Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Symank (football coach)


 * 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   Redirect. The material has already been merged to John Symank, so no content is being lost, but the redirect preserves the article history, and there are still incoming links. Once those have been dealt with, RFD for the redirect seems in order. As noted, and as per the dates of first edit, this article appears to be the duplicate, rather than the other way around. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

John Symank (football coach)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article duplicates the subject material of the John Symank article, and a proposed article merge has been pending since July 2010. All distinct content of this duplicate has been incorporated into the other article. . . it's now time to delete this duplicate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to delete, just redirect to John Symank. I'd do it but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to know whether his coaching record is worth preserving in the main article. Jimmy Pitt   talk  09:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimmy, not sure what purpose saving a redundant redirect page serves. Original author/creator agrees with AfD.  Coaching content has already been incorporated/merged into other article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and handle all pages that link to the old article, most of which are in the coaching navbox (which I've already fixed). A redirect would be okay.  I've copied the data over to the main article, but it needs editing and wikified... but that's editing data.  Until the remaining pages are fixed to link directly to the article, I think that a redirect is a good solution.  I would consider this a procedural delete as technically the aritcle already exists.  We're not deleting the article, we're deliting the duplicate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (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.