Talk:Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 August 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

Untitled[edit]

This is a ridiculously narrow sub-topic of a topic better covered in Park ranger. Every county in America probably has park ranger positions, Wikipedia does not need excessively detailed job descriptions for each jurisdiction. Save a redirect to Park ranger, I believe this will soon be deleted. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i probably agree.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I asked if categories follow a merge at WP:Help_desk#Do categories follow a merge?. The answer seems to be "maybe so, maybe not". However, there seems to be no support to delete categories that existed before a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about categories following a MERGE; they understood that you were talking about categories in the left-behind redirect page. This case was not a merge; it was a keep-but-rename-and-rewrite. There was no existing target article to merge to, and nobody is trying to add categories to the redirect page. To me the article is now about an entirely new subject, but the other editor seems to feel strongly about keeping all the law-enforcement categories in an article about a park department, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, [1], you state, the "nomination basically resulted in a consensus recommendation of 'merge/redirect' to an article about the Park and Rec department - an article which did not exist at the time, but does now." Now you say, "This case was not a merge..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]