User talk:Anro5785

Multiple PROD Deletion tags

Hello Anro5785,

I notice you tagged a large amount of article for deletion trough the proposed deletion process. While tagging article's for removal is fine these tags should be supported by a policy-based rationale as to why the article should be removed. Instead, your argument consistently seems to be "If you deleted Connie Bea Hope this should be as well". (A WAX Argument)

Besides this these tags have a very disruptive feel to them as they are placed in great numbers without a valid rationale, and often less than a minute apart. I have a hard time believing you could actually have read each article and checked the sources in such a short time frame. Factoring in the rationale it seems these deletion tags are mostly placed due to disagreement over the deletion of the Connie Bea Hope article. As of such i removed the placed PROD tags and i would ask that you do not reinstate them or tag further article's unless there is a policy-based rationale accompanying them. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You left up the article on Estelle Peyton. You left over those ridiculous articles. But yet you take away Connie Bea's article? It's so hypocritical. Why was Connie Bea's singled out. I can put it on the user page but it wont show up as easily in internet search results. And that's what this is really about. It's disgraceful. You just let someone merge the article without unmerger. I want it unmerged

At a basic level every page needs to meet the same criteria on notability, verifiability and [[WP:RS|reliable sources. Aside from these basic criteria there are also more specific ones such as pages duplicating other pages or promotional article's. If an article had a problem meeting the aforementioned criteria it may be fixed, tagged as having a problem or, in serious circumstances, be merged, redirected or deleted outright. This is not a rare occurrence - if you look at the deletion log you can see that about a thousand pages were deleted so far today. I doubt that the Connie Bea Hope was singled out - it is much more likely that someone chanced on this several year old page that few people looked at in the meantime and made the call to redirect it.

Deletion can happen to any page that has problems, but each and every page should be judged on its own merits. If page A is deleted \ redirected \ merged due to some issue it does not mean that a set of random other article's should be deleted as well because page A was removed. If there is a valid rationale for removal of page B not involving a pointer to page A (Eg: A reason based on the content of page B) it can be tagged for removal and provided the rationale is valid, it will be removed. Having said all that: Since the page is not deleted requesting an undeletion at WP:REFUND will not work as there is nothing to be undeleted. Instead you might want to opt for asking the contributer who merged the page - Drmies - for an explanation as to why it was done and what could be done to alter the old page so that it shouldn't be merged or removed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)