Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Administrative closure  Nothing has changed since I administratively closed this last week: the FLRC for this material remains open, while a discussion on this precise topic posted at WP:CENT is ongoing. Editors are encouraged to participate in either of those discussions (which could moot a WP:LOCAL consensus here), and the nominator is welcome to take up the closure of both substantially identical nominations with me at User talk:Jclemens or seek to have this closure reviewed at WP:DRV. Of course, any editor is free to renominate the list if and when its delisted from featured status, and these two closures should not be construed as prohibiting a speedy renomination once this material has been delisted. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Was AfD'ed before, but wrongly closed by an admin. Was brought ot FLRC here due to 3.b (content forking) concerns. However consensus on the FLC-process has it that content forking is an AfD matter.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rationale: "This featured list can easily be merged into the main article." Sandman888 (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. agree with content fork concerns. Sandman888 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a featured list. We are here to discuss deletions not mergers.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * merge discussion are frequently made at AfD. The fact that it is featured is not an argument. Sandman888 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD exists to authorise use of the delete function which is tightly controlled because of its disruptive nature. The process for merger is described at WP:MERGE which says nothing about AFD.  That the list is featured is certainly a relevant argument which is specifically cited as a reason to speedily close a deletion nomination as disruptive or frivolous. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. "which is specifically cited" Where is that cited? 2. There's precedence for featured lists to be deleted. 3. merge-to-redirect discussions happen all the time at AfD when considering content forks. Sandman888 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SK. Merger might be an outcome of AFD but articles should not be brought here if there is not the slightest intention to delete.  Please see WP:MERGE for the correct process.  Also note WP:MAD.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim "That the list is featured is certainly a relevant argument which is specifically cited as a reason to speedily close a deletion nomination as disruptive or frivolous" is not at all backed up by WP:SK. It specifically aims at "recently promoted articles" and makes no mention of lists, let alone 2 year old lists. There's little difference between deleting the list or replacing with #REDIRECT "main article", as an example is this AfD. Sandman888 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are now arguing that lists are not articles. This is Articles for Deletion and so another leg of your proposition collapses. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not refuting/answering or even discussing the central point here. The point is that SK only makes for "recently promoted articles" to be speedy kept, but this is not recently promoted. It's fair to admit being wrong, but when you claim that featured status is "a relevant argument which is specifically cited as a reason to speedily close a deletion nomination" it is blatantly false. Sandman888 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a central point - this is not a proper deletion discussion. This is why it would be sensible to speedily close it.  Merger, redirection and the like may be done by ordinary editing and so the matter does not belong here.  Please see our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you no longer wish to address your previous claim and take that as a implicit acknowledgement that FL's can be AfD'ed. The matter does belong here to determine whether there is consensus for a redirect. Being a featured list it is not advisable to just blank the page, as evidenced by the same policy you linked to ("Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD"). Please see our essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussion here instead of vaguely bluelinking WP:BEFORE. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My primary position remains that bringing a respectable featured list here is absurd and the discussion should be closed speedily. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (OD) well that might be the case but your position is not based upon any wikipedia policy, and appears to be an emotion based "IJUSTLIKEIT" vote. Sandman888 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD is clearly not eligible for speedy keep as it does not pass any of the criteria at WP:SK. Suggesting that we speedy keep the article (and then perpetuating a long argument about it) is annoying.  Continuing this pattern of behavior on numerous AfD's (which you have been doing for quite a while now) is disruptive and borderline trolling.    Snotty Wong   spout 18:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact you consider this a "respectable featured list" is irrelevant. There has been precedent for deletion of an FL and the criteria for FLRC speedy delist in cases where there exists a "clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article [which] may be shown in Articles for deletion". Rambo's Revenge (talk)  18:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Condé Nast Publications per nom. Actually, it has already been merged.  A couple sentences from the lead of this article could probably be merged as well.  Merging is an acceptable outcome of an AfD.  For an article about mergers, merging is arguably even more appropriate.    Snotty Wong   confabulate 18:03, 18 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.