- Estimate of the Situation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Apologies if this is not the right place to post this. But shouldn't the consensus here be Merge? It got the most votes. All content from the page was lost and the page was deleted and redirected. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse redirect, but restore history. If I were closing this, the first thing I would have done was figured out that there was clear consensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article. The next step would be to figure out which of delete or merge better represented the consensus. It's pretty much of a toss-up between those, and the problem with merge is that you can't merge material that doesn't meet WP:V, so merge really isn't an option. I suspect I would have done the redirect as a compromise, but I don't see any reason the history was deleted. We generally only delete the history when something like WP:BLP or WP:CV requires us to do so. Violations of WP:FRINGE don't rise to that level. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone types "Estimate of the Situation" into the search bar on Wikipedia, what's the thing they'd be least astonished to find? I certainly don't think the answer has anything to do with ufology! We should retarget the redirect to Estimation (disambiguation) and add an entry to the bottom of the disambiguation page pointing at Project Sign. And since we should do that, I can't see any reason to restore the history.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Requests history tempundelete. The merge !votes smell to me of admission that the content was unsuitable, such as unverifiable to reliable sources. That is not a valid merge !vote, and if my suspicion is correct, that the nominator’s opening statement was correct, then deletion of the history was the right thing to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the deleted article and it’s sourcing. It is not so offensive that it needs to be deleted. I agree with the AfD nominator, and see that the consensus of the discussion was in agreement. However, my reading is that the consensus better fits to “redirect With prejudice (and protect the redirect if required)”. As per the AfD nomination, inclusion of more content at the target is a matter for consensus at the target, and its talk page. It’s conceivable that reference to the history may help. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus was Not for "merge". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the article was a reasonable outcome from the discussion. If there's nothing verifiable to merge, then we don't need to keep the history, so waiting for the tempundelete to come through to make a decision. SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I think this is clearly a delete by consensus. There's not really much to merge, and I probably would have closed it the same way. The only issue is a valid redirect target exists, even though nobody suggested a redirect in the discussion, which is supervote-y. Endorse the close as correct
, but allow the history to be restored per request, maybe a little bit WP:IAR but think this the optimal result. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The requesting user has been topic-banned for pushing WP:FRINGE (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ufology sprawling edit war, so I'm treating the request for history as moot and changing to a straight up endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the number of concerns raised about the sourcing and/or content a straightforward merge is going to be a bad idea and any merge will have to be very selective. None of the merge !votes actually argued that the content was any good. Project Sign does already devote a few sentences to it which are rather better than what's in the deleted version. Given that I don't see any particular reason to do any further merging. Hut 8.5 10:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to merge That was the consensus of the discussion as I read it. Count is 4 deletes (one of which is fine with merge), 2 keeps, and 2 merges. The sources in the article and listed in the AfD include mainstream newspapers and academic publishers. And everyone in that discussion appears fine with the topic being mentioned on Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This reminds me of the issue discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 73#Consensus to get rid of an article but not on whether to preserve some of its content. To me it looks like there is some disagreement in the discussion about whether the sourcing is adequate to justify inclusion, with some legitimate arguments against the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per SportingFlyer. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, to my surprise. I voted Merge there, but I think Spartaz is actually right on the balance of policy-based argument, merge is a bit of a lazy answer. Not that I'd object to restoring the history under the redirect, but it's fair to say that on the balance of policy-based argument this is not a notable topic. Guy (help!) 09:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
