User: Doncram and User: CaroleHenson I write to STOP your conduct and make an accusation. I had hoped that we could work through this in WP:AGF. But your conduct requires a response.
We have a twice pending AFD. Some of the editors who want to delete or merge this article have removed a lot of text and references. For a lot of claimed reasons. In a score of edits you have systematically gutted both the content and the cited sources of the article. While some of these could fairly be said to be arguable at the Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) article talk page – where they can and should be discussed – and I will join the discussion there.
But the whole pattern and timing suggests you are going beyond that.
Here are some of the pertinent edits I am talking about. The reader needs to look at their content:
here No. 3 including this edit summary: “Please stop destroying the article so that it suits your desire to delete. Several editors are building and you are undoing their work. Wait until the AfD ends. Your opinion is one, and you are undoing the work of several.”
Removing the sources from the article does not make them cease to exist. To the extent that WP: Notability is involved in your claims at AFD, you are simply trying to obscure the facts. See WP:Before, which mandates looking at notability in the broadest sense.
I understad that WP:ANI has parallel matters. I have avoided going there.
The fate of the article should be fairly evaluated. And not based on the Bowdlerized version the deletionists now proffer.
The nominator’s opinion has been made clear by many comments, and the nomination. Now it is up to the community to evaluate and the nominator should take a step back. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above long passage has been posted to at least three places now, and I replied substantially to it at the article's talk page, at Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota). I personally would appreciate if someone would manage traffic control about this, and enforce one location only, and move my substantial response to wherever that is. It seems to me that here, the Talk page of the AFD, is the right place. --Doncram (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused, too, and given all my conversation on the article talk page more than a little gobsmacked by all the furor. I have made comments at a user's talk page, on the article talk page, at the AfD page. If it's desired to keep unreliable sources, multiple and older versions of the same books, and content that fails verification, I vote to delete the article (changed from merge/redirect}.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, over the years it has been my approach to made AfD nominated articles the best that it can be... so that it's clear what a keep would look like. I stand by that intention - it just seems that is not going to work here at all. I have never had this kind of response to those attempts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I guess now you’ve met the fanatical inclusionist gang of ARS. I’ve been asking them to stop behaving this way (see my talk page) but they do not listen. This AfD is a new low point for them. – Levivich19:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]