Talk:Pampers Easy Ups

Redirect RfC
Why on earth do we have an AFD layout which prompts users to search for sources on the subject at the top of each debate page, yet discourages them from using the volume or content of said sources as a point of argument? Surely one of these needs to go or clearer distinctions need to be made? SplashScreen (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be redirected to Pampers, where the line of diapers is already mentioned. Yes, there was a brief controversy involving training pants, but that's also covered in the main Pampers article and I don't think it's enough to make this line of diapers notable. So: keep as is or redirect/merge? CtP (t • c) 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this article. Easy Ups already redirects to Pampers. There's nothing notable about this particular product that rates a separate article. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Pampers. I see nothing in the article and no sources to justify a stand alone article for this product sub-category. LK (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Pampers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD this. We can't delete pages as an outcome of RfC, while deletion is a prevailing opinion here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to take it to AfD because my original nomination was for redirecting, and the AfD probably would have gotten closen because there was technically no argument for deletion. I agree now that taking it to AfD is a good idea. CtP  (t • c) 19:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)