Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock exchange trading hours

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 to List of stock exchanges. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of stock exchange trading hours[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All information is on List of stock exchanges already, no need for duplicate information. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial listcruft. Shankargb (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This content was explicitly merged following discussion here and here. Per WP:MAD, our standard policy is that "The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." This nomination is a drive-by which has failed to do due-diligence per WP:BEFORE and so should be speedily dismissed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, So then, why can't it be redirect? Having the same content twice is just stupid. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Additionally, at no point in WP:MAD do I see "The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 18:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That text comes from the talk page where another similar merge is documented. WP:MAD provides a detailed explanation of the policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson, "So then, why can't it be redirect? Having the same content twice is just stupid." Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - There have been numerous page titles, merges and discussions for our coverage of stock exchanges. What we don't need is yet another page to discuss the matter. It's this page here which is redundant. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect A merge has already been supported and carried out; any additional information should be merged though I don't see why this needs to be compiled anyway. Speedy keep is wholly inappropriate because the content is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE and it already been determined that this should not be kept as a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As I am the nominator, I would like to agree with Reywas92 above, this is a unnecessary duplicate. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 00:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Reywas92. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 7 January 2021 (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.