Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Auckland waterfront vs. Eden Park debate


 * 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.  

The result was Delete - Proto's comment sums it up nicely. Yomangani talk 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Auckland waterfront vs. Eden Park debate
This page serves no purpose and there is already nearly identical information at 2011 Rugby World Cup. Furthermore, the sole author continually reverts redirects and merge suggestions as if he (she?) has made this his (her?) pet article. --Jemiller226 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per first part of nom. Viridae Talk 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you say this can't exist, we may as well get rid of this: 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy. --SilvaStorm
 * Why? Are you saying there is identical information in another article? If so, which one? --Canley 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't add speedy deletion tags to this AfD discussion because you disagree with it. No sane admin is going to delete this page anyway. You need to let the AfD run its course. Also, don't remove the AfD notice from the article. --Canley 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has a history of this sort of thing. Check his user talk and mine, just barely stopping short of personal attacks to try to save this article.  I'd report him, but frankly I just can't be bothered.  --Jemiller226 07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was saying the information was already included in another article, and judging by the article up for afd, doesnt need its own. Viridae Talk 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect content to 2011 Rugby World Cup, being the relevant event. -- saberwyn 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is nothing to merge (as mentioned in the nomination). This is also an unlikely search term and so a redirect is probobly unecessary. Viridae Talk 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable, unencyclopedic. (Also, creator should be closely watched - a quick glance at his contribs and talk page suggests unilateral moves and WP:OWN violations by using underconstruction and leaving the template on after he leaves the page.) – Chacor 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Scienter 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Viradae, though I don't think a redirect is neccesary.StayinAnon 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. no redirect required. Rafy 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep So why is this page allowed to exist: 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy. --SilvaStorm
 * Maybe because it's completely a different issue whose information isn't already covered elsewhere? If you'd notice, the article for the DVD in question redirects to the article you keep citing, inexplicably, as a reason to keep your article.  Therefore there is only one article with the pertinent information, and you've identified it.  In this AfD case, there's already an article with all the relevant information and as a result this article is redundant.  This is not difficult to understand.  Normally I do my best to assume good faith, but your history here (and, frankly, on Lostpedia) make this extremely difficult.  I'd suggest you stop attacking me on the talk pages for this article and for my user account, by the way.  This isn't personal, never was, and never will be.  I even helped out one of your Lost episode articles when I came across it in the stub list, or at least I tried to help it, but I see it's been deleted, too, for the same reasons this one is up for discussion.  --Jemiller226 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, or failing that redirect to Stadium New Zealand. Very contentious and highly publicised dispute within New Zealand. Grutness...wha?  23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- Grutness...wha?  23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, so there are two articles that have this information already and would both be more likely search strings than the AfD'd article? I think that just serves as even more evidence that this is a redundant article. --Jemiller226 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, so there are two articles that have this information already and would both be more likely search strings than the AfD'd article? I think that just serves as even more evidence that this is a redundant article. --Jemiller226 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, the debate is already well covered at Stadium New Zealand, and to a lesser extent at Eden Park and 2011 Rugby World Cup. There's no need for a redirect, as no one is likely to come across this title by mistake. I'm curious: was the author aware of the Stadium New Zealand article when they began this one? If not, what redirects should be created to make that article easier to find. Waterfront Stadium already exists as a redirect, although I imagine at some point it will have to become a disambiguation page.- gadfium 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it is a notable issue within New Zealand, our articles on Eden Park and Stadium New Zealand already cover it. It is relatively unlikely as a search term. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, duplicates information found elsewhere, and a very unlikely search term (so redirecting would be useless). Proto ::  type  10:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.