Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rover 200 Series / 400 Series

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 no consensus. Merging or converting to a dab page are still on the table though and can be discussed at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rover 200 Series / 400 Series[edit]

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

Article duplicates other articles Rover 200 / 25 and Rover 400 / 45. All useful content was merged into those two articles (and Honda Integra) recently, and article is now an orphan. No significant edits have been made since the merges. Letdorf (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if useful content was merged we need to keep the attribution history. Not familiar with the details, I'd redirect to Rover Group which mentions both lines. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs to kept, maybe it's better to make it a disambig rather than a redirect? If the point of redirecting to Rover Group is just that both lines are mentioned so a reader can find more information (it's conceivable e.g. the reader has followed an external link to the old Wikipedia article on a dated webpage somewhere) then such a reader is presumably better-served by a disambig page that points to all the places where that info has gone? TheGrappler (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably best to replace with a dab page, IMHO. Letdorf (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted twice? Given the merging it should not be deleted and whether to keep it under a redirect or convert into a dab page is a mere editorial decision that does not need to be discussed here. I'd say close as redirect with no prejudice against converting into a dab page by knowledgeable editors if they see fit.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make it into a disambiguation page. Since there's other articles with the same information. Endofskull (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe keep the links to the articles as brief detail on the Rover 200/25 article and split them like at Volkswagen Golf.

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.