237:, not AfD. Second, the consensus was against a MERGE not just a plain redirect, read it again. And I'm perfectly fine with the outcome of the AfD, the article was deleted without a merge as per consensus and that's still the case, all I've done is simply created a new redirect to an existing section of an article. If a user is not happy with the redirect they should take it to RfD and not bring up an irrelevant AfD discussion. --
288:
Not exactly. I see now that we're playing games with whether or not this is G4 or RfD material. If it should have been a redirect that issue should have been brought up at the AfD. The fact that this is renomed within 30 hours (or less) and you want to kick it around to other forums is not really
336:
AfD covers a range of outcomes, including keep, redirect, merge, and delete. If on the delete option came up, then perhaps that reason hasn't been raised below. If you want to talk about the actual content of this AfD, then delete seems the clear (already endorsed) option. I'm not trying to be
480:
Yes but a simple redirect does not imply any judgment, if anything that argument would apply to the content already existing at the show's article, not this redirect. And the title of the redirect is simply "Andrew Conley" not "Cause of Andrew Conley's death". See
374:
You are the one dragging things out. I'm bothered because I know and generally agree with you... but the previous AfD was delete, and I am of the opinion the same reasoning still applies to delete. The "merits" in this case is people deciding to delete.
465:
Because of the observation by DGG in the AfD that was supported by several other editors: "this would imply a judgment that the show was actually responsible for the killing, which seems a judgment we should not be making."
176:
78:
289:
encouraging. If this was an issue overlooked at the AfD I guess I'm ok hearing this here but it's out of bound a bit, and certainly there's absolutely nothing wrong with what's been nominated here.
355:
I'm not the one dragging things out, I'd rather not have to go through any deletion process at all and just leave it be. But if we're to discuss this then we should be discussing the merits of the
523:
without prejudice to opening a discussion at RfD. The suggestion that this redirect was created because the user was unhappy with the first AfD result seems unnecessarily incendiary.
132:
170:
315:
Not exactly what? Not a redirect? No games here, G4 just does not apply, this is out of process and the prior AfD discussion is irrelevant to this case. And the issue
73:
211:
also not to redirect. this has been recreated in violation of this. see previous AfD finding. if a user is not happy with recent AfD, they should contest in via
17:
105:
100:
452:
help
Knowledge (XXG) for readers entering "Andrew Conley" into the search box to not be taken to relevant existing information? --
109:
549:
532:
493:
475:
460:
423:
414:
I think your procedural argument is fundamentally flawed: namely, AfD discussions are precedent for other deletion discussions.
409:
401:
apply here because that reasoning was based on that article. And noone has yet given a valid reason to delete this redirect. --
384:
367:
346:
327:
298:
279:
262:
245:
224:
57:
253:- This is g4 material. If there are objections to that they belong at deletion review (but why waste our time with that too)
92:
191:
158:
564:
36:
53:
563:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
152:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
148:
49:
482:
419:
380:
342:
294:
258:
198:
137:
545:
491:
458:
407:
365:
325:
277:
243:
184:
445:
96:
220:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
528:
471:
234:
212:
164:
415:
376:
338:
290:
254:
541:
487:
454:
403:
361:
321:
273:
239:
88:
63:
216:
126:
524:
467:
337:
difficult, but why draw this out procedurally without discussion the merits?
557:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
440:(which btw doesn't make much sense itself since the content was
432:
prior AfD discussion does it provide justification for deleting
389:
Again, the previous AfD does not apply here because that was an
359:
and not in the context of an already closed prior AfD. --
271:
I think you need to reread G4. This is a new redirect. --
319:
brought up at the AfD so I'm free to resolve it now. --
122:
118:
114:
183:
79:
Articles for deletion/Andrew Conley (2nd nomination)
197:
436:redirect? All the arguments there were against a
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
567:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
446:Dexter (TV series)#Conner Conley murder
71:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
207:there was recent consenus to delete
74:Articles for deletion/Andrew Conley
70:
233:. First of all, this should be at
24:
1:
550:17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
533:14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
494:16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
476:14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
461:09:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
424:09:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
410:09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
385:09:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
368:09:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
347:08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
328:08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
299:08:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
280:08:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
263:08:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
246:08:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
225:07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
58:05:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
584:
560:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
428:Okay, so what/where in
448:article). How does it
69:AfDs for this article:
397:, the same reasoning
46:take to RfD, please
540:agree with vquakr
44:The result was
575:
562:
490:
457:
442:already existing
406:
364:
324:
276:
242:
231:Close as invalid
202:
201:
187:
140:
130:
112:
34:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
571:
565:deletion review
558:
486:
453:
402:
360:
320:
272:
238:
213:deletion review
144:
136:
103:
87:
84:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
581:
579:
570:
569:
553:
552:
535:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
371:
370:
350:
349:
331:
330:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
283:
282:
266:
265:
248:
205:
204:
141:
138:Afd statistics
83:
82:
81:
76:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
568:
566:
561:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
536:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
518:
495:
492:
489:
484:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
369:
366:
363:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
326:
323:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
300:
296:
292:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
275:
270:
269:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:Speedy delete
249:
247:
244:
241:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
146:Find sources:
142:
139:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:Andrew Conley
86:
85:
80:
77:
75:
72:
65:
64:Andrew Conley
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
559:
556:
537:
520:
449:
441:
437:
433:
429:
398:
394:
393:, this is a
390:
356:
316:
250:
230:
208:
206:
194:
188:
180:
173:
167:
161:
155:
145:
45:
43:
31:
28:
483:WP:RNEUTRAL
171:free images
416:Shadowjams
377:Shadowjams
339:Shadowjams
291:Shadowjams
255:Shadowjams
542:Aisha9152
50:T. Canens
395:redirect
357:redirect
133:View log
444:in the
391:article
217:LibStar
177:WP refs
165:scholar
106:protect
101:history
525:VQuakr
468:VQuakr
399:cannot
317:wasn't
149:Google
110:delete
538:close
521:Close
485:. --
438:merge
192:JSTOR
153:books
135:) •
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
546:talk
529:talk
472:talk
434:this
430:that
420:talk
381:talk
343:talk
295:talk
259:talk
221:talk
185:FENS
159:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
54:talk
450:not
235:RfD
209:and
199:TWL
131:– (
548:)
531:)
474:)
422:)
383:)
345:)
297:)
261:)
223:)
215:.
179:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
56:)
48:.
544:(
527:(
488:œ
470:(
455:œ
418:(
404:œ
379:(
362:œ
341:(
322:œ
293:(
274:œ
257:(
240:œ
219:(
203:)
195:·
189:·
181:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
151:(
143:(
129:)
91:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.