Talk:Sgt. MacKenzie

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sgt. MacKenzie

Is the Sgt. Mackenzie the song is about the same VC-awarded Sgt. MacKenzie referenced here: John Mackenzie (VC)--72.23.28.31 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afd closure

@Sandstein:, as the discussion had turned to the notion of instead merging and redirecting the article, particularly with dialogue on the matter very late last night regarding this development, was it not premature to close the debate? Yes, the initial proposal for deletion was now redundant but as Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion indicates that it is appropriate to continue the Afd debate in this direction, at the very least you could have indicated if and why I am mistaken in my understanding of the policy. Nobody in the same time zone had had reasonable time to respond. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You withdrew the nomination, which means you don't want the article deleted. Mergers or redirects can be discussed here on the talk page. Sandstein 09:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion is, as I understand, a valid course, and I had indicated, in response to a question, my intention to do so, with a request for response from others. Are you saying it is not a valid course? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:, to clarify, this is a genuine and not a rhetorical question and I'm not interested in having a go. I'm baffled as to why a debate which had been apparently settled but then revived with a potential new, policy-based form of resolution under discussion, with a request for responses, was closed off before anyone reasonably had a chance to respond or even register this. Is it in fact not a legitimate course and if so, can you clarify why? Yes, it could all be discussed again here but as the previous discussion addressed which aspects of the subject were notable or otherwise and listed several pertinent and reliable new references, it would surely have been preferable to develop the existing discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was to keep the article, and the AfD had run the required seven days. There was therefore plenty of time for discussion, and no point in keeping the AfD open longer. If you want to continue the discussion about a merger or redirect, you can do so here. Sandstein 10:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my posts have been insufficiently focussed regarding my question. Am I misinterpreting Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]