Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean McVeigh (2nd 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 of the debate was fix the double redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh[edit]

"Dean Royston McVeigh (born 9 June 1950) is an insolvency practitioner in Melbourne, Australia". In other words, he is a non-notable figure who has found himself involved in a notable event. That event is being covered at Melbourne University student unions, and Dean McVeigh redirects there. The article was previously nominated and no consensus was reached. Since then it has been the cause of much vitriol and disruption to the project. The page is protected and a redirect. I nominate that it be deleted, as non notable, and replaced with a redirect and that all concerned editors get back to work editing (and fixing their numerous double redirects). kingboyk 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article currently redirects to Student organisations at the University of Melbourne. History shows a rash of reverts, redirects and disputes. Interested parties would do themselves credit by agreeing to leave the page up until the AfD is over. Deizio 02:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody redirect this to Melbourne University student unions so as to avoid the double redirect? Royboy crashfan 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could of course, is that the intended destination? Or would it be an in-any-way controversial change? --kingboyk 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged to the student unions article as many editors deemed McVeigh to only be notable in the context of the MUSU liquidation and it allowed the removal of rampant POV. The only people strongly opposed to the merger were the editors who are named litigants in the legal proceedings as they no longer had a platform to criticise McVeigh's conduct. The unfortunate number of redirects and double redirects will be fixed once the reversion by a minority stops. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'll leave the redirect as is until this AFD has closed and you've sorted it out for yourselves. --kingboyk 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this AFD is for as there is no article as such at present with this redirecting to the article that mentions McVeigh. The disruptive editors have abandoned trying to get the McVeigh article back up and are now focussing their attention on the merged article. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's an article. It's in the history, one rollback away. If this AFD passes, the article and history can be deleted, and a permanent redirect put into place, protected if need be. If it doesn't pass, well, that's for you folks to decide. I'm just a janitor. --kingboyk 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently protected. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the original version to be POV. In discussions, I favoured redirecting or merging to the University if it caused too much disruption. So I vote to redirect accordingly. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)" . Capitalistroadster 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne University student unions. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article is a redirect and it is suggested that it be deleted and replaced with a redirect? The only possible reason to do this that I can think of is to make the history of the article unavailable to non-admins. I don't see why that would be necessary in this case. -- Kjkolb 06:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no concensus in the last AFD. I felt the issue should be settled. If there's concensus now (where?) that it will remain a redirect and remain protected then of course this AFD is pointless and can be withdrawn. That's all I'm trying to establish. --kingboyk 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that the redirect is currently protected which is probably the only reason some editors haven't tried to restore the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct, thanks. --kingboyk 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, when an AfD results in no consensus, it usually is not renominated right away. Instead, there is a discussion of what is to be done or the issue is allowed to rest for a while. Also, if content has been merged to another article, it cannot be deleted, it must remain as a redirect to the article to preserve attribution for the GFDL. The edits of the contributors to the article must be visible in the history to non-admins. -- Kjkolb 11:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep locked as redirect. The information is where it belongs, in relation to the event. This person has no other claim to notability than being heavily involved in the event. By keeping it as a redirect, we solve the problem of recreation, and direct people to the events which is this person's sole claim to fame. -- Saberwyn 10:55, 9 March 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.