Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of the Republic of Texas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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
non-admin keep/merge, I will merge the article myself to Republic_of_Texas#Presidents_and_vice_presidents or List of Presidents of the Republic of Texas, editors are welcome to revert my merge, and you can all have a merge discussion on the talk page, if necessary. Thank you for the nominators good will in agreeing to this merge. Ikip (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- President of the Republic of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I just cleaned this up a bit... and then realised that it doesn't really contain anything not in List of Presidents of the Republic of Texas. While the article should exist given proper research and editing, in its current format it is redundant. Seegoon (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article and merge/redirect List of Presidents of the Republic of Texas to it unless and until it's expanded enough to make two articles necessary. Most countries I've looked at have two seperate articles, but I found some with only 'President of' (e.g. President of Chile and President of Ireland) but none with only 'list of Presidents of'. I certainly don't think we should delete either as they're both likely search terms. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually completely agree; I don't know if I'm abusing the AfD process by bringing this article here, but this is certainly the outcome that I would've expected, rather than a straight up delete. Seegoon (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the list (with the redirect that follows), since the four people each have a link that idenitifies them as President of the Republic of Texas, although that list itself is duplicative of Republic of Texas. Potentially, someone could write a longer article about this office that lasted about a decade (1836-1846); the Republic of Texas had a Constitution, and there are ample sources about the president's powers. [1]. This article, however, is duplicative. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Olaf Davis. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per olaf, or merge. I dont see why this article was put up for deletion, when nominator could have merged instead. (refactored out).Ikip (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it shouldn't be deleted. However, as I noted, I wasn't sure what due procedure was. It is better that the article receives the attention it needs than to sit as redundant. I listed it here in order to generate discussion; in the future I won't do the same thing again. I wasn't feeling bold enough to do a merge myself, seeing as I wasn't entirely sure whether that would be appropriate. Now it evidently is, why not perform a non-admin closure and do what needs doing instead of chastising a Wikipedian acting in good faith? Seegoon (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I offended you, I refactored out my comments. Since there is no one asking for delete, I will close as merge, and merge the article myself. Again, my apologies. Ikip (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it shouldn't be deleted. However, as I noted, I wasn't sure what due procedure was. It is better that the article receives the attention it needs than to sit as redundant. I listed it here in order to generate discussion; in the future I won't do the same thing again. I wasn't feeling bold enough to do a merge myself, seeing as I wasn't entirely sure whether that would be appropriate. Now it evidently is, why not perform a non-admin closure and do what needs doing instead of chastising a Wikipedian acting in good faith? Seegoon (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep While this article isn't perfect, it can be useful to anybody trying to look up information on the subject, and it would be annoying to anybody trying to look it up if you deleted it. Lets not forget, more people look up President then republic of texas, then say, Republic of texas, government of the republic of texas, then finally list of presidents of the republic of texas. People looking it up would have a much easier time going straight to a page. Just my opinion, and also because I made the page,but consider other people looking up pages without accounts. Old Al (My Talk page) 16:52 April 10 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing has been made easier. A redirect will take a person straight to the proper page just as quickly as if someone typed in the current title, whether its a redirect from "List of" to "President of", or the other way around. Since you made the page (which includes the list), you may wish to add anything else from the list page to your page, then make that a redirect. Either way, there is no need for two pages that say the same thing. Mandsford (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People will not go to a list to find out about the position and it's role, they'll go to a page about the ROLE of the position and it's responsobility, so this page can be useful to many people. It DOES require cleanup though, that I will not argue. Old Al (My Talk page) 17:37 April 10 (UTC)
- 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.