Could you restore Q116690325? I don't see your reasons for removing it as being in any way objective or substantive. Splitting an item where articles obviously describe different things (both based on their title and based on their content) into current (wider) concept and its sub-concept is quite common and standard practice on WD. I don't see how it can be called repurposing in this context. Not to mention the fact that you did it without warning or any communication in the middle of the splitting process.
Topic on User talk:Mbch331/Structured Discussions Archive 1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I wasn't active any more when you posted this and see a colleague already undeleted the item. From the changes I saw, it looked like you were changing power ballad into sentimental ballad. I saw the history now and saw it got messed up pretty long time ago where the two concepts got mixed up, so you actions were correct and mine incorrect.