Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (3rd 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   KEEP. The discussion below shows a careful consideration of the matter and a pretty strong consensus to keep. Participants noted that the quality of the list has been affirmed by its having been approved as a Featured List. It was pointed out that the FL process does not assess or guarantee the notability of the topic; however, the quality of the list has been strongly affirmed. Merging this into the Condé Nast Publications article, which is not very well developed, would have the additional negative effect of creating a weight problem with that article. Deleting a high-quality list in a process that reduces the quality of an existing article would be a net negative. The best path forward would be to improve the Condé Nast Publications article to a point where the complementary relationship between the article and list is readily apparent to the reader. Pete (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Procedural nom, no opinion myself on the AFD. Overturned from DRV, started a new AFD on the matter, for a fresh discussion from the community. -- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Colonel Warden closed this AfD because the article was a redirect. Noting that the redirect was created immediately after the previous AfD, which was overturned at DRV; noting also that that redirect was created by Colonel Warden, who re-redirected the article now when Cirt had restored it: and noting that Colonel Warden wanted to close the previous AfD as "Speedy Keep This is a featured list. We are here to discuss deletions not mergers.", I can only regard this as a closure by a heavily involved editor. I have therefor undone it. Fram (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Just trying to save everyone some time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The article in question was a redirect until Cirt resurrected for AFD just now.  This was improper because deletion of redirects is handled by a different process.  And note that we can't delete it anyway because its content has been copied to the  Condé Nast Publications article and so we must keep the edit history for license attribution, as explained on this article's talk page.  Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Cirt acted properly in carrying out the consensus of the deletion review. Perhaps myself and others should have said a relist was unnecessary at deletion review, but given that the deletion review did end with a consensus to relist, I think unredirecting the article and relisting was appropriate. Calathan (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, this page was merged during the previous AfD, a practice that is heavily frowned upon as it seen as an end run around AfD, because of the argument that usually follows, as in this case: it can't be deleted, it has been merged! Such behaviour should not be encouraged by experienced editors like you. Fram (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect - I'm confused what the point of this is. Whether or not to keep the history of a redirect page?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - There seems to be agreement now to make this a redirect. I'm kind of regretting my suggestion at deletion review to relist this, as it seems that another AFD isn't really necessary (but I definitely do still think the previous AFDs should have been allowed to run, and that the rational for closing them was incorrect). Calathan (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you find that "There seems to be agreement now to make this a redirect"? Fram (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This had been merged and redirected based on the discussion at FLRC. As the redirect had remained in place for several days, I figured there was agreement to merge the content into the parent article.  But it seems like this AFD is getting more participation, which is one of the main reasons I thought an AFD for this would be good.  So I'm striking my previous suggestion to redirect (which was based only on the thought that the main article editors were in consensus), as well as my statement that the AFD might not be necessary. Calathan (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is still a featured list. I do not believe any featured list should be deleted or redirected while it is still listed at WP:FLRC: this could result in a silly situation where content is reaffirmed as "the best that wikipedia has to offer" by retention at FLRC... and at the same time deleted by an AfD.  Read the DRV for my argument at more length if desired. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to keep the history of the page. Sandman888 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let's talk about the notability for once instead of wasting our time with bureaucratic wrangling over the list. The original would have been done over a week ago. I agree with Jclemens, it's a featured list which strongly suggests its notability. It seems to meet all the criteria for a list itself, and I don't think a redirect (really a merge) is necessary at this point. This is a large company where its mergers maintain a visible character of their previous identity (unlike many more run-of-the-mill corporate mergers/acquisitions). I don't want to set a precedent for all fortune 500 companies (or others) to need lists like this, but in this case it appears to be a good content fork. Shadowjams (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets all standards for a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets all the criteria for a stand-alone list, and merging back into the main article is a poor idea that would need to be undone in due course as the main article approaches compliance with standards. Courcelles 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For goodness' sake, it is a featured list. A merge with the main article is not necessary as there is sufficient material to go into the list. Stickee (talk)  00:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Featured list means WP has decided it is worthwhile. Seems odd to pursue this AfD, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rant from FAC delegate: the featured list process (and the featured article process), absolutely have nothing to do with notability. The articles/lists are judged based on criteria that do not include notability. At FAC delegates disregard any comments that the nominated article does not meet the notability guidelines, because that is not part of the FAC criteria and therefore it cannot be part of the promotion decision. The notability question must be resolved here, at AFD, not at FLC/FAC - and I note that FLs and FAs have been deleted at AfD before. The fact that it is a featured list is not a valid keep argument. Karanacs (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems that "Notability is not an FLC criteria" is the argument that isn't being supported by the community here. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Conde Nast. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment – Does anyone beside me think that the list should be the Condé Nast Publications article? I ask because that's what it basically is – a copypaste of the list of mergers and acquisitions with a much better-written, sourced, and cohesive lead than the actual article. This should be looked more into IMO, because I am not seeing a very good reason for a list itself to have its own page in this fashion. –MuZemike 03:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable company? Check. Coherent inclusion criteria? Check. Finite list length? Check. And every entry is sourced out. Why the hell was this challenged in the first place? Deletion nomination has a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE. —Carrite, Oct. 4, 2010.
 * Keep Perfectly appropriate subject for a list, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:09, 5 October 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.