Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genovia (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 was redirect to The Princess Diaries. Uncle G is correct in that this is the incorrect venue for this, but on the other hand WP:CCC is valid (the previous AfD was 10 months ago), so redirecting seems to be the obvious result here. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genovia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's all very well it decide to merge this into another article, but if no-one is going to do so, then the article needs to be deleted. St Anselm (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Princess Diaries with no merge. The content of this article (mostly in-universe fictional descriptions) can be left in the history for editors to merge later on if they choose to do so. (If they do plan to merge the content, it would be advisable to cite where in the novels these pieces of information came from.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm … no. If a merger is needed, and a merger doesn't happen, then a merger is still what is needed, not deletion. Ironically, you could have done the merger in two edits, whereas it took you three edits just to perform this AFD nomination. And if you start arguing the point here, that it's Not Your Problem to do a merger even though you want it done and {{sofixit}} applies, that will rise to four edits versus two … Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus can change. In fact, if it is merged it would required a (very) selective paste merger. But I am suggesting that the fact that no one has done it indicates that the community doesn't want it merged, and that the consensus has probably changed to delete. St Anselm (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Selective paste or not, that's still only two edits. You're now up to four on this alternative path that you've chosen instead of simply doing an outstanding task that you wanted to be done that you possessed the tool for doing. Care to waste another one? Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't want it merged. I want it deleted. That's why I nominated it. That's why we're having this discussion. St Anselm (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2010 (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.