Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drascombe
Wrong process, and raises no policy-actionable rationale for deletion under .  What I ''actually'' suggested three times on two pages (my talk page, and  where nominator tried improperly to speedy it as noncontroversial, even after it was controverted), was for nominator to take this ''to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers'', and warned ''against'' going the AfD route.  I don't like being misrepresented as supporting things I clearly oppose, thank you. There is no justifiable reason to destroy the edit history of the original stub, which was a good faith effort on another editor's part to create a meaningful stub, simply so that the author of the better article can falsely appear to be the first author to address the topic on WP.  I can't see any policy-based reason that this stub should be successfully AfD'd just because someone would rather use this process to do a roundabout merge than use the proper one.   exists for a reason.  The stub has certainly needed copyediting, and its author didn't understand what talk pages are for, but that's no reason to preted he/she doesn't exist.  Oh! I take part of that back!  I was the ''present nominator'' who has added signed comments to the article, not the original stub author!  I have tried really hard to  with this nominator, but am left with no conclusion to draw but that this is a self-serving vanity deletion - based on this twice-in-a-row refusal to use PM, on blatantly mischaracterizing me as advising this AfD, and on previous debate http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=110028100&oldid=110028093 here and
— User:SMcCandlish, 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DP||WP:RM||WP:PM||WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)