Talk:Hillsborough Independent Panel

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --DePiep (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep

The HIP report is a big thing. No reason for "speedy" applicable. If deletablke, then through Afd at least, why not. BTW, deleting editor behaviours are suspected. -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not serve the reader well. If the reader types in "Hillsborough independent panel", we want them to have the maximum of information available. At the moment, this article is harmful, because by typing the above search term they are directed here instead of to a far more useful section. It is also not currently a viable split, because at the moment the independent report section at Hillsborough disaster is not disproportionate to the article as a whole. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Either one proposes Speedy or one talks. Since you talk (appreciated), I deleted the Speedy tag. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops: I was not allowed (as the creator) to delete the tag. A bot corrected. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, my above post explained in detail why I believe CSD A10 is applicable. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What WFC said. Until there's enough useful content at the Hillsborough disaster page to warrant a spinoff, this page should redirect there. We're here to help the reader, and at the moment, we're not doing it. I'm going to add a {{details}} to the page, pending agreement to convert to a redirect. That at least should be acceptable, and would certainly be helpful to the reader. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The HIP report is big & serious in itself. Over here at WP it is a stub now. I don't see the objection to keep the page. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For sure: no reason for speedy. AfD should do. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

re: User:Peridon, User:WaitingForConnection , User:Struway2, User:Dennis Brown. Let me explain the basic stuff: this speedy deletion is challenged (by me, right here). I have given arguments. Now that takes out your speedy argument. Proper procedure says: disputed ==> not speedy ==> take it to AfD. The fact that one is an admin does not give weight (contrary: If you claim that I will use it against you, as arrogance). -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

I've redirected it. If at some time a full article is thought advisable, then it can be substituted for this redirect. Until then, the main info is at the other article. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No you don't. It is a viable page. I have already disputed the speedy. If you disagree, you can start an AfD. -~~-DePiep (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't get why an AFD is needed. If you want it to go to AFD, then revert back out of the redirect, without the CSD tag, then AFD it yourself. But you keep reverting it back to the CSD tag and two admins have already rejected it at CSD. Whatever you do, you shouldn't be adding the CSD tag back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the CSD tag, please leave it off. If you want to discuss merging, AFD, whatever, that is fine, but it has already been refused CSD by another admin, my removals are procedural as we don't send to CSD multiple times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No. I want it to be an article page, but others added the CSD. I am not allowed to remove that tag!, because I created this page. So it showed up when I reverted the ill advised Redirects. I only say: I someone wants it deleted, then go AfD, not speedy. To be clear: as it it right now, I'm fine with it. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And the moral of the story is? Edit war, personally attack, ignore anything you don't like and ignore the prevailing consensus, and eventually you will get your way. Disgraceful. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just send it to AFD if you disagree. And DePiep, to be clear again, reverting back with the CSD tag IS improper. A less tolerant admin might have just granted your wish. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary: his revert of you breached 3RR, after I had already warned him that he was approaching it. Technically there are six reverts, if you include two to the related hatnote at Hillsborough disaster. I have reported it at WP:AN/EW. The net result is that, having broken a rule that should result in an automatic block (one week after this user was blocked for edit warring at another article), DePiep's persistence has paid off despite every other contributor to the relevant talk pages opining that this page is premature. Even now, this page says nothing that isn't at the section that I initially tried to revert to. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

re DB. I explain again: I reverted it because I wanted the article page, not the Redirect. That revert included the CSD tag. And I am not allowed to delete that one (remember). The Speedy had to be resolved otherwise. Come to think of it: actually you were the one who deleted the CSD [1]. I don't mind, but please then don't blame me, OK? re WFC: learn counting to 3 first. "technically" if you like. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is continued at Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Merge from Hillsborough Independent Panel article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have redirected Hillsborough Independent Panel to Hillsborough disaster#Hillsborough Independent Panel. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)