Talk:Karen Friedman Hill/Archive 1

merge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no merge.--Jorfer 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

She was a seperate person

I agree, that if a massive article on the Hill family were to be constructed then a mass-merger may be appropriate. However, she has been seperated for 17 years, from Henry Hill, and legally divorced for 4 years.--User:JBAK

Henry Hill is too important

The article of Henry Hill does explain of his family life, but more of his life in the Mob. They should stay seperate as the articles are fine the way they are.--Anonymous

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Separate not seperate

Remember, there is "a rat" in separate.

Or ... that you separate things into PARTS. Hence, the second syllable is "par" ... not "per". (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

deletion comment

Please do not delete the Karen Hill artical it helps with the understanding of the Life of Henry Hill. She was an important part of his story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.64.64 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

re-creation as redirect

Commenters in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Friedman were apparently unaware of the content having already existed as Karen Hill for years. If anyone still has BLP concerns, they should rehash that discussion with that in mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, the most recent AfD decided that Karen Friedman/Hill is not a notable person, and that a redirect to her mobster ex-husband is sub-optimal from a BLP standpoint. The existence of a duplicate article should not alter that consensus. I would argue for an IAR deletion of both pages, given the previous consensus (although I realize that's not going to happen). I don't have the time to invest in a second set of deletion discussions right now or in the foreseeable future. Thanks for letting me know. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. In the last AfD, four people said delete, two of which excluded the possibility of a merge, while two said a merge should be done. After two relistings, that's not exactly a firm consensus. Of the four people who explicitly discussed a merge, nobody bothered to click around in order to notice the old merge, which doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the wisdom of any of those opinions (both ways). After the first AfD, where two people said delete, three said merge, one said keep, and one just left a sceptic comment, Karen Hill was redirected and the redirect remained in place since 2008 (four and a half years ago), and throughout the period the same content has sat there at Talk:Henry Hill#Karen_Hill. The length of time that passed without anyone actually complaining about it tells me that the BLP concern is tentative at best. I'd even say there was more of a BLP problem in the fact that such a generic female name had pointed to a mobster while it could have easily been a disambiguation page between this meaning and Karen Hill (television writer), which existed in 2008. A clean new AfD or rather RfD would be best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not be engaging in further discussion here. Joy, if you found something that four other editors did not, please do not ascribe that to lack of bother on the part of the four---that's incivility. Belittling one's opponents is not a quality that leads to consensus. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that ended up offending anyone, I just observed the simple fact that four people saw the suggestion to merge to an article, but none of them clicked on Special:WhatLinksHere on the latter article. That they did not bother or that it doesn't inspire confidence in their opinions wasn't meant to be derogatory, it's just an observation of what appear to be facts. I, and imagine other people do too, don't spend time on researching everything all the time, and express opinions without ample information at times. It happens for reasons that aren't necessarily related to my or other people's qualities - the most obvious reason for that is lack of time. Please don't read too much into my blunt statement. I actually don't think you or anyone else is my opponent in this matter - if a subsequent discussion resulted in a clear consensus to delete the redirect, I'd have absolutely no problem with that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)