Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 6

Air Hawke's Bay

 * Comment to whom it may concern The revision history shows that my last post appeared one minute and five seconds after the closing, but this was not an edit conflict.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is my reply to Flatscan's last post, a post that included a question. The DRV was closed while I was still preparing this comment:
 * So what we are talking about is one delete !vote, which I believe is flawed, and which you claim is valid as a basis for your Endorse. To answer your question, I read a lot of the RfC earlier this year, I only skimmed the first few lines recently.  I'm accepting your statement that the RfC discussed equal weights for valid !votes.  That is the point, it is not the weight I'm discussing, it is that we don't have a valid !vote here.  It is in the meaning of the words "preserve" and "alternatives to deletion", that we don't delete material based on delete drive-by votes.  Valid delete !votes by these policies address the issue of merger.  Notability guidelines exist to define which topics will and won't have stand alone articles.  Given an article with encyclopedic material, the worst case applied to a non-notable topic is a merge.  Do you agree?  A proper AfD nomination prepares the community by analyzing the alternatives, including what to do with the reliable material in the article.  It gives reasons as to why both the topic and the material are objectionable under policy.  A valid delete nomination should show that effort was made to avoid the loss of work product.  This was not attempted.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Flatscan (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think of weights as being somewhere between 0 and 1. A completely invalid recommendation would be 0, but these are very rare. I think that WP:ATD can weaken recommendations that fail to consider merge or redirect, but should rarely invalidate them. I believe that the RfC result supports my interpretation.
 * Given an article with encyclopedic material, the worst case applied to a non-notable topic is a merge. Do you agree? No, that is an oversimplification.
 * Whether specific content is "encyclopedic" is open for interpretation and debate. AfD regularly deletes articles that some participants think are suitable for Wikipedia.
 * If a relevant merge target exists, there may be duplication. If the separate article has additional content, it may not be suitable for the merge target – a common problem is excessive detail. If there is nothing to merge, the AfD may be closed as redirect, delete and redirect, or delete.
 * I agree that addressing WP:ATD strengthens nomination and delete recommendations and that disregarding it should weaken them, if such an alternative is proposed. WP:ATD is a section of WP:Deletion policy, but I think the alternatives should only be considered – they are not meant to be preferred over deletion at all costs.