Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt

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.

The point about redirection and deletion being mutually exclusive is hogwash.
On the other hand there is no requirement to delete the article before redirecting, it is just a bit more tidy to have a simple redirect with no history or talk page if a merger is not supported by consensus, which it is not in this case.

I'll let you non-admins in on a little secret: once you have the buttons, deleting an article is really easy and takes no more time or effort than any other type of edit. It is actually easier to delete the page and the talk page and just recreate a simple redirect than to do the associated clean up and talk page edits needed if a merge was done. So, as the conensus here does favor deleting then redirecting, I'm doing that, but as has been said it doesn't really matter if there is not a merger. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt[edit]

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

Non-notable drink marketed by Steven Seagal. Already mentioned at that article, so no need for a merge. Delete & redirect. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Delete and redirect are contradictory propositions and so the nomination is incoherent. The product is, in fact, notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Celebrity: How Entertainers Took Over the World and Why We Need an Exit Strategy. It seems evident that WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Warden (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is the product covered extensively in the quoted book or is it simply passing mention? It is used as an example of the subject in the book in one or two sections of the book, then the source is not valid. and I will have to state my opinion as being Delete. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll assume that you are not being deliberately obtuse. No, they are not contradictory. Deletion means deleting an article. Redirect means creating a redirect. There is no problem with creating a redirect after the article is deleted, to catch any possible inbound links. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't really make sense to do so, since redirecting is an easy procedure that anyone can do, and deleting first, then creating a redirect requires an admin. So yes, it could be done, but probably will not. The Steve 23:53, 17 March 2012 (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) 00:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage in gnews is not in-depth and merely confirms existence. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't for the life of me understand why it would be necessary to delete this article. Why is it unacceptable to simply redirect it with the edit history intact? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:53, 25 March 2012 (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.