Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chevron (Stargate)

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 of the debate was MERGE - the merge+redir has stood since it was done, and I agree with that reading of the debate. -Splash^talk 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevron (Stargate)

This is unneeded detail on what's already covered in the Stargate (device) article. It adds an unneeded page to a project that is trying to minimize fan-fuelled articles.  Alfakim --  talk  02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stargate (device). Royboycrashfan 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see a good reason to keep the one article and delete the other, except that the one up for AfD wasn't written by the nominator and his pals. That's not an appropriate reason for deletion. Bear in mind that this isn't a paper encyclopedia, and if you're going to make TV-related cruft fair game, people are going to write about it. Ikkyu2 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Stargate is the centre of the whole universe. It's chevrons are already discussed in its article, and the chevron article is only linked from its article.--
    • The stargate isn't the centre of my universe, pal. Who's fan-fuelled, now? Seriously, lay off. Your opinion's been noted. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 Alfakim --  talk  12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge back into Stargate (device); this is like having an article for the Tires on The General Lee. SG-1 is a notable TV series, and sufficiently popular that the various technologies justify having some WP pages... but the components of those technologies are not in and of themselves notable. Georgewilliamherbert 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Royboycrashfan ... gatecruft. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - whilst not a fan of these types of articles even if we are not a paper encyclopedia - fair is fair - and it would run of nicely from the Chevron component on Stargate (device) whilst at the same time breaking down the size of a merge with all those images. VirtualSteve 05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a merge is necessary rather than a straight delete. Like Georgewilliamherbert said, this is like taking a load of pics of the 'A' key on a laptop and then making an article about them in tandem with Laptop. A chevron is a component of a stargate and is already discussed in that article.-- Alfakim --  talk  12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Steve. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Stargate (device) per 'components not notable.' MyrHerder 10:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 11:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting article. Stargate (device) is already long so probably shouldnt be merged there -- Astrokey44|talk 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not read the even more interesting Stargate (device) article, which entirely encompasses this one; furthermore, chevrons are not spoken of in reference to ANYTHING but a stargate, and are NEVER taken seperately.-- Alfakim --  talk  12:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge Percy Snoodle 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge, no reason for it to have an article outside of the original. Will 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but i could live with redirect and merge Tuf-Kat 01:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge. This is like listing all of the symbols on your vehicles sound system. Vegaswikian 23:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If someone thinks this article should be merged, they should do it. I suggest carefully weighing the worth of a vote that in essence says, "this article should be merged, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to spend the couple of minutes it would take to do it." ikkyu2 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• But if consensus ends up to keep it, and you merge, then you've possibly done the wrong thing. Noting that you prefer a merge here, and doing it after discussion closes, is not unreasonable. Sometimes being bold is a mistake. But if you feel like doing a merge on this one, right now, I won't revert you. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of us non-admins don't find it so easy to do a merge after discussion closes with a delete. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What the heck. There's a general favor towards redirect and merge, so I've gone ahead and done both. If anyone feels I've lapsed in judgment, they can roll me back. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:37, 17 February 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.