Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agreements to mediate
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 keep, as somebody has actually merged and two of those arguing for deletion don't appear to be against this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreements to mediate[edit]
This and several other articles (listed below) are kind of a how-to guide for Mediation in Australia, in violation of WP:NOT, even though they have sources. Any useful information should be added to the general article. I speedied all of these once, and they have been recreated; let's get a consensus. NawlinWiki 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also included:
- Delete or at least merge to Mediation, I saw these last night AEDST and dropped a polite note on the author's talk page suggesting they consider expanding existing articles as opposed to creating an article on every aspect of mediation. Elomis 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument about expanding articles does not fit with a "bolded deletion statement", it fits with a merge and redirect argument. Is the topic of mediation in australia covered at current? and why should it not be in a single new article on the topic. Afterall, they have put in enough information for a decent length article. Ansell 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as per nom. There have been several deletion discussions in the last few days on other articles with Mediation in the title, all having extracts from the same DIY guide. The time to mediate has passed - delete the lot. Emeraude 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all because they all have extracts from one totally verifiable reference is not an official reason for deletion. There are more than just the one "DIY" reference. Ansell 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 23:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Merge all to Mediation to get an Australian perspective. They do have references, after all. Where information is unverified, delete it. JROBBO 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Make up a new article on Mediation practices in Australia or similar title. There are more than enough references currently. I would do the merging right now but there are warnings about horrible GFDL difficulties if I do. Ansell 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into new article for all as per Ansell. (Mediation in Australia). Mediation article is far too long for this much more cotntent. —Pengo talk · contribs 12:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and cleanup into new article per Ansell, seems to be from a australian perspective --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I have a few people agreeing with a merge, even after the relisting... Would I have support to do the merging before this thing officially ends a second period here? Ansell 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - yes from me. JROBBO 08:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I will do copy and paste merges to Mediation in Australia, and redirect the remaining articles to it. I don't see how else I can keep with the GFDL when multiple contributions histories are involved. Ansell 08:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - yes from me. JROBBO 08:00, 9 November 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.