Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Killing Yourself to Live

The following is an archived discussion of the proposed merge of the articles below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. I have merged some content from two available articles into Master of Reality#Release and reception, and I'm waiting to hear back about Solitude to see if I can merge content from that article too. Discussing articles here that involved AfDs should probably be avoided, just so nobody gets all huffy puffy about stuff, y'know? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath song stubs

To be merged: Killing Yourself to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (AfD); After Forever (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Solitude (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge target: Master of Reality

Nominated on the grounds that one good album article beats 8 song stubs, and maintenance (such as sourcing, much needed) will be easier. As the nominator I volunteer to perform this merge, as was done for Black Sabbath, Vol 4 and Nursery Cryme (AfD). A restore of the deleted Lord of This World article would also be helpful for such a merge, even if only so I can confirm it has no salvageable information. I think Master of Reality, at 9,855 bytes, could benefit from this treatment. Looking at the song stubs, a liberal {{Cn}}-tagging might be needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as the individual songs don't appear to be notable enough for their own articles. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should we be using this new procedure to compete with articles currently up at AFD? Maybe yes, maybe no? But, keeping that in consideration,
Merge ~~anything mentioned above which does not result in a keep after the AFD.~~ ALL. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Black Kite deleted all of the songs in that AFD, then created redirects in their place, so since everything was not a Keep, I change my response to Merge all, after an edit history restore for GDFL purposes. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering that about the AFD thing also, but its worth a shot. If the article(s) are deleted there, we can search for a good trial candidate or three to test out which are not at AFD. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BOZ: I'm restating to see if I understand. You're saying:
  1. If Keep in the AfD, then Merge.
  2. If Delete in the AfD, then discard (do not recover to consider for potential merge)
    I'm guessing you are trying to avoid conflict with the AfD in progress. Is this correct? / edg ☺ ☭ 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. If Keep in the AFD, then Keep. If anything other than Keep, then Merge. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if result of debate !=delete Enigma^msg 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{#ifeq:{{{AFD|}}}|Delete|Delete|Merge}}? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be another way of saying it, yes. :) Enigma^msg 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the result of the debate was delete, ergo... BOZ (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a few good articles are better than many poor ones, in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the redirects, nothing else left... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit histories can be restored for a merge - I've seen it done many times. :) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so, if we have a consensus, what's next? :) BOZ (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it looks like there are two problems. The first is that since the song articles have been deleted, an administrator must be involved with the process to either undelete or userfy the information so it can be merged. Then, someone actually has to sit down and complete the merge. I have no problem with the second part, I like merges, merges are fun. But I'd still need someone to dump the content into somewhere to make it accessable, then I think this one can be closed as "complete". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution: restoring and merging these articles after the delete outcome may be considered editing against consensus. Edgarde suggested merge somewhere in the middle of the AfD, but only J04n mentioned merge also. I think that NickPenguin's going to the WP:Proposed mergers backlog will produce less sensitive test cases. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ask the deleting admin like someone else did at User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FKilling_Yourself_to_Live. I'd do it myself but frankly I find myself demotivated to assist. Hiding T 09:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get in touch with the deleting admin. And I wouldn't let my opinions of unrelated matters stand in the way of your willingness to help. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an admin, this would be the exact sort of thing I'd want to help with. :) You know, if that ever were to happen. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the articles' talk pages). No further edits should be made to this page.