Kristen Aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Discussion on afd was closed roughly at 3 and half days. Notability of subject has been questionable since the article was created and believed to have been done so by the subject herself Those who voted keep in the article's previous state that cited the number of hits resulted from google searches and a web published questionnaire written in the first person. I argued at the time and still feel pretty strongly that notability should be based on the significance and achievements one has accumulated in their field and not simply haven chosen a field that comes with public exposure. Those on the opposition I had let it go at the time as it wasn't worth the time, but recently happened to notice the subject added to her page winning a regional Emmy. When I followed the link, the award was given to an organization and team of which she was part of and not for her individually (of which there are separate categories From my experience in local television and relates articles on Wikipedia, these types of awards a generally not included in an article unless the subject has accumulated a number of them and or for some type of lifetime achievement. Tmore3 (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the AfD is many months old, we should not, I imagine, like to reopen it even if the early closure (taken, one gathers, per WP:SNOW) is viewed as improper. It is fine, though, for you to raise again now the question of notability, especially inasmuch the first AfD didn't reach an overwhelming conclusion on that point, and so you should feel free to re-nominate the article, viz., at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Aldridge (2nd nomination), consistent with your argument here. Joe 06:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just renominate it, and speedy close this DRV without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Speedy delete. Coaster7 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Enough time has passed since the controversial edits, trolling and vandalism. While I realize that John Bambenek is on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests, there hasn't been a DRV in quite some time that I can tell. Since then, he has also published two books [1]. While perennial requests says an editor can present a well-sourced draft, any attempt to do so is immediately deleted, so this is the only recourse that exists. It's doubtful Bambenek is still around to play games with the article, he appears to have given up a year ago. Vividlucidity (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — Vividlucidity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep deleted, unless some detail is provided--such as why the above is your very first edit, ever, on Wikipedia. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. From what I can see (I have deleted to a list of deleted edits), you don't seem to have tried writing a draft version, so the assertion it immediately gets deleted is erronous. Write it in Wikipedia:Userspace, link it in this debate and you should be fine, at least until the discussion concludes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and speedy close. "[T]here hasn't been a DRV in quite some time" is no reason to open another, and a userspace draft would be an absolute minimum requirement to entertain a request on this. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I put in a couple of reasons, like he's published two books, conveniently that hasn't been addressed. You can see the deleted attempt to create a draft Talk:John_Bambenek (here). I'm more than happy to create a draft that does include such a well-sourced attempt to prove notability as long as it isn't gutshot deleted the second it goes up. At the very least, how about un-salting the page so a draft can be created? Creating drafts on a talk page is fine, but exactly what will that accomplish? What process is taken to move that into the Article namespace? If it is agreed that I can re-open the DRV after a draft is created, I'd be happy to defer this DRV. Vividlucidity (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The draft should be created in userspace, see WP:SUBPAGE. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and create a draft in userspace, as Stifle notes, then bring it back here for review. There's no bloody way this is going to be unsalted before there's an impeccable draft available, I'm almost certain of that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw request - I'll withdraw this for now while I work on a draft and we can go from there. No point having this here until there is a draft if that's the entrance criteria. Vividlucidity (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms of endearment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD2|AfD3)

(1) Debate closed 12 hours early. Current consensus is to wait at least 5 days before closing. (2) I feel the outcome of AfD did not reflect the consensus of the debate. Closing admin asked to re-open on talk page; answer was "Take it to DRV, I only closed it 12 hours early, and just about every other AFD was closed by then."--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close- The debate was pretty well at a keep consensus, and another 12 hours wouldn't have changed that. Not quite a snowball, but close. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment--but the result wasn't "keep".--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also wasn't delete. And keeping the AFD open longer was not likely going to change that. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it was a "no consensus." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I seriously misunderstood the point of the DRV, and I apologize. I had thought the article was kept and that you were stating it needed deletion. I see now that I was WAY off target. I'm changing my vote to Overturn to no consensus/default to keep. I don't think there was consensus in the DRV to merge. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As nominator: Overturn to keep on the grounds stated in the nomination. Sorry for not being absolutely clear about that from the start!--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The keeps were concerned that the article was nominated too early after another AFD, even though the DRV said that there wasn't any prejustice to another AFD. That's faulty reasoning, and AFD isn't a vote count. A merge was the best solution there as a concern with sources wasn't fully dealt and with a merge, the sourceable entries was kept, and if it grows too long in the parent page, then it could be split-off again. Endorse my merger Secret ^account 18:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. There was no way that a merge closure could be legitimately distilled from the discussion, and it appears that the closing admin substituted his own opinion for judging the debate. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well policy wise it's a delete as the sourcing issues trump the faulty WP:NOTAGAIN issues (which is every keep) which of course I discounted, because there was some that was sourced though, consensus was read better as a merge compromise. Secret ^account 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's contents can easily be verified through reliable sources as shown throughout the discussion. The best read of the discussion was either "keep" or "no consensus." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same as a merge, there just wasn't enough content with sources for a standalone article. Secret ^account 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, the closing admin could have just closed as keep and then proceeded to take the editorial action of merging the article (which anyone could also have reverted). Stifle (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closing admin obviously considered not only this discussion but the history of the article in making the determination. Closing admin correctly discounted all WP:NOTAGAIN opinions. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep as I agree with Stifle that the consensus and strength of arguments was overwhelmingly to keep in that discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to keep per Stifle. There are times when there is closing admin discretion. It is hard to see this result as occurring within those bounds. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to keep per stufle, joshuaZ and A nobody. Ikip (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; most of the keep votes were erroneous in nature (even though some of them linked to the relevant ATA entry). No consensus closures especially have no time limits before they can be renominated, something which the DRV had found previously. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes there is. Otherwise people would be renominating article ad nauseum until they got their preferred outcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The admin is supposed to implement the consensus. I realise there are times when the admin might think the consensus is wrong; but in that case, they should say so, and say why, and then leave to someone else to actually close the debate. It's not appropriate to overturn the consensus and close the debate in one fell swoop because admin tools are a mop, not a gavel. -- I think it's particularly important not to ignore the consensus when closing the debate before the five days for discussion are up. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The prior DRV was specifically closed without prejudice against an immediate relisting so the speedy keep--too soon votes were rightly ignored. As frustrating as repeated disucssions can be, in cases such as this where the outcome is close in term so of both consensus and policy they are appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Stifle et al. Last AfD was just too keepy, questions of how much delay after an AfD or DRV are not ironclad basic policies, "local" consensus is the best proxy for a larger consensus on such subjective matters.John Z (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merger. Secret explained his rationale well here. First, discounting the NOTAGAIN remarks was valid, given the wording of the closing of the DRV. Also, in the keep votes, several editors mentioned things like " a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLink" and "and improve beyond the bare list". Because that seems to be impossible, merging back to the main article is legitimate and does not remove any information. If later on the article becomes too big, creating this article with sources will be possible. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close and prohibit AfD or deletion reviewing this page for at least 3 months. Too much of a headache and a hassle from this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An IP unilaterally undid the merge without any support from Talk:Term_of_endearment#.22Examples.22. Given that the real consensus in the AfD was to keep, attempting to not even have the merge seems out of place. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unilaterally"? "Without any support"? Ouch, I guess, but I did post my suggestion on the talk page a day before I removed the list, and no one objected.

    But let's not encourage process-wonkism. No "multilateralism" or "support" is required for making an ordinary, revertible edit to an article. Your subsequent reversion and objection were perfectly appropriate. Be bold, revert, discuss! 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, it is a notable concept parodied and all, but when a discussion closes as merge, almost immediately going ahead and undoing the merge without anyone commenting this soon after the AfD did strike me as unilateral or against consensus. Silence is not necessarily approval and it would have been good to give it a week or more for feedback. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Nobody, stop bringing up unrelated subjects with similar names. That film doesn't have anything to do with lists of words. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a funny sketch at least and my main thrust of the above edit wss that the correct reading of the consensus in the AfD would unquestionably and obviously have been "keep" or "no consensus" with a merge discussion taking place on the article's talk page. The close as merge did NOT reflect the consensus of the discussion and undoing the merge even really did not reflect the consensus of the AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep First of all , that was the consensus, and the closing admin was following only his own preference. But in any case the most a closing admin can do if he thinks something should be merged, is keep, and recommend a merge. The recommendation is ordinarily followed, because it generally does represent the consensus, but it does not have to be. Merge is a content decision, and no admin has authority to enforce such a decision. Yes, he can close and do the merge, but any editor at all can revert it, and then it needs to be discussed according to BRD. We admins have a limited authority,and do not have general control over Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Question about protocol - if the complaint is about a merger, then isn't the best way to undo the merge is to put together talk page consensus about having it split and not doing the deletion review? The close was a keep, regardless if it was merged or not, so there is no question about there being an outcome of delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  it was not a merger, it was a redirection. But otherwise, yes, you are right, and that's what EEMIV should have done. Concensus can change, and to enforce a redirect or merge or even deletion this far after the event is unreasonable. DGG (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It was merged, and another editor removed it from the target article. This has been undone, so the original article is now a redirect and much of the content is in another article. What is that, if not a merge? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. After reading all three debates, it is clear, at least to me, that unless a middle road is taken consensus is not going to become apparent. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merge. This was probably the best solution overall. I'm not sure if removing the list from the article was the best idea, but nor am I sure that removing it was a bad idea. Perhaps we could discuss it on the talk page, as the IP editor in question suggested, rather than storming off to DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Merge: If this was a !vote then I would say the keeps had won, but as I'm often reminded it is not a vote and in this case I agree with the admin's logic. This was bought to DRV because closed 12 hours early, I don't think this entire debate should be overturned due to a minor technicality (12 hours isn't very long, and the time limit is a guidline, no AFD closes exactly "on time"), as that would be a bit like WP:GAME. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I respectfully point out that this was brought to DRV largely because the outcome didn't reflect the consensus, rather than purely because of the early closure; and I respectfully object to the implication of an attempt to game the system on my part.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse well-reasoned close, plenty of input, no reason to change the outcome. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per Stifle, or possibly no consensus depending on how many keeps are discounted due to reliance on NOTAGAIN. I think that some sort of compromise is necessary, but it should not be manufactured by the AfD closer. Merging was mentioned in passing in the most recent AfD and was not thoroughly discussed in any of them. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I know AfDs are not votes; however, I counted the bold faced words in the comments of the AfD and we have sixteen bolded "keeps", five bolded "deletes," and zero bolded "merges" or "redirects." Overwhelming majority to keep aside (three to one), how can when not a single editor's bolded stance was to merge could we end up with a merge? Editors argued to keep or delete. There was clearly no consensus to delete, but maybe a consensus to keep. Where are we getting a merge from zero editors declaring "merge" as their bolded stance? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn A merge outcome cannot be possibly found in the discussion. Outside of admin discretion by a county mile. It might be the right outcome (and I suspect it will be) but that's not the issue for the closer. The question is, what is the consensous based on the discussion that's grounded in policy. As merge isn't really mentioned, you can't get there from here. The argument for deletion is much stronger (but still fairly weak). Hobit (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Companion_(Firefly) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Closing decision to merge with Firefly (TV series) not supported by consensus of AFD. As was written on the talk page of this article, "The AFD closure as Redirect→Firefly (TV series) appears to have not been the consensus outcome. In fact, it appears that there was no clearcut consensus due to low turnout in the discussion and the question of whether to redirect to the series article or Inara Serra was unresolved at closure." Since that closing - more than a year ago - editors have continued to work on and improve the article during lengthy periods when the redirect was not in place. At the very least, the redirect should be changed, as it currently fails the common sense test; there's no good reason why an article (sourced and researched) about a guild of fictional courtesans should redirect to the TV series from which they came. If similar standards were applied to everything in the WP category located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_courtesans_and_prostitutes -- there would be no need for this category! Note - this is not an "Other Stuff Exists" argument; I'm simply pointing out that this kind of article is not uncommon, and none of these other ones are redirects to their fictional source material, making it more likely this this was a poor decision. I could support a redirect to the Inara Serra article, where at least this material would be much more at home, although I fail to see why this article - which is properly sourced, and still actively being worked on by editors to meet an even higher quality standard, should be deleted/redirected. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as unsupported by consensus and an unclear motivation - a redirect without merger means quite a lot of information was lost from article space. I might agree with a merger but not with an instant redirect with a sweep of the hand "restoring redirect per AfD discussion - content for merge is in edit history; cite it and move it." comment. A merger as a result of AfD should be preformed as a merger, not as a lazy redirect leaving the merging to someone else. Further, the main article suffers from some weight issues and a merger of major elements of this article could be problematic. Please note that this was a non-admin closure by User:Haemo that not only was made in a non-obvious AfD but also led to the deletion of content. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AFD closed over fifteen months ago. Can the nominator explain why it was not brought to DRV any sooner? Stifle (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure; the decision to redirect has been so erratically enforced over the past 15 months, there have been large chunks of time when this article was not redirected, but was instead being actively edited. EEMIV suggested deletion review was the proper venue to get the issue settled, and so I listed it. If this is an improper listing, my apologies. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sustain. I don't think there's a minimum threshold for AfD discussions; obscure topics not on many people's watchlist probably don't garner much attention. If there's a better redirect target, great -- whether just to redirect or to merge content might be a point of contention, but the AfD participants seemed to agree the topic itself doesn't warrant inclusion at Wikipedia. Improvements to the article since AfD have been marginal; perhaps Jonolen can work on material in user space to migrate over (or, better, expand the topic in Inara Serra, which I agree would be a better redirect target). --EEMIV (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - result was reasonable based on the participation. As noted, the information is all in the edit history and so any user is free to merge appropriately sourced information to another article. I agree that Inara Serra is a better redirect target and merging and changing the redirect target does not require DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/allow unmerge There are multiple sources given. The last discussion was a year ago. I see no reason to not allow people to have time to see if there is enough material to have a separate article. Given that the article in question wasn't even redirected to the sensible result I have trouble seeing why a year old AfD with no clear consensus should have that much attention paid to it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow unmerge. I agree with JoshuaZ. The nomination was from a vandalism account (we shouldn't humor bad faith nominations) followed by one call to redirect and two to merge, which shouldn't trump the far greater number of editors who have worked on the article or readers who come here for this information. As seen from Google News and Google Book searches, topic can be sourced through published books and news articles. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. There is consensus to merge at the AfD but no consensus as to the target. I agree that Inara is the better target because of weight issues. A correct merge should be performed but until someone is willing to do it, a redirect seems a reasonable (though not ideal) option. Yes, some info is hidden, but as much as I love Firefly I know that we shouldn't have articles on every aspect of the series in a general encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we incorporate elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Give people the time, per JoshuaZ & A Nobody. There's clear consensus the particular redirect was wrong, and there seem to be sources, so the prior AfD has very little force. As several editors have done, it is reversible through normal editting.John Z (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is not reversible through normal editing as any such edit would be viewed as disruptive. You need a clear mandate before undoing the effects of a deletion discussion. That's why re-creation of material deleted through AFD requires a deletion review and is otherwise eligible for speedy deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain redirect with recommendation that a future split from target be allowed when there is consensus to do so, without an additional DRV. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article AsI read the history of the article, a very short AfD more than a year ago closed with inadequate discussion as a redirect, though not a single person other than the closer supported redirect. . The redirect was reverted, and the article has been edited the past year by a number of people. Then another editor redirected, and when he was reverted, instead of discussing the article on the talk page, as is the proper procedure, asked that it be brought here. This is platform shopping, to a place with a generally deletionist tendency far behind the actual general consensus of editors. Redirect is a content decision. No admin can force a redirect in a close. he can close, recommend a redirect, and then redirect, if he likes, but anyone is free to revert him. No admin can make content decisions, and a good thing it is, too, or all 1600 of us would be competitively trying to enforce our own view of WP. By going into this fairly well established one year old equilibrium, and reverting an old decision, EEMIV is attempting to set himself personally over the community. I see this as a serious ominous event the proposed WP:FICT -- if destructive merges and redirects are accepted for combination articles, the intent of the compromise is destroyed. I hope that EEMIV wasas not specifically out tonot aware that this might tend to subvert the compromise, by showing how unsatisfactory could be results using it, for I think the compromise a good and necessary one. (There is of course another remedy for such improper actions, which is to simply add the entire content as a section of the article. I probably would have chosen to do that after the AfD in the first place, and redirected to that section. That's a good faith change, compatible with the proposed compromise.) DGG (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another way of looking at it: this is going back 15 months to enforce an old afd. Consensus can change, and the continued editing of this article seems to show just that.DGG (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DGG, my entire objective is to destroy the compromise of FICT, and to set myself above the community; any minute now, I'll don the ring of power atop my throne of wingnuts and redirect all fiction-related content to the 30K-capped List of fiction. You've caught me. :-) --EEMIV (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my wording. I assume you did not realise it would tend to have that effect. My apologies DGG (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a lot of people trying to rerun the AFD here. The result of the AFD was to merge the scanty information to a more-appropriate article (although the series article is probably not it), and this seems to be an article with a lot of OR and some scanty information, substantially similar in content if not form to the AFDed version. The "many sources" are the show itself and a licensed visual guide to the show, the exact same sources as when the AFD ran, so it's not like we have new revelations or something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Front Desk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The hotel Front Desk is a factual and vital department in a hotel. In addition, it is an actual hospitality occupation. This is an international term that should be recognized by the Wikipedia community and should have a complete and factual article. There was no legitimate grounds to delete the article. The current redirect to Receptionist does not accurately reflect the function of a hotel Front Desk. The article should be undeleted and re-created by an expert on the subject. Floridian06 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front desk there is a firm consensus to not retain this article. No other possible close. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominator thought it should be part of an article on hotels. Why did no one consider merging the material there? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure; the nominator is encouraged to write about the front desk in the receptionist article or in another suitable article on hotels. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Request does not address the closure reasoning, this if not AfD Part 2. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]