Jason Hannasch ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion discussion was non-admin closed with a 'merge' consensus, when actually there was no such consensus. Consensus either had not been reached yet or was if anything for outright deletion. Request that either page should be deleted or AFD be reopened for further discussion. Locke9k ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closers comment I closed it as "redirect" to Show-Me Institute because at the time of the close, he was mentioned in the article as a "Vice President". He was removed from the article by Locke9k after I closed it. I had already recommended WP:RFD but as long as we're here, Endorse the close because it made sense then but Delete the redirect because it makes sense now. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That is true and I regret not catching what I think was a non-notable reference to this individual in a different article prior to the AFD. I personally have no direct problem with Ron Ritzman's suggestion since I was in favor of deletion, but since the consensus in favor of deletion was not necessarily clear, it might be better to reopen and allow for further discussion to prevent the appearance of bypassing a full debate. For all we know with a fuller debate something might have come to light to establish notability. It does happen from time to time. Thanks- Locke9k ( talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, my apologies to Ron, I misread his original suggestion in our discussion and thought that he was using the acronym for deletion review rather than for redirects for deletion. I would have considered that suggestion rather than this had I properly understood. Locke9k ( talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment As I've said elsewhere, I'm of the view that non-admin closures can simply be reverted. I think there's no need to bring them to DRV. (Reasoning: NAC is for uncontroversial decisions, and the act of reversion shows that the close was controversial; hence a reversion automatically invalidates the NAC.)— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist Now that the institute has been found notable, its supposed non-notability will no longer taint this discussion. I'd like to point out that the people who were against merging or keeping outright failed to address the possibility of a redirect. - Mgm| ^(talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist I am not in the least sure he is notable, but it should be discussed again. DGG ( talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Mgm. Stifle ( talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Request to undelete the contents of former articles Serrapeptase and Serratio peptidase. This deletion occurred when they were merged into Serratiopeptidase; which involved deleting nearly the entire two former articles, each which was much longer, better referenced, and more informative than the surviving article. 0XQ ( talk) 09:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• No deletion has taken place, this user appears to be forum shopping with posts to several boards (AN, proposed mergers,...) about these POV forks, while not addressing the talk page. Verbal chat 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Xe isn't forum shopping. Xe was told to come here, by ThuranX, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Appeal from merger of "Serratio peptidase" into "Serratiopeptidase". You know this. You were there.

    Xe probably thinks by now that xe is being given some form of bizarre bureaucratic run-around, being directed from place to place, with the same people turning up each time pointing xem onward to somewhere else, who put officialese boilerplate messages on xyr talk page, but refuse to actually talk directly to xem as a human being. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be this Kafkaesque. Uncle G ( talk) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• The old content is all accessible from the History to all users without any special rights being required. If any of the old content had any value then it could be merged to the new article but, as one of the old articles was just a stub and the other promotional, it doesn't look very promising. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 10:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, there is a copy of the deleted material at Template:RFCxxx, which clearly needs to be tidied up. I was going to put speedy deletion on it but saw that it was subject to a move request so I wasn't sure what to do. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• No articles have been deleted, they have simply been made into redirects as they were all about the same substance which has several different spellings. Nominator wants to keep separate articles 'to prevent edit-warring'. Dougweller ( talk) 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• So lets be pragmatic and end the discussion here. Keep the redirects as even in the historic text, both alternate spellings are declared to be just that: alternate spellings. The quotes "Serratio peptidase, also written Serratiopeptidase, and also known as serrapeptidase" and "Serrapeptase... (Serratio Peptidase)" from the redirected articles makes this an open and shut item. Edit warring is against the rules, and would be dealt with if/when it occurs, not preemptively. If someone wants to merge contents, they're in the history. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• To the nominator: When you click on one of the links Serrapeptase or Serratio peptidase, you'll see "Redirected from" at the top under "Serratiopeptidase". Click the link there, then click the "history" tab, and then click on the time and date before the current one. Then click "edit" and you'll have the old text. You can then copy this and incorporate it into the Serratiopeptidase article, but do not re-create the separate articles. -- NE2 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply