Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oregon Trail 5th Edition


 * 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 to The Oregon Trail (video game). (non-admin closure) Lourdes  01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Oregon Trail 5th Edition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources found to pass WP:NVG. This article was previously deleted as a copyright violation, and is now just a completely unsourced stub. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Oregon Trail (video game). I couldn't find anything, but the term is plausible for a search. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect seems best, but then won't we have confusion with lots of redirects? At that point we could have a redirect for the 3rd, 4th and 5th editions! So delete might be better. Blythwood (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Having multiple redirects is fine. --Izno (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having multiple redirects to the same target? I don't see how that's confusing. Depending on the series article, the redirects could always been made to specific subsections relevant to the specific edition too. (ie something like a redirect target of Oregon Trail (video game series) ) Sergecross73   msg me  20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'd rather see resources invested into a The Oregon Trail (video game series) article that gives an overview of all Oregon, Amazon, Africa, Maya, etc. entries.--Coin945 (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirects are WP:CHEAP]. Fieari (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect Per above. It's a plausible search term, but it's not a notable enough series to have article on each individual edition. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - viable search term, but doesn't need its own article unless there's much more sources and content present. Sergecross73   msg me  20:14, 16 September 2016 (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.