Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milankovich's theory revisited

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK1 and per the discussion below - OP intends to merge, discussion concurs on way to merge, so closing to allow for merge. Will make the pre-merge move post-close here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milankovich's theory revisited[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)

This is a partial WP:POVFORK of Milankovitch cycles; basically a commentary based on two additional papers not used in the main article. The relevant text could usefully be merged into Milankovitch cycles (in shortened form). Rather than just merging and redirecting, I'm putting this up here because that would result in an unsuitable redirect - "Milankovich's theory revisited" is not a sensible search term (apart from the misspelling of "Milankovitch"...). So I propose to do merge & delete redirect in one wash here. (ADD: see below - if loss of attribution is an issue, my suggestion is draftifying then R from draftspace) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ as the proposed action produces WP:COPYVIO. Merging must retain a redirect from where the merged content came from for attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: alright, sooo - what do you suggest instead? Merge then keep the weird redirect in perpetuity? By that reasoning, I gather no redirect from a merge could ever be deleted, even if it's named My opinion on Miklothingummy's theory... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add: based on the Salomonic solution I was presented with a while back in a similar situation [1] - draftify then keep a {{R with history}} redirect from draft space? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, certainly. Alternatively, just keeping the redirect for attribution at its current location isn't necessarily wrong; redirects are (as it is said) cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note my !vote stands as the proposed action can be done boldly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move to Milankovich's theory, a plausible redirect, then merge to Milankovitch cycles and delete Milankovich's theory revisited while preserving the history at Milankovich's theory? --Pontificalibus 10:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would move w/o leaving a redirect, then merging from the new name? Sounds sensible to me... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, absolutely. @Elmidae: if you intend to do this I'll strike my !vote above and procedurally close this so you can do that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: yes, please do. I'd like input from editors at Milankovitch cycles, but I'll turn it into a merge discussion there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 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.