Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016

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 delete. The speedy keep opinions are premised on the assumption that deletion was not proposed. After it has been clarified that deletion is indeed proposed, they are inapplicable and there therefore are no keep opinions on the table. Sandstein 06:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore National Day Parade, 2016

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see the notability of each individual parade. IMHO this appears to be a WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation as the individual parade pages seem to just be listing the lineups and in some cases the hour by hour timeline. I don't question that the parade itself is notable but I think all these individual pages should be deleted ~~merged to Singapore National Day Parade~~. I think that Rose Parade and Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade establish the precedent. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under WP:SK, first limb:- The nominator doesn't want to delete the content, they want to redirect it. WP:MERGEPROP is the way to go about this.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a large scale redirect proposal such as this, I think AFD is the correct venue. This definitely needs more discussion and merge proposals on the article pages often don't get any input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is at WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Read the policy, and you will know that one choice is an RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK#1 or wrong venue No argument for deletion. Also see WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAWEBHOST is an argument for deletion here. If I am not wrong, the merge proposed by Zackmann08 seems to be more like a compromise solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that the nomination statement, "I think all these individual pages should be merged", proposes a merge? Unscintillating (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the notability of each individual parade. IMHO this appears to be a WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation as the individual parade pages seem to just be listing the lineups and in some cases the hour by hour timeline. is a pretty valid deletion rationale. Whether a merge is proposed after this doesn't change the fact that the original (and preferred intention) seems to be that the pages should not be retained. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall, Unscintillating, and Lemongirl942: Valid points made all around. Let me clarify. I am proposing that the individual pages be deleted. The point I was trying to make was that I do think the parade itself is notable and there is probably a few sentences from each page that can be used in the main article. But since these are BIG pages with lots of content I am suggesting deleting I felt that WP:AFD was a more appropriate venue. If these were just 2 similar pages to be merged to one, I would agree that it would be more of a merge discussion. That isn't the case here. I am saying that 11 pages should be deleted as not individually notable. Does that make sense? Please ping me if further clarification is needed. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not an argument for deletion. For WP:DEL8, you also have to explain why the article can be neither merged nor redirected; which it appears that you think that it can be merged, and you aren't that familiar with notability deletion. By your new statement, you would be proposing a license violation by merging content and then deleting the attribution (see WP:MAD). Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a way around that. If we merge the content to one page then normally we keep the previous page as a redirect in order to give the original contributors credit and thereby comply with our Terms of Use. If we turn those titles into a redlink instead, then an administrator could perform a history merge into the new title before deleting the old one -- quite a complicated merge, in fact, because there are so many pages going into one. However, it's a laborious and fiddly task, and the sysop who we ask to do it will no doubt ask why we can't just use redirects.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: what do you mean notability is not an argument for deletion?? It is usually the principal argument... I would like to point out I am TRYING to do this the right way. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a test to determine if a topic should be standalone; where alternates for non-notable topics include redirection, and deletion is at WP:DEL8. Policy is to prefer redirection to deletion. WP:IGNORINGATD and an essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE have more. Unscintillating (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this userspace essay is an excellent summary of Unscintillating's reasoning. I rather agree with it in this case, although it's more inclusionist in its thinking than many modern Wikipedians are.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:WEBHOST; this content should be on the event's web pages, not here. Clearly promotional / link farm, in violation of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST.Ajf773 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.