Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flook (application)/old history

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 Move to Talk:Flook (application)/parallel version. This can neither be history-merged, as it is a parallel version, nor deleted, as it is needed to preserve attribution for Flook (application). Per WP:MAD and WP:IAR, I'm closing this discussion and moving the page to the talk namespace. This debate shouldn't really have been at AFD in the first place, so there's no need to drag this out longer than necessary. We can delete the redirect resulting from the page move in a couple of days under CSD R2. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Flook (application)/old history

Flook (application)/old history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

I believe Flook (application)/old history is unnecessary, and should not be used to retain history, but that it should be merged properly or otherwise taken care of using a better method. At this point, the practice of creating pages such as the one I am nominating for deletion is not customary and should generally be avoided. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 22:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD moved and wikilinks fixed by Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• This should either go to WP:Rfd or maybe be speedily deleted as a G6(?). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• History merge to Flook (application). Archives of old history should not be kept in separate pages. JIP | Talk 06:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not old history. It's a parallel history. There were two parallel duplicate articles, one at Flook (Application) and one at Flook (application), and one has been redirected to the other after a content merger. Then someone else realized that the merger had been done in the wrong direction and attempted to swap the names to get the capitalization of the disambiguator right, but didn't quite manage it, leaving this redirect here instead of at Flook (Application). Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In that case, a history merge is out of the question. Doing a history merge would make the changes to the article switch between two different versions of the article. The options I propose are either to keep this article as a redirect to Flook (application), or delete it. JIP | Talk 19:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Since it's useless. —Hahc21 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If material from it was used in a merge to Flook (application), then we can't delete it, as we need the page history to preserve attribution for that article. However, it is a bit strange keeping it hanging around in article space. Per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, how about moving it to Talk:Flook (application)/parallel version or something similar? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Specs112 t c 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Apology for relisting this, I'm kind of new to AFD processes, and didn't know the guidelines for relisting. Also, delete. Specs112 t c 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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.