Talk:William Lummis

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Historiography / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Military historiography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Canon William Lummis[edit]

Untitled[edit]

The majority of voters on the talk page were in favour of keeping the article, yet it was merged. The article clearly demonstrates the subjects importance and notablility. The Victoria Cross is very important in the UK and this may not be obvious to American users. Lummis's research into it was historically very important and therefore notable. The article should be restored. The majority consensus was to keep Jack1956 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is an editorial decision... there's technically nothing for DRV to review here. AFD just decides if an article is to be deleted or not, the decision here was to not delete it. --W.marsh 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to unmerge, unmerge. No need to bring it here. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since there is no formal way of obtaining consensus for an unmerge, this would appear to be simply the creation of a new article with the content, as for any other breaking out of a section; I will mention it on the article talk page first. Based on what's just been said, the new article would not be susceptible to G4 as recreation of content after deletion at an AfD, as there was no deletion. DGG 03:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

Who exactly decided to merge this article? Unknown Unknowns 07:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article stands on its own and does not need to be merged. There were far more in favour of keeping it than deleting Jack1956 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a record of a decision to merge this article anywhere. If Kwsn has added the Merge Tag in bad faith then he's committed an act of vandalism and can have his editing privileges withdrawn. Unknown Unknowns 11:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)de[reply]

Look at the links in the tag. I did not decide that. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canon_William_Lummis <--- where it was decided. And I didn't do it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kwsn. Anyway, I've a feeling this will go to arbitration. Unknown Unknowns 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They won't take it, it's more of a content dispute. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute, you want the page deleted. We'll see about that. Schomberg 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an article is to be deleted or not is not for an individual administrator to decide. This article should not even have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Unknown Unknowns 08:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you think is different from what I think. I personally like Nick's decision, if you want, I'll get a hold of a second admin to see what he thinks. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course you liked Nick's decision... you were the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place! The majority of voters on the page disagreed with you Jack1956 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - I've had a look at this, and you really need to abide by the decision of the AfD (and hence consensus) and allow the article to be merged. This process is now in progress, but you are, of course, welcome to contest the closure of the AFD at WP:DRV. The changes to the article should not, however, be reverted until such a result is decided on DRV. As an aside - ArbCom wouldn't even consider taking this case, and threatening a case does no one any good. Martinp23 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lummis is notable because he is a published author, with publications spanning a 40 year period, regardless of his VC research. Unknown Unknowns 12:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised[edit]

I've taken the liberty of pulling the article around a bit. It may now contain typos. I see the merge tag has gone. ← ROGER → ^TALK 13:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]