Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of USS Argus
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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Capture of USS Argus[edit]
- Capture of USS Argus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The articles Capture of USS Argus and USS Argus (1803) are both small enough to be merged into one article. The main contents of Capture of USS Argus has already been moved to the USS Argus (1803) article and further needed edits and tweaking have been made. Now that this has been done there seems to be no reason to keep the Capture of USS Argus article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to delete withdrawn by nominator Have copied text from Capture of USS Argus to USS Argus (1803) and will add a 'redirect' to former as soon as an administrator removes the hidden Afd message. Will wait about a week before removing contents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Completed AfD step 2 on behalf of author. czar · · 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. AfD is for deletion discussions. If you are proposing a merge, it should be done from the article's talk page, possibly in conjunction with leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. If you are only interested in merging, please consider withdrawing the deletion nomination. czar · · 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- merge It is reasonable to bring contested merges here, or merges where a possible alternative might be deletion, but this seems absolutely straightforwartd, and I think you could just have notified, waited a week, and then gone ahead with it. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - I think nom is saying that the content has already been merged, so redirecting is the way to go. Ansh666 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that uncontroversial and simple merges are okay without a discussion and so went ahead and did so. Since the 'Capture of USS Argus' article has had its contents copied/pasted to a section in the main article I saw no reason to not have it deleted. Do you really think this simple merge/deletion needs to be discussed in all the various forums user:czar posted to? It's pretty straight forward and uncontroversial in nature, as no content or meaning has been added or deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary to contact anyone, but it's a nice courtesy to anyone who may have input (especially those who worked on the article, from the article's history). Also when merging, it's good to leave a {{copied}} template on the merged talk page, which links back to the old page's edit history so proper attribution is given for the prose. (If the page was outright deleted, that attribution would disappear.) To answer your q, you'd probably be fine withdrawing the nom and completing the merge/redirect yourself. If anyone objects, they'll revert and bring the objection to the talk page. czar · · 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. Have added the 'copied' template to the destination page, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary to contact anyone, but it's a nice courtesy to anyone who may have input (especially those who worked on the article, from the article's history). Also when merging, it's good to leave a {{copied}} template on the merged talk page, which links back to the old page's edit history so proper attribution is given for the prose. (If the page was outright deleted, that attribution would disappear.) To answer your q, you'd probably be fine withdrawing the nom and completing the merge/redirect yourself. If anyone objects, they'll revert and bring the objection to the talk page. czar · · 18:40, 9 May 2013 (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.