The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Card game does not appear to be notable - specifically fails to have garnered significant coverage over a period of time. No question it existed and even that there is RS which covers it, but this minimal coverage, which does not establish that it has permanent independent notability, can be incorporated as appropriate into Sim City. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose AFD is not a venue if you want to redirect a page. The name is a reasonable redirect, and I do agree in part that the card game did not gain sufficient notability for its own article, but you can't use AFD for that. --
Masem (
t)
19:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose Barkeep49 was sloppy in his redirect attempt citing only one source, when there were two - he also deleted newly cited material and did not merge it properly. There are now 6 sources "over a period of time." Seems a little premature now.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
AFD is not a venue to discuss redirection, see
WP:ATD-R. If the redirected was challenged, then the proper next step would be to open an RFC on the article's talk page to get wider input. --
Masem (
t)
19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Masem, like Pradixcae said on my talk page, this could be a delete Sim City: The Card Game and redirect situation too, so I think this is the right place to sort this out. RFC is not applicable as the article is not redirect anymore to be discussed.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
19:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is not a case where "deletion and recreate as a redirect" would be appropriate. We strive to keep all reasonable contributions in a page's history, and there's certainly nothing in this article's history that calls for the need to delete. There are valid cases where
WP:TNT applies if the existing content in the article is so grossly inappropriate for WP that its better to delete, but this article is well far from that. If the goal was to redirect, and it was challenged, then a discussion on the talk pages of affected articles is the only next appropriate step. --
Masem (
t)
19:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, but
WP:ATD-R clearly says If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. It was disputed, and AfD is a place to get consensus as well. RFC IS a good target for discussion but since AfD also handles these situations on regular basis, relies on consensus and redirect can be a result of the discussion, I cant see any problems.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It has been long held that AFD should not be used for anything else than the intent to delete. The nominator may start out with the intent to delete and the AFD is closed as a redirect, that's an acceptable result, but when the goal of the nominator is to redirect, then that's a misuse of AFD (it has been a
WP:PEREN to make "AFD" stand for Article for Discussion to include redirects, merges, etc. and that has never gained consensus). The process that should have been done, thinking about it more, would be to follow the process of
WP:MERGE once the redirect was undo the first time. --
Masem (
t)
19:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Did not know about that
WP:PEREN which happened. Problem is that some content was already merged at
SimCity#Sim_City:_The_Card_Game, but I guess it would not help as the content dispute between the 2 users would go on. I strongly believe some consensus needs to be made (along with page protecting the redirect if the consensus is the redirect to avoid further mess). Admins should review this case to see if this AfD should go on, or create RFC.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
19:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Masem AfD is frequently used for community backed redirect. I know this because I have
done it
before, as have others
recently, and because it says redirect is a valid outcome of AfD right in the second sentence of
WP:AFD. I am clearly advancing a deletion based argument, namely that it's not notable. A redirect coming from here can be soft (history preserved) or hard (deleted and then redirected, erasing history for non-sysop) but saying "This content of this topic is not independently notable and should not exist on Wikipedia" feels like something policy says that a community decision at AfD rather than a merge discussion is appropriate for deciding. You can argue, as Leitmotiv, that I have notability wrong and the article should exist, but the fact that I support
an alternative to deletion does not mean that this venus is closed off. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
^. When an attempt to redirect is rejected, the community is regularly invited to an AFD to establish a clear consensus. The alternative method for this would be to
propose a merge, but those are often left to languish without involvement from the community. --
Izno (
talk)
22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Ok, it has been clarified that there is consensus that redirects that were challenged may be brought to AFD. So consider this aspect no longer relevant. --
Masem (
t)
22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Coverage is not required over a period of time because notability does not expire – most sources are effectively permanent because they can be found in archives or central libraries. Talk of redirect is misleading as there is an obvious main topic -- the original
Sim City game -- and so this is a merge discussion for which deletion is quite inappropriate per
WP:MAD. The games are best kept separate for clarity and simplicity as smushing everything together results in pages which are
too long.
Andrew D. (
talk)
10:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem here is that "period of time" is vague. Also brief bursts of news coverage over a period of time seems contradictory. Either way the sources supplied pass
WP:GNG.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.