was no argument for deletion, and that the noms concerns were resolvable with bold edits within the scope of WP:Editing policy. Unscintillating (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a POV fork, but an unnecessary WP:SPINOFF. Not even Google has a Google management board spinoff. I have subtly updated the NCR article to define the NCRPB as well as the NCRPB article ever did, btw. Batternut (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I created the article South Coast Air Basin, which is a counterexample. As for SPINOFF, I still see no connection to a WP:DEL-REASON two days after the AFD, and I think the point remains that the nomination was an improper use of AfD.  Had the nomination followed WP:BEFORE, the nomination would have reported the pages that would have been damaged by deleting "NCR Planning Board".  With your edit to NCR, we can confirm that the redirect was a close without due content consideration.  It is fine to merge NCRPB to NCR as bold edits, but your edits have now overturned the AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re your Air Basin, other stuff exists is no justification. Re that "two days", looks like 7 to me. Batternut (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)