Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie was closed on March 22nd with a decision to merge to Rachel Corrie. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16, the decision was endorsed. Attempts to force merger were disputed here and here. Since the article was moved to this new title, people claim that it deserves a second hearing (a second DRV seems nonsensical so a second AFD). In my mind, these changes clearly aren't an attempt to merge and don't look like an attempt at a new article. Suggest deletion and mean it this time. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No Hideous Act Involved As the User Implied Above If I left the page as it is and create a new page, actually only that would be deceitful and cheating. I moved the page, and created a title in the main discussion page, letting other editors know what I am doing. That is how you or anyone else learned it already. If I didn't move the page with new content, and just create a new page, near noone would know it.

I let other users know what I was doing publicly in main discussion page, so I wasn't trying to hide anything from anyone in the first place. You try a bit hard on trying to make me seem bad, yet at original deletion talk Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie majority of votes was in favor of creating a new Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie page, including 2 of the dedicated page editors, along with some other editors, admins advised me the same. I may know rules more or less, but that was exactly what I was trying to do. The article still needs a lot wikifying, yet that work belongs to all main page editors too, not only me, and without collaborative work it cannot be accomplished. While the new article is still in progress, you and another editor acted so swift on getting it deleted without discussing with me, before even the article gets shaped by other editors. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reduce and merge. A lot of the material is unnecessary detail, and replicates material in the articles about the plays or that is already in her main article. What is useful and unique can be merged into Rachel Corrie. Fences and windows (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all main idea behind creating page is collecting relevant info in detail in sub page, and clearing out the main page from some of the content in a summary style. But if no colloborative help come on the article, it takes time to do such extensive work, also I cannot do that without consent of the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. Moving a page is not the way to escape the conclusion of a reviewed AfD. Bongomatic 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: well, the notice at top of Talk:Rachel Corrie links to the page history of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie which was moved to Public Reaction's to Rachel Corrie's Death moved to Public reactions to Rachel Corrie's death moved to here. Should someone fix or simplify the GFDL headaches in case someone actually does want the prior history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No Hideous Act Involved As the User Implied Above I replied above on moving page. The user tries to build a prejudice on me, by implying I was doing hideous acts. That is on the contrary. In deletion review majority of votes in favor of either keeping the page, or creating a new title. So I tried to create a new title, trying to include parts missing as I advised and criticized on the deletion talk. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to have had a distinct habit of reverting attempt after attempt after attempt after attempt to get the page cut down in any manner for a merger. Add in serious bad faith here (even if not to me in particular) and even though you have notified everyone at Talk:Rachel Corrie about each step, to claim we must still wait for "devoted editors", ignoring the actual discussion there, the implications aren't difficult to see. I hate to resort to silly ad hominems as well, but your user page indicates at least a little bias. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reduce and Merge per User:Fences and windows.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)