The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect (non-admin closure). Article already merged and redirected; can't delete per GFDL after merge. --MPerel 01:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion Forum[edit]

Orphaned article, now merged completely into Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008#April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania with content preserved in full. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for an article if the same info exists in other articles. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since info is already merged, Delete. Pointless Redirect, not an expected search term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point in having the info twice Ged UK (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't delete merged content: doing so is a GFDL violation. If this material has been merged elsewhere, the right course is to redirect it to the merge target. It doesn't really need an AfD at all. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably went about it backwards and should have waited to merge after the AfD. Is it acceptable to redirect then, and may I ask if someone will close this AfD? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'd have done was just gone ahead with the merge then the redirect myself without brining it here, at all. I doubt anyone will object if you make this a redirect, now. Everyone above supports not having a separate article. If you do that, a friendly admin will no doubt come along and close this AfD. AndyJones (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wanted to get consensus on a low-traffic article. I seem to recall that proposed merges were once brought to AfD for discussion. The redirect is now in place and this discussion is ready to be closed. I think the process should be named "Articles for Discussion" and all the relevant noticeboards (RS, NPOV, COI, etc.) rolled into a centralized location like this. The fragmentation in article noticeboards, RfC's and all the rest is ridiculous. One location, one process, and one discussion is all we need. Deletion sorting can use categories to alert the proper people. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose I agree there's far too many policies and procedures. You can't ask for an Admin's help nowadays without someone lecturing you about the other noticeboard that you should have put your request on. Just a pet peeve of mine. My point here, though, is that you didn't really need any kind of discussion or consensus at all. You could have just been bold and done it. The surprising thing is that three people voted here without realising they were voting for a GFDL violation: but then that isn't really that surprising, is it? Wikipedia has changed over the years I've been involved with it: the deletion process is far more prominent, vandalism and self-promotion are far more noticable (as befits such a high profile website, I suppose). But being bold and just plodding on with the editing seem to be a far less prominent aspect of the whole exercise. That's what I think, anyway. Now, before I started rambling like this I'm sure there was something I wanted to say. Oh, yes... AndyJones (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... SPEEDY CLOSE NOW if a nice admin would oblige? AndyJones (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.