Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coaching record of John Beilein

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AfD is not a place to discuss mergers. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching record of John Beilein[edit]

This has been split from John Beilein by Levineps (talk · contribs), who is a highly productive article cleaner with an abnormally high propensity to split articles. Many of his splits have been reversed and some others are at AFD now. With respect to this article, I have asked on his talk page [1] [2] about why this article was split. I continue to await an explanation of whether he is familiar with a category for coaching records and examples of other coaches with their records split from their articles. I feel this split was unnecessary. I propose merging the information back into the main article. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete – No need to having this information in a separate article. No need to keep the resulting redirect around either, IMO. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Changing my vote. This article is a duplication of of information in the existing John Beilein article. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete since there is, as X96 says, no need for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Considering that the nominator and every other !voter prefers to see the material merged, I recommend withdrawing this nomination and proposing a merge on the destination talk page or going to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers if you think the merger will be controversial. The article talk page, rather than AfD, is the best place to consider the appropriateness and mechanics of a merger. Second, Merge and delete is deprecated; for GFDL compliance a redirect should be kept after a merger (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Baileypalblue (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Nomination doesn't propose deletion. Townlake (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware the nominator has merged the content of this article back to the main article. Assuming good faith, this merger still should have been discussed at the articles themselves, not at AFD. This isn't process for the sake of process; it's requesting a fair opportunity for "real WP users" to comment on the merger. My request for procedural close stands. Townlake (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominator has put forward no rationale for deletion. AFD is not articles for merger. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. I have recopied the record back into the article and now propose deleting the redundant article at issue here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I was going to propose too: revert the change that will add the record back to the main article then delete this article with the basis it is a duplication of existing information. This is sort of a strange case where the article in question is simply a subset of an existing page and a "merge and delete" is OK. There is no relevant history included in this article that needs to be preserved, IMO. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were two updates to the table between the time it was split out and the time it was copy-pasted back in again. Failing to leave a redirect-merge notice denies attribution to those editors and violates GFDL. It may seem trivial, but redirects are cheap -- just leave a redirect and be done with it. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Baileypalblue is correct. With the material merged back to the original article, the history of contribution must be preserved with a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just curious, but it doesn't seem like GFDL cares about edits to articles that have been deleted. How is this article any different? Would the situation be any different if this edit had been reverted "immediately" (or as soon as it was noticed), but this article was still changed? Am I making sense? I'm just curious for future reference. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article John Beilein is not being deleted. In order to attribute the latest changes to coaching record which has now been copied into John Beilein, we must retain Coaching record of John Beilein which is where the contribution history is noted. Deletion of Coaching record of John Beilein would remove that history and lose the attribution to the conributor. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I wasn't clear. If this edit to the John Beilein article was reverted right away (within a day) but there were still updates made to Coaching record of John Beilein (since an AFD takes awhile), would those updates still matter from a GFDL perspective? Even though they were made to the "wrong" article. It being the "wrong" article because the data existed in two different places and there was no consensus to split the article. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is irrelevant. New material has been added to Coaching record of John Beilein, which in turn has been merged back into John Beilein. Therefore we must redirect to maintain contribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Redirect is fine. That is what has been done with this editor's other hasty splits such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Buffalo, New York and will likely occure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.