Talk:Great Dinky Robbery
 | This article was nominated for deletion on March 21 2006. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to Princeton Branch. |
date[edit]
I looked through the sources that were cited, and there does seem to be some disagreement about the date. As I recall, though, only one indicated that the robbery took place in '63, while at least two, possibly three cited 1960. Given that this is something of a folk legend, I expect there to be some issues with details, and I think '63 actually makes more sense, but I'd like to discuss what our evidence is for which date is correct. Cantara 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge[edit]
Seeing no opposition here so far after placing the tag a few days ago, I do plan to merge this fairly shortly... ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- There hasn't been any opposition, but a lot of expansion work has been done on this article in the last few days. I'd still rather see the article merged than deleted, but do you think that now there is enough support for it to exist on its own? It seems to me that enough sources have been located to vouch for the incident's importance within the Princeton community as well as its relevance to the rest of the WP readership, and it seems like work on the article is going to continue. Let's wait a bit longer. Cantara 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- That would be "opposition", so thanks for speaking out! My concern is that the article may be deleted as a result of the AfD (although that is looking somewhat less likely now) and it's way easier to merge first than undelete and then merge, unless you are an admin, which I am not. I'm fine with waiting though. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still a little unfamiliar with the AfD process, so maybe you can tell me: are the powers that be likely to double check the status of the article before taking votes for keeping and deleting into account? Or should I pop back by the deletion discussion and inform them that the article has been significantly improved? Maybe some people will change their minds. Cantara 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The closing admin is not necessarily going to look in the article itself (although it is good if the admin does, I don't think they always do). Popping in with a comment and pointing out the changes (providing a link to the diff is very helpful) is indeed a good idea. It may influence people that come back to check to change their thinking as well as influencing those that are new as well... that's my view of the process. Hope it helps! Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Might be an idea to remove those redlinks. Would look a touch more repectable without them. --kingboyk 20:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The closing admin is not necessarily going to look in the article itself (although it is good if the admin does, I don't think they always do). Popping in with a comment and pointing out the changes (providing a link to the diff is very helpful) is indeed a good idea. It may influence people that come back to check to change their thinking as well as influencing those that are new as well... that's my view of the process. Hope it helps! Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still a little unfamiliar with the AfD process, so maybe you can tell me: are the powers that be likely to double check the status of the article before taking votes for keeping and deleting into account? Or should I pop back by the deletion discussion and inform them that the article has been significantly improved? Maybe some people will change their minds. Cantara 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- That would be "opposition", so thanks for speaking out! My concern is that the article may be deleted as a result of the AfD (although that is looking somewhat less likely now) and it's way easier to merge first than undelete and then merge, unless you are an admin, which I am not. I'm fine with waiting though. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)