Talk:Yale Sustainability

Merge Proposal

It's not clear why this should be a separate article as it's covered already in Yale#Sustainability. Further coverage seems a bit excessive and adverty. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This level of detail is very excessive. Time to toss this to AfD? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've speedy kept the article since mergers don't require AfD debates. I'd suggest performing the merge and making this page a redirect to Yale#Sustainability. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that your closure was the right move as merging this article into the other will necessarily involve deleting almost all of the content of this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It may require removing content from the page, but that doesn't mean we have to delete the page itself. Nothing in WP:Merge indicates that an AfD is necessary for merger, and WP:Speedy Keep lists this situation (i.e. the nominator proposes merging and no-one else has !voted 'delete') as one of those in which a speedy keep is appropriate. Of course I may be wrong - what exactly makes you think that an AfD was necessary to remove most of the page's content? Olaf Davis (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any content here that should actually be merged into the Yale article. There is already a well-referenced and tight paragraph on this topic in that article and that is all this topic should get, IMHO. It's not so much a merger as it is simply redirecting this article to that one without moving any content. From one POV it's a merger but it's arguably a deletion. In any case, I was hoping for a bit more discussion and it's more the quickness with which the AfD discussion was shut down than the manner to which I object. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanting more debate is fair enough. Perhaps now taking it to WP:Proposed mergers or WP:RfC would be helpful? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been redirected and if I'm the only one whining about it then I don't see a need for any hairy processes. If someone else is unhappy with the current state of things, please feel free to undo my edit(s) and take this to a more formal venue. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)