Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali (second nomination)

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: as all parties seem to have agreed that content has in fact been merged, then clearly the article needs to be kept in some form, whether a redirect or a separate article. Redirecting is up to those doing the merge - no part of merging is governed by AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a view of Ali[edit]

Shi'a view of Ali was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus. You don't need to use AFD for suggesting merges". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali.

The discussion was not no consensus, it was "Uncle G accidentally misunderstands what Dev920 is thinking and closes AfD". Mr G, I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
- That is not a closure notice. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation for nominating this article for deletion, I have recently added all salvagable material to Ali, as can be seen here. This means that Shia view of Ali is now an unnecessary POV fork (because the original article can hold the good material just fine), and should be deleted. Dev920 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as redundant; I would also recommend cross-linking to your new section from Shi'a Islam and Misconceptions about the Shi'a. TheronJ 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. On reflection, I think Uncle G is right. TheronJ 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Dev920 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Uncle G 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to merge it; I want to delete an uneccessary POV fork. I've just taken out the useful bits. Dev920 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I refer you to the first four words of your nomination. You clearly do want to merge it. So do the merger properly, and complete it in the way that mergers are to be completed. That is not by nominating the article for deletion. Uncle G 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think "I don't want to merge it", was rather clear about whether I do or don't want to merge the article, but I will change it. Dev920 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that you have already done the first part of the merger, per the diff that you yourself gave above, indicates that you do. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I DO NOT WANT A MERGER. I want to delete a POV fork that is unnecessary because the section in the original article is not large enough to warrent. A merge would result in an equally unnecessary redirect, and there isn't much to merge anyway. So the articled should therefore, IMO, be deleted and not merged, and so this discussion is very much valid and Uncle G shouldn't have tried to close it because he has misinterpreted my intentions. Dev920 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already pointed you to Wikipedia:Merge once. Please read it. If you wanted this article deleted, you should not have begun merging its content into another article. Once again: Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've read it! And I've said twice, I don't want to merge it! Tell me, what should I have done when I saw a POV article, sat around and waited for a dozen merge and redirects, when I want the thing deleted? Instead, I have an admin who insists I've started down the road to merging, WHEN I DON'T WANT TO MERGE IT. Merging means a redirect, which is pointless in this case and the entire thing should be deleted, obliterated entirely. The reason there is no overwhelming consensus is because, Mr G, you have insisted I am halfway through a process I am not. How can there be any kind of decent consensus when you have shut down the AFD? The only voter before you came demanding I want a merge when I don't supported my plea to delete - that is hardly no consensus to me. Dev920 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dev, your edits are very good, but I think G is right - merger is the right policy. You found "two or more edits that are a large overlap." I don't see the Shia view of Islam page as a POV fork - the editors aren't protecting themselves from the alternate POV by creating the page, they just have more pages than they need. As I said, I think your pages are great, but I would go ahead with the merge. TheronJ 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to ANI for a second opinion, and they said that because I didn't write the information I added to the article in my own words, despite it being free content to the world, deleting the page it originated from is effectively stealing the content and claiming it as my own. Having now been told this (and it would been nice if Uncle G had explained it himself), I realise I have no choice but to create a redirect, despite my misgivings, whatever my original intent was. I will do so now, and will refrain from making the same mistake with my next AfD. My apologies to Uncle G for apparently wasting his time - but please don't bite the newcomers to AfD attempting something new... Dev920 11:48, 15 August 2006 (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.