The result of the discussion was not to re-direct the page. A user took it on himself to redirect the page. Other users supported the page and wanted to keep it. [1] Frei Hans (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
- On the contrary, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASIO File, near the top of the page, you will see that the closing administrator's comments include the words "The result was redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation". pablohablo. 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
- If you go to the discussion, you will also see that other editors saw no problem with the article and thought it should be kept. An editor with administrative tools over rode their comments. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article and none to redirect it either. I am concerned because recently another decision to delete an article was made by a user, with administrative tools, who was later found to be operating sock puppets to disrupt other editors. That editor was restricted from discussion involving the article rescue squadron. The incidences (that deletion and the redirection of this article) happened within weeks of one another and show similar patterns. Frei Hans (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Well, I just spent a lot of time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics, unsuccessfully. And I think the outcome of that was wrong, but sometimes you just have to accept that the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and move on. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
