Talk:Munchman (tabletop electronic game)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Created this article, currently a stub and it badly needs a freely licensed image of the Munchman game if possible.
Alas, I no longer own my Munchman game, but the article could do with more info as regards to the gameplay, scoring etc.. Benkid77 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Merge" result of closure is controversial
[edit]- I'm very sorry, but I don't believe that two editors requesting "merge" constitues a consensus, when two other editors (myself included) voted to keep the article. I say this because I expanded the article and added additional sources, after the votes to merge the article were posted. I strongly believe this debate should have been closed as "no consensus". Votes to merge were not in the majority. I don't understand that decision at all. I do wonder if the valid reasons against merging, mentioned in the deletion debate were even read? The fact that much shorter, similar pac-man related articles which deserve merging far more than this one are still allowed to exist as standalone articles is unfortunately very inconsistent. I'm afraid that merging this article into the already large pacman main article will inevitably result in the loss of sourced information from this article and that is regrettable. Rept0n1x (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive me, I didn't do a very good job of hiding the fact I was initially a bit miffed, or at least surprised at the "merge" closure of the deletion debate. :) I have now examined the options on the deletion review page, as I wish to contest the closing decision to merge this article. It says on that page that I should try first to resolve this issue with the closing administrator before applying for a full review of the deletion discussion. I will do that next as I do contest the "merge" closure result of this article's deltion debate. Regards Rept0n1x (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I have now performed the first step towards a deletion review which is to discuss the "merge" closure with the closing admin before initiating a review. I do this because I disagree with the closing decision. If anyone is interested, I have written my concerns on the closing admin's talk page here:- User_talk:TParis#I_would_like_to_request_a_deletion_review_of_Munchman_.28tabletop_electronic_game.29 Best Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'd like to thank the closing the closing admin TParis for reclosing the debate as "no consensus". Rept0n1x (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive me, I didn't do a very good job of hiding the fact I was initially a bit miffed, or at least surprised at the "merge" closure of the deletion debate. :) I have now examined the options on the deletion review page, as I wish to contest the closing decision to merge this article. It says on that page that I should try first to resolve this issue with the closing administrator before applying for a full review of the deletion discussion. I will do that next as I do contest the "merge" closure result of this article's deltion debate. Regards Rept0n1x (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, but I don't believe that two editors requesting "merge" constitues a consensus, when two other editors (myself included) voted to keep the article. I say this because I expanded the article and added additional sources, after the votes to merge the article were posted. I strongly believe this debate should have been closed as "no consensus". Votes to merge were not in the majority. I don't understand that decision at all. I do wonder if the valid reasons against merging, mentioned in the deletion debate were even read? The fact that much shorter, similar pac-man related articles which deserve merging far more than this one are still allowed to exist as standalone articles is unfortunately very inconsistent. I'm afraid that merging this article into the already large pacman main article will inevitably result in the loss of sourced information from this article and that is regrettable. Rept0n1x (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)