Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnStar Privacy


 * 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 deletion, with redirect. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OnStar Privacy
Fails WP:WEB. Only 95 unique ghits for "OnStar Privacy" which is extremely low since a good number of occurrences of the phrase have nothing to do with the website in question. The article was proded and the prod tag was removed by the stub's creator on the grounds that the site is referenced on howstuffworks.com. However if you go to that page, you see a nice little blue button titled "click to add your site to this list". Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fabricationary 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep information presented is linked from the main OnStar article and it is relevent there. --70.153.84.22 03:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Nice to see someone else 'gets it'. --Shortfuse 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I still don't 'get it'. How exactly does being linked to on the OnStar article make the website notable per WP:WEB? In fact isn't this an additional argument for deletion since it is duplicate content? Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated when someone tried to {prod} it, the reason it is separate is to keep the main article from getting longer and being defocused. It’s appropriate to mention there, but its not appropriate to try and put all of the content from the stub I made into the main article. Its not duplicate content – it is two separate articles where each covers a different aspect of a very general and expansive subject. The OnStar article is about how OnStar works and this stub is about someone’s site that points out flaws. If you all want to delete it, I dont care. I think its valueable information to the main article and I stand behind its creation. --Shortfuse 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the community seems to be split between delete and merge, no one is on my side for keep save one, so perhaps I am putting the blinders on because its my own work. So I'll amened my vote to merge and redirect. Perhaps it is better to do it that way. --Shortfuse 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment mind you I certainly don't oppose to a redirect, even though OnStar Privacy is unlikely to be a search. Pascal.Tesson 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge back to the Criticisms section of the main OnStar article and leave a redirect. Vote for the bug that lets redirects point to sections so it's a better redirect. (if only I knew which one it was to give a link!) ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to OnStar, where it's covered in the Criticism section. Second choice: Delete Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom with redirect left.Erechtheus 13:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redir per Andrew Lenahan. -- GWO
 * Delete per nom. Blizzard of One 15:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. -Murcielago 17:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Fram 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redir to OnStar Criticisms. NN on its own. -- Wine Guy  Talk  01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Merge the criticism to OnStar. I am not sure about whether or not this group is notable enough to warrant a mention in the OnStar article, but maybe a redirect anyway, to prevent article re-creation. Jacqui ★ 14:01, 25 July 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.