Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed as delete, with the possibility of merging. I don't think that's the appropriate course of action. Looking at the discussion, people proposing to either keep or merge the article seem to outweigh those arguing for deletion. In order to merge the content, we must preserve the page history by redirecting it. If this is not to be a standalone article, surely it should at least be merged and redirected with the article on the Senate race in question. Everyking (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be assumed that everyone calling for merge would want keep as a second choice. In fact, that is far from the case - many would clearly prefer delete judging by the comments in the debate. SpinningSpark 00:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge. There would plenty of editors making a well-founded case against having this as a standalone article. However, I see no arguments against merging this to either the candidate article or the article on the election, and plenty of editors made a good case for such a merge.
  The closure was illogical, because deletion removes the possibility of a valid merge which retains edit history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Nothing wrong with the admin's conclusion following that discussion. As with most political AfDs, extra scrutiny is needed to weed out the "i like/hate it" crap. There is already mention of the event at Richard_Mourdock#Political_positions, therefore nothing to actually merge. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A "delete and merge" close; those are sometimes a bit tricky. Technically it can be done, but it puts the onus on someone to preserve attribution because of the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA. Before we go any further, would the closer please confirm that he's performed the necessary history merge?—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not, histmerge is impossible in this case due to overlapping edits and preserving the deleted page title is not appropriate either. The procedure described at WP:PV would need to be adopted, which I will happily carry out on request if an editor indicates that they actually want to merge some of the original material (as opposed to writing something in the article from scratch). SpinningSpark 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we need to do something. Do the procedure and I'll merge the content. Everyking (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • done SpinningSpark 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As that page is only undeleted for attribution purposes, and the merge is done, shouldn't the page be blanked? Otherwise, it is a pseudo-article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed and done. SpinningSpark 12:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close as it is now (i.e. with compliance with the CC-BY-SA/GFDL fixed).—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI The page was moved to Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape and God's will controversy before being deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Negative political advertising. It's sufficient significant to be included in the article on him, but having a separate article on him is excessive weight. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should certainly get some attention in the Senate race article. The section on the controversy is awfully short right now. Everyking (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've merged the content into the Senate race article now. Everyking (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As the merge has been completed and the close was otherwise sound. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socialworkhelper.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

(A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I am requesting undeletion of Socialworkhelper.com. Although Socialworkhelper.com is an active social network, it also contains a free repository of resources as well as support groups for professionals and students. Additional, Socialworkhelper.com host the only live Social Work Twitter Chat in North America. Additionally, it is the only social network in the social work profession that utilize mobile web 2.0 and mobile app technology to engage users. Most importantly, the technology behind this network was created by a social worker, Deona Hooper, MSW. The relevance is that it's groundbreaking in a profession that has been very conservative in incorporating technology in both policy and practice. In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0, I authored the Social Work 2.0 section, which any everything to do with Socialworkhelper.com was deleted. Prior to my additions, there were no mentions in Wikipedia as relates to Social Work and Technology. 08:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Userify - The Socialworkhelper.com topic needs to have received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the socialworkhelper.com subject to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. I haven't found any and socialworkhelper.com/reviews does not appear to list any Wikipedia reliable sources. Wikipedia:Userfication allows a copy of the deleted article to be place in your user space, such as at User:Dhooper383/Socialworkhelper.com where WP:UP#COPIES will give you about three months or so to work on readying the draft for article space. However, without meeting the requirements of WP:GNG, the user space draft will not be ready for article space and eventually even the draft article in your use space may get deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Sources -My question is why was there not an opportunity to update instead of direct deletion? Here are two additional sources:

Dhooper383 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reading these, I don't see the network even mentioned in the first, the second a notice from the founder's alumni magazine, which doesn't really count as an independent source, & the third a mere mention DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The first link is still broken and the second isn't a reliable source. If this is what is out there than the deletion appears to have been well founded and I would oppose giving you false hope by even suggesting this has a shot at making mainspace. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see anything in the original article that would have qualified as an assertion of significance and the sources presented above don't demonstrate anything like notability per DGG. We could userfy it, I suppose, but I don't see any prospect at all of getting an article which meets our inclusion criteria. Hut 8.5 21:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]