- Beethoven's liver (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Contested merge (request overturn to delete). I feel rather strongly that this close was incorrect. "Delete" has far more support than "Merge", and the article creator all but admitted he created it as a WP:POINT violation. Looking at the article on Ludwig van Beethoven, I see no section where it fits, and more importantly, no section where it would be considered a meaningful addition rather than trivia. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a clever subtle hoax, isn't it? And User:Coren has had nothing to do with the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete. This is a case of a closer not closely reading the debate, I feel. The final "merge" vote is clearly not a valid, policy based vote; the voter concedes that the article is essentially a mild breaching experiment. The closer may have been influenced also by a merge vote coming from a particularly well-respected editor, Newyorkbrad, but that should hardly outweigh the four delete votes backed up by policy. Not a great close. I would also overturn to delete on the merits per DGG; a joke made two hundred years after someone dies doesn't belong in their article, so there's really nothing to merge here. Chick Bowen 02:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to redirect to Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, and mention the embalmed liver briefly there (or in the main article if really necessary). The discussion does not yield consensus for either merge or delete, but it does yield consensus (as the closer should have noticed) for this not to remain a separate article. Under these circumstances, a redirection to an appropriate article is the outcome that best implements such a consensus, because it allows later editorial merging of any content still deemed necessary. Sandstein 09:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete - Conclusions are not strength of argument. There was no reasoning provided behind the merge positions. Death of Ludwig van Beethoven already covers Beethoven's severely cirrhotic and shrunken liver. The stronger argument was delete, which was clear in that the topic did not meet WP:N and the article represented what Wikipedia is not. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Closer misinterpreted the consensus that the article should not exist. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I am not seeing too much reasoning behind the delete positions, except for the "utterly unencyclopedic" opinion. Lack of notability is in itself not a reason for deletion. The nominations at AFD and DRV failed to consider the most likely merge target, Death of Ludwig van Beethoven. In the AFD and DRV it is suggested that if there is no content worth moving a merge is unacceptable. However see Wikipedia:Merge#Reasons for merger "You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. ... If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there ..." The arguments for delete and against merge (sadly repeated here at DRV) are therefore weak. The closing admin is to be congratulated on her perception. Thincat (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATD is still policy, although as our last few inclusionists give up and throw in the towel I'm sure it'll be marked as historical soon enough. At the moment it's valid, so the alternatives to deletion should have been exhausted. "Beethoven's liver" is a plausible search term and the discussion failed to think about the possibility of a redirect. Relist the defective discussion with instructions to consider the alternatives properly.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for Beethoven's liver returns Death of Ludwig van Beethoven with relevant bolding in the summary text. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's true but it's not really the point. If we make it a redlink then there's a risk that an inexperienced user will create an article in that space, thus leading to a further unnecessary discussion. If we make it a redirect, then our inexperienced user is more likely to edit the parent article instead.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete I do not find the merge arguments in that debate to bring forth any valid policy based arguments. They were: notable fact, instructions to merge, and the author doesn't really address WP:N. The clear topic of the discussion was hoax and SIGCOV in which there wasn't any abundantly to be found, and to address Thincat, failing to meeting WP:RS and WP:N are grounds for deletion. As the nominator pointed out, notability is not inherent and must be established. Frankly I think the subject field of his liver is so isolated that people would be much more inclined to search for the person or his death. I also haven't seen any new evidence to suggest this is even a legitimate piece of information. Mkdwtalk 01:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Beethoven's liver is a notable parenchymal viscus[1] that lived with Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827)." -what, they were roommates? In response to Thincat, above, being a non notable is indeed a reason to delete an article. No reason was advanced for why the content should be merged, but reasons were advanced for why the article should not exist. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete, weak arguments for merging. If delete recommendations must explicitly rebut merge possibilities to be considered valid, I think that requiring merge arguments to specify the content to merge (WP:Merge what?, essay) is consistent. User:Kitfoxxe recommended merging "the single notable fact", but both the source – I assume Madden, not Coren – and destination are unclear. None of Medical Council on Alcohol, Alcohol and Alcoholism, or John Spencer Madden has a Wikipedia article, although User:SimonTrew calls Madden "a respected pathologist". (The only other mention of Madden I found with a quick search was a link to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/medicine-obituaries/9161426/Dr-John-Spencer-Madden.htm placed by User:Gaythorn at the end of Moston, Cheshire West and Chester.) I think that an argument can be made for mentioning Madden's report at Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, perhaps by generalizing Lead poisoning overdose to cover all analyses long after Beethoven's death, but that it would best be rewritten from the source, as permitted by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, Bare references. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete - Regardless of whether you take a pure number count, or if you weigh each vote up carefully, there is no consensus to merge. Instead, the consensus was clearly to delete. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse merge or redirect, change target We've got reliable sources covering parts of this, there was certainly a scholarly article on the topic and a better-known parody of that article. I don't see the harm in a redirect or (very minor) merge, but Death of Ludwig van Beethoven should be the target and anything merged needs cites which clearly support the claims. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this belongs to the "how many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a light bulb" category. I'm waiting for articles on Beethoven's pancreas [1], Beethoven's kidneys and so forth [2] to linger forever in Wikipedia's brilliance zone. Clearly sources exist, thus these must all have separate articles per WP:RANDY. 86.121.18.250 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
