| Revision as of 15:14, 3 October 2005 editPaul August (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators205,636 edits re Ecclesiastical State← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:15, 3 October 2005 edit undoPaul August (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators205,636 edits →re Ecclesiastical StateNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| == re Ecclesiastical State == | == re Ecclesiastical State == | ||
| Hi David. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. Regarding the AfD of ], by my reading, there were six editors who were in favor of deleting the article and nine who were not (any recommendation other than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep). Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. And assuming that those editors who recommended deletion would support redirection, there does seem to be a consensus for redirection. However, such a decision is a normal editorial decision and doesn't involve AfD. If you want to redirect the page, you could propose the redirection on the talk page first, or you could be bold and simply redirect, in either case, citing the AfD discussion as justification. Does that make sense? Have I answered you questions? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or you have other questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. ] ] 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | Hi David. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. Regarding the AfD of ], by my reading, there were six editors who were in favor of deleting the article and nine who were not (any recommendation other than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep). Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. And assuming that those editors who recommended deletion would support redirection, there does seem to be a consensus for redirection. However, such a decision is a normal editorial decision and doesn't involve AfD. If you want to redirect the page, you could propose the redirection on the talk page first, or you could be bold and simply redirect, in either case, citing the AfD discussion as justification. Does that make sense? Have I answered you questions? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or you have other questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. ] ] 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:15, 3 October 2005
Feel free to leave me a message at the bottom
Re: Deletion
You need to create the discussion page. Click on the link to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aidan Coughlan either here or on the page, and then enter {{subst:afd2|pg=Aidan Coughlan|text=Whatever reason you had to delete the page should go here.}} and save the page. Then add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aidan Coughlan}} to the same page you've edited before. Which part of this was confusing, BTW? JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Re: Ecclesiastical state
Dear Davidpdx, I had received your message regarding Ecclesiastical state. I did not vote delete. Instead, I voted comment and suggest that there is a duplicate article which can be redirected. --Hurricane111 21:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Davidpdx, I received your message and I concur... My vote has been changed to redirect with a suggested lock.--Isotope23 13:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The submitter of an AFD request doesn't decide when they close. I think they stay up for a minimum of five to seven days or so, and then whenever an admin gets around to looking at them he or she decides the consensus, acts, and closes the discussion. Jdavidb 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
DOM
Hi David, took your advice and signed up under Johnski. I've started a subject of Micronation under Dominion of Melchizedek which you can take a look at and let me know what you think so far. Thank you Johnski 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again, David, I'm not sure what parts you want me to prove, so could we take one point at a time? You can look at the talk page of Dominion of Melchizedek and see where I posted a version that I worked from the latest version that was posted there, and compare it to Gene Poole's last version, and let me know the first point you think I should prove. Let's take it one point at a time, otherwise, I'm not sure where to start or what you think needs proving.Johnski 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
re Ecclesiastical State
Hi David. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. Regarding the AfD of Ecclesiastical state, by my reading, there were six editors who were in favor of deleting the article and nine who were not (any recommendation other than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep). Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. And assuming that those editors who recommended deletion would support redirection, there does seem to be a consensus for redirection. However, such a decision is a normal editorial decision and doesn't involve AfD. If you want to redirect the page, you could propose the redirection on the talk page first, or you could be bold and simply redirect, in either case, citing the AfD discussion as justification. Does that make sense? Have I answered you questions? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or you have other questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)