![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 May 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 May 27. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 July 8. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 October 17. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was merge to Rachel Corrie#Reactions, on 22 March 2009, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie. Over a month has gone by. Closing this second, superfluous, inappropriate, Afd as a formality. KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
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) reply
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Not all list sections are trivia sections Main article: Wikipedia:Embedded list
In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Overturn Deep down inside, before I saw the details, my personal political biases on the subject were assuming that this couldn't possibly merit a standalone article; This had to be a blatantly POV fork. In reviewing the article under discussion, I see clear encyclopedic handling of a topic that has received far more media coverage than I ever realized, providing several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the material in the article. In looking at the parent article, there is a section on tributes, and a merge would largely overwhelm the parent article. This is exactly what forks are for. The consensus in the AfD was extremely muddled, and while there were calls for a merge, there seems to be no way that the results of the AfD could have been read to support any one result, and least of all merge. I would suggest using a lower case "t" in the second word of the title. Alansohn
It is not right to discuss a page's existence with only afd watchers, and simply putting a link in the discussion page didn't lead much discussion about the content last time, but generally a keep or delete voting. I actually even suggest we should put a disclaimer in the main page. Kasaalan ( talk) 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete/Merge - not notable enough for its own article, IMO. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 13:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
keep and edit. this article needs editing and trimming, but it is obviously notable ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources.") untwirl( talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete/Merge While interesting this topic does not deserve its own article. It can easily be merged into the main article.
Basket of Puppies 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
reply