The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Editorial solution required. Consensus, such as it is, is that this can and should be fixed by merging and/or redirecting as appropriate. A deletion discussion is not required for this. Sandstein 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Article is an almost total duplicate of
Lewiston (village), New York. I am not sure how this came about and though some editors are aware of this problem that has lasted for a couple of years, no one seems to want to take action and I honestly have no clue what is the best thing to do here.
The Legendary Ranger (
talk)
23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge. Umm, Gene93k seems to be slightly mixed up, or is going on about something else, the likely unresolvable issue of overlap between village and town. The current
Lewiston, New York article is about the village, seems to duplicate
Lewiston (village), New York. However closely-related is the town article, it must be somewhat different. Certainly the two village articles should be merged/redirected to just one. Whenever I come across duplicate articles, I seek to redirect the newer one to the older one (sometimes necessitating an article move or two, to get the right one into intended place). Here they both were created back in 2004 (ancient history!) so I don't know which one's edit history is more important to preserve in the continuing article. Whatever. You can just edit to correct a duplication (though perhaps you have to request a technical move or two at
wp:RM); an AFD is not necessary. It's a different issue if someone wants to say the village and town articles should be merged. --
Doncram (
talk)
04:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Editorial solution required. Consensus, such as it is, is that this can and should be fixed by merging and/or redirecting as appropriate. A deletion discussion is not required for this. Sandstein 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Article is an almost total duplicate of
Lewiston (village), New York. I am not sure how this came about and though some editors are aware of this problem that has lasted for a couple of years, no one seems to want to take action and I honestly have no clue what is the best thing to do here.
The Legendary Ranger (
talk)
23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge. Umm, Gene93k seems to be slightly mixed up, or is going on about something else, the likely unresolvable issue of overlap between village and town. The current
Lewiston, New York article is about the village, seems to duplicate
Lewiston (village), New York. However closely-related is the town article, it must be somewhat different. Certainly the two village articles should be merged/redirected to just one. Whenever I come across duplicate articles, I seek to redirect the newer one to the older one (sometimes necessitating an article move or two, to get the right one into intended place). Here they both were created back in 2004 (ancient history!) so I don't know which one's edit history is more important to preserve in the continuing article. Whatever. You can just edit to correct a duplication (though perhaps you have to request a technical move or two at
wp:RM); an AFD is not necessary. It's a different issue if someone wants to say the village and town articles should be merged. --
Doncram (
talk)
04:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.