Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y-Gerät


 * 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The result was  keep (withdrawn) - non-admin closure.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Y-Gerät

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a duplicate of Battle of the Beams. It contains no information not already contained in the main article. This article could be made a redirect to the section linked above with no loss to the project. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * comment a "Redirect" is not a "Deletion", if that is the contention of DieSwartzPunkt then this request should be speedily closed and a merge request put forward on the talk page of the articles concerned because there is a good argument to be made that far from merging the two articles Y-Gerät should be expanded. -- PBS (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I said that a redirect could be created as a possible alternative to deletion. As things stand, the article can be deleted (completely) without loss as the article contains nothing not contained in Battle of the Beams.  I do note that both of the other beam systems discussed have their own redirects which redirect to the Battle of the Beams (Knickebein did not redirect to the section but I've fixed that).  This might suggest that a simple redirect may be more appropriate.  What do other's think?  I note that PBS has previously objected to a redirect on the spurious grounds that a redirect cannot be made to an article section (Not correct - it can.  I just did it).
 * PBS's suggestion of a merge request is not relevant, because there is nothing unique in the article to merge. In fact Battle of the Beams contains far more information and detail than the so called "Main article".   DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time I made that assertion are you sure that redirects to sections were available? If not then Please strike you sentence that starts "I note..." -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Then it may be appropriate to merge the information the other way. Either which way as you are no longer talking about deletion the appropriate place to discuss this issue is on the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * [Do not put comments in the middle of other users comments - Moved to correct place.] Merging the other way is not really appropriate.  There is not really enough material to justify breaking off the subject into its own article.  Someone will only propose that it be merged into Battle of the Beams so we will be back to square one.  What is so different about this beam system that you feel in needs its own article when X-Gerät and Knickebein work perfectly well as redirects unchallenged?  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As you moved my comment you must have read it. Why have you not struck out your allegation? -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it is a valid point. The ability to redirect to sections within articles, has been available for (certainly) well over 10 years (though there was a time when it was more complex than just using the '#' delimiter).  The ability to link to sub-sections (not the case here) is more recent.  But if you really want me to strike it, then I will - but only because it is a complete side issue.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: I have just done a side by side comparison of the article and the section in Battle of the Beams.  There is nothing in this article that is not in Battle of the Beams.  This is therefore not the " Main article" on this subject and can be deleted.  –  Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;
 * The are alternatives to deletion: The article could be made a redirect or the article could be expanded. Either way that the content is similar at the moment is not a reason to delete it. The question to ask is the subject notable not is the current content substantial enough? -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are and ✅. Did you not read the bit below before you said this?


 * AFAICT, the section in Battle of the Beams contains more or less everything that needs to be said on the subject without making the article 'clunky' or too technical. As it stands, there is certainly not enough material to hive off into a separate article and I would oppose doing so.  A redirect is the way to go here.  –  Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;  17:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that this has been closed and resolved. Why are we still discussing it here?  –  Live Rail   &lt; Talk &gt;  17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn In the light of the above. I have withdrawn the AfD for this article.  In view of the lack of unique content, and the fact that the other two beam systems are redirects, I have turned this article into a redirect to Battle of the Beams which contains more information anyway (and is thus consistent).  There is no necessity for a merge proposal as the article contains nothing not already in the redirect destination. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to admins: This AfD can be closed.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:44, 9 October 2014 (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.