Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cash dog
This page is about the dog of the guitarist from Good Charlotte. The band is notable, but I don't think their pets are. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:42, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed; Merge and delete. --Golbez 01:05, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; it's already on Benji Madden, so no need to merge. But if this is going to be in the Benji article, I'd at least like to know if the dog's name is actually "Cash Dog" or just "Cash". Everyking 01:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Merge and delete" is not an option on VFD due to the limitations of the GFDL. In this case it's enough to just mention the pet on the owner's page and delete this. —Rory ☺ 01:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- When I said merge, I meant do it artfully, not a straight copy paste - as in, I dunno, mention the pet on the owner's page and delete this. Isn't that something like what you said? Lemme get this straight - if the dog info weren't already on Benji's page, we wouldn't be allowed to mention the dog AND delete this page, because the author somehow owns the mention of the dog? Merge and delete is a valid vote, and policy should be changed to reflect this. --Golbez 02:12, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge, as I understand it, means to take the actual content of one page and add it to another, rather than merely copying any extant information and rewording it. In this sense it isn't allowed, since the original contributer would go uncredited for the copied material. Of course it's fine to just use one article as a source when adding to another and then to delete the first. It's irrelevant in this case since the information is already in the other article. —Rory ☺ 11:24, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge & delete isn't a GFDL problem if credit to authors is preserved. In the case of content derived from, let's say, 1 editor, it's easy enough to copy the text with an edit summary like Stuff copied from now-extinct Cash dog, credit to some loser at 200.92.223.223 for burdening us with the task of cleaning up after him. What it means to give credit to an anonymous editor, I don't know, but mechanically at least credit of this form is equivalent to the automatically-generated edit history. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In the case of an anonymous IP I think it would be necessary to preserve both the IP and the time of the edit to ensure enough identity was preserved, but you're right. —Rory ☺ 21:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge, as I understand it, means to take the actual content of one page and add it to another, rather than merely copying any extant information and rewording it. In this sense it isn't allowed, since the original contributer would go uncredited for the copied material. Of course it's fine to just use one article as a source when adding to another and then to delete the first. It's irrelevant in this case since the information is already in the other article. —Rory ☺ 11:24, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- When I said merge, I meant do it artfully, not a straight copy paste - as in, I dunno, mention the pet on the owner's page and delete this. Isn't that something like what you said? Lemme get this straight - if the dog info weren't already on Benji's page, we wouldn't be allowed to mention the dog AND delete this page, because the author somehow owns the mention of the dog? Merge and delete is a valid vote, and policy should be changed to reflect this. --Golbez 02:12, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete the article, but never the dog. Geogre 02:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, merge and delete, but artfully. --Jpittman 03:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. All of the information here is already in Benji Madden, so all of the hand-wringing over merging is pointless: nothing to merge. — Gwalla | Talk 03:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed w/ Gwalla. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete FBarnes 15:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)