Talk:Faye Turney

message: I have removed the tag as the article now references secondary sources per Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Elliskev 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability tag

message: I haved removed the Iraq War from the battles/wars section of the infobox, I can't find any information in this article, the HMS Cornwall article or the 2007 captuare of 15 soldiers article that states that Faye or HMS Cornwall was involved in the Iraq War or resulting occupation, she was in seirra leone and then patrolling the gulf for gun smugglers according to what I can see. 
Apologies if this is incorrect but the article doesn't even mention the conflict, so if she did take part in it please can it be mentioned in the article too? SGGH 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose technically she was posted to iraq but in reality that meant patrolling the persian gulf. They were looking for all sorts of contraband, smuggled guns etc. but I think they were actually more interested in smuggled vehicles.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War

message: Article has been redirected as an outcome of the AfD. History is preserved to allow merging of relevant info to the target, or to allow recreation in case circumstances change in the future, as per my close. The DRV was closed as essentially irrelevant. If anyone wishes to revert my redirect in an editorial capacity, please develop a new consensus per WP:CCC - Y (Y NOT?) 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the overturning of the close at DRV is a pretty strong indication that consensus may have changed.  I'm strongly against a redirect, for the record - people who search for Faye Turney are looking for information on her, not all 15.  In fact, re-reading the AfD, there doesn't even seem to be a consensus for a redirect.  Consensus doesn't have to change from a redirect if no consensus existed to begin with.  I'm undoing the re-redirecting for now pending evidence that there's actually consensus for a redirect here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great..... hello Jeff. Overturning the decision at AfD is an issue for DRV. Now that that's failed, ... it's failed. I found a consensus - I am sorry you disagree, but reasonable people can disagree, can't they? - Y (Y NOT?) 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and I made an error - the DRV didn't overturn anything, and I apologise for saying as such.  Now, back to the consensus at hand - where is it?  It seems like a lot of people in the AfD felt that keeping was the right move here, and relatively few felt redirecting was an option.  The close at DRV was not that anything should be overturned or endorsed, but rather that the redirecting was an editorial decision that DRV couldn't deal with.  If you look at the discussion at DRV, however, a not-insignificant amount of people felt that the redirect was improper as well.  Combining the two discussions about this article, I'm not really seeing any consensus whatsoever, but I'm fine with being wrong about that, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must strip out the disaffected keepers who came to DRV to re-argue the merits. Whatever. Between the deletes, the merges, and the redirects, and the intervening events, I think there's plenty of consensus to not keep a standalone article. A redirect addresses that nicely. Please revert yourself. We can cover her within the big article. - Y (Y NOT?) 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you strip out the "disaffected keepers," I'm not sure I'm seeing a consensus for a redirect.  Could you please point it out for me? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, Jeff, I don't have to. This is how I closed it. In good faith. If you don't like it... you don't like it - you don't revert it. - Y (Y NOT?) 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind that, it's protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: - unprotected per WP:RPP request. Let me know if there are any issues - Alison☺ 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: Can we please stop bickering about the interpretation of past decisions?  The question on the table right now is whether this page should be kept as a redirect or if there is enough independent material to support a stand-alone article.  This is the proper place to make that decision.  The prior discussions can inform us but that's it.  Let's figure out the right answer now.  
I've tried to lay out the arguments and evidence for and against based on the prior discussions.  Please amend and expand the lists.  Please do not delete an argument just because you disagree with it.  Rossami (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind that, it's protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: - unprotected per WP:RPP request. Let me know if there are any issues - Alison☺ 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough!

message: In terms of the arguments to reinstate the redirect, the only one that is really valid is the one addressing WP:NOTNEWS - the subject meets WP:BIO, notability is not temporary, the lack of the other articles doesn't constitute the lack of this one (a) it's a reverse WP:POKEMON, b) she's unique anyway as the only female), being a memorial wouldn't matter given the previous comments, and the parent article can have that information merged here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind that, it's protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: - unprotected per WP:RPP request. Let me know if there are any issues - Alison☺ 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In decending order of importance these are my reasons for having a separate article on Turney:
*We have enough verifiable information to write an article on her which is not a stub.
*Were all the background information on Turney (year of birth, town of origin, footballing father, wedding details, place of familiy home, previous service history, etc) to be placed in the main article, this would add nothing directly to the readers' understanding of the incident. It would, however, add to the readers' understanding of Turney if placed in the article about her.
*There is information about Turney in the main article which should be expanded in the Faye Turney article. (eg. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks about sending the mother of a child to the battlefield.)
*The 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel article is presently 70 kilobytes long, suggesting that it might be appropriate to split it into smaller, more specific articles. Adding more information on Turney to the main article will make it longer still. Greenshed 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content organization

message: No new arguments have been presented to keep this separate, so I'm being bold and reverting the redirect.  Given the arguments and the lack of consensus at the AfD, it seems proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind that, it's protected. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: - unprotected per WP:RPP request. Let me know if there are any issues - Alison☺ 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being bold