Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquer the World

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 Delete & redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Given the incredibly common usage of the phrase "Conquer the World", finding references to this apparently non-notable game is difficult. However, my good faith effort to do so did not give any suggestion that there was any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Bongomatic 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See nothing Notable about a compilation of other also not very notable games. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to World domination Merge to List of MicroProse games (per Marasmusine below and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging). No need to delete, if we assume this expression ("Conquer the World") to be equivalent to "World domination". This is what Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says: "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand." --Waldir ^talk 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really follow the logic. While the phrases may be close to synonymous, the sense of the title of the nominated article is not the plain meaning, but a specific product. Bongomatic 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, we don't need to really delete the article; by blanking the page and redirecting it, we'd still be asserting the current content's lack of notability, but we'll also be allowing it to remain in the history, so that in the future it may be easier for another editor to recreate it in case it happens to become notable (or use the content as a section of another article, whatever). This has happened to me several times before, when people had written very unworthy stubs that got deleted, and when I wanted to recreate the article I wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving out any of the original info (which my research could have missed), and thus had to ask for an administrator to check the deleted version. That was an unnecessary step of bureaucracy that we can avoid here, and is recommended by the deletion policy: "There are often alternatives to deletion" is such an important concept that it makes it to the nutshell version of the policy. --Waldir ^talk 10:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This Google search turns up better results. That said, it's the kind of thing you'd more likely find in a printed magazine than on the Web. SharkD (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of MicroProse games - it seems unlikely that a compilation pack will have received coverage, but it's worth including in a list. I see it's already there, so have expanded the text accordingly. Marasmusine (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2009 (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.