Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Nationals


 * 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. Discussion about merging to, as mentioned, take place on talk pages. The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

London Nationals

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Simply put, the London Nationals page as it currently exists is a duplicate of information readily available at London Knights. Historically, the original London Nationals are a Junior B team that moved to Ingersoll in the 1965 season when the Junior A Nationals came into existance, and a year later returned to London as the Bees and many other future names (including the Diamonds), eventually reverting to the Nationals in 1991. The page currently at London Nationals is the team that eventually became the Knights, and thus has no unique information and should be deleted to make room for the Junior B team, currently operating under that name, to occupy that space. As a further complication, the team history is not correct on the Junior A version; the Junior A Nationals became the Knights in 1968 with no change since, hence why the separate page is not needed. CycloneGU (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Reverted article to its form before a POV anon vandal turned it into the Jr. B page. The article makes a lot more sense now.  Don't worry, your tag is still up.  There is discussion to be had.  DMighton (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep. This follows from a discussion on my talk page where I opined that a simple rename of a hockey team does not break continuity, and therefore does not warrant a separate article. (for instance, we do not separate Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks)  I argued in favour of a merge, but suggested getting further input.  However, AfD is not the right venue - if there is a merge, the edit history of this article should be retained, and this title would simply redirect to the target.  Cyclone - I would recommend withdrawing this AfD and beginning a discussion at the article's talk page.  Resolute 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still do think deleting this page and putting the older franchise here (and the only one still using the name) is procedural but thought this might be the way to go about doing it; if I am mistaken, I accept that mistake.  The article talk page hasn't had activity since creation, but I do hope we can generate some discussion on this subject there.  As for a history merge, this would do no good as both London Knights and the page under discussion here existed independently, and putting a London Nationals page version as more recent than a London Knights one is ridiculous.  The information about the London Nationals is already at London Knights due either to the same contributors or different ones; we don't need to merge histories, merely move a little bit of information that isn't already merged.  CycloneGU (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't we simultaneously put the Nationals and Knights up for merge AND put the Jr. B Nats up for relocation to this page on the condition that the merge is successful. We can do that right?  But I would prefer if we merged, so that the edit history isn't lost on the old Nationals article... and the Jr. B Nats just replace the redirect. Thoughts?  DMighton (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree wholly with the duo merge and relocate options. However, a history merge makes absolutely no sense.  This revision of London Knights on March 27, 2010 is newer than this revision of London Nationals on June 13, 2009 but older than this revision of London Nationals on May 2, 2010.  They would appear in a history merge as revisions in order in the history.  In other words, the page changed from Nationals to Knights to Nationals back to Knights and back to Nationals again.  I am fully against a history merge for this reason as well as the fact that London Knights already contains a good chunk of information from the Nationals article.  Merging the articles, however, is necessary in some fashion, even if it means adding information from the prior article with reference to the old article in the ES.  CycloneGU (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss as per Resolute. Completely agree, but possibly instead move the other Nationals to this title as it is the older franchise.  Either way, future discussion.  DMighton (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in this specific case, I think it will end with a history merge and the Jr. B team moving to this article title. Resolute 14:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Resolute. I think we will likely merge these articles but afd is not where merges should be discussed. That should be done on the talk pages with some merge tags. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (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.