Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks

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. It needs to remain a redirect at the very least, but a discussion surrounding the merge/redirection of this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks[edit]

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

Content fork of Juniper Networks. Note: this is a featured list, but nevertheless deleteable. Sandman888 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Sandman888 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you have merged the list article into Juniper Networks recently. As explained in Wikipedia:Merge and delete wikipedia's license does not allow for merged pages to be deleted. Also, did you contact the FL nominator at any point? It would be kinda rude if you didn't. Yoenit (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~ Merge - This is still a featured list. So you should bring this to FLRC for delisting first. Also there is no consensus on directly afding featured list without first going through the delisting process.—Chris!_c/t 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After this deletion review I doubt any admin would procedurally close this. Feel free to start an RfC that featured content should be defeatured before AfD, but until consensus says otherwise I'm not inclined to do it your way. Sandman888 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One DRV does not fully reflect the actual consensus that featured lists should be delisted before AfD IMO. So unless there is a RFC decision on this issue, I have no choice but to stand by my vote. Sorry.—Chris!_c/t 02:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just been informed that there was a precedent in which a FL was deleted without first going through FLRC. However, this afd is still pointless since the result is obviously going to be merge, which can actually be dealt with via the talk page.—Chris!_c/t 04:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has merged this content to another article, so clearly doesn't want it to be deleted. This needs to remain at least as a redirect for attribution purposes. The article talk page, not AfD, is the venue for discussing merging and redirection. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a good faith bad faith nomination. Whaaa? That's right: the only reason I can see that this well-sourced article could be called a "content fork" is that the nominator appears to have merged the WP:SS list into the main article. As such, the editing solution is to simply undo such a merge, and a nominator who has himself created the only listed deletion rationale is inherently acting in "bad faith" even if he honestly believes he is acting to improve the encyclopedia: one cannot both create such a situation and then complain about it, as the nominator has unclean hands. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's obvious that this page will not be deleted outright; at the very least it will be turned into a redirect. Why do we need an AfD when a merge discussion on the talk page will work just as well? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2010 (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.