Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Log/2009 April

April 2009

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Devo song)

To be merged

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Devo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Satisfaction (Residents cover) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Target

Reason

Same song, split off the main article. Seems to be a campaign by one editor, who (annoyingly) deletes all mention of the Devo version from the main article.[1] [2] [3] [4] Some discussion on Talk:(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction#Devo_cover. Devo version article is less than 3k.

For those unfamiliar with how songs performed by multiple artists are handled on Wikipedia, there's WP:SONG, and Baby, Please Don't Go for references. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Satisfaction (Residents cover), same reasons as above, minus the edit war—song stub best included on main article for that song. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob.com

To be merged

Target

Reason

There is not sufficient information in the article to support a separate entry and none of it can be reliably referenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Website is newly created, and it can stay as a sub section of the Spongebob article until secondary sources demonstrate it is indeed notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Not notable enough for a spinout. Them From Space 07:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Agree with above. Website it merely one of dozens of sub websites on Nick.com. The Flash ^{talk} 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerokan

To be merged

Target

Reason

Just a local name for the same practise. Make kerokan into a redirect. --Algernon Moncrieff (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The target article already mentions this local name, and this content could easily be merged into the lede of Gua Sha. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-stick pan

To be merged

Target

Reason

There seems to be considerable overlap between the two subjects. Is it necessary to create an article for every kitchen utensil in the universe? --DFS454 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Covering the use on pans in the teflon article would cause considerably less duplication than covering teflon in the article about the pans. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually more to say on non-stick pans that is not related to Teflon. In particular, I can find sources that discuss their uses as cooking utensils, and when it is best not to use them. There's a case to be made that content based upon such sources, which is about choosing what cooking utensil to use for a given task and why, doesn't really belong in an article on Teflon, and really does belong in a separate article about that cooking utensil. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally thinking merge, especially after removing the copy-paste bits from other sites, which just left a somewhat dubious history of Teflon. After looking at Uncle G's changes though and finding some RS describing possible health risks specific to cooking pans, I'd now agree that non-stick pans are a viable topic by themself. The article certainly needs a bit of work, but it's a specific search term that someone may be coming here to learn about. So bold up whichever of decline, oppose, keep&improve is correct here. :) Franamax (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Misleading. Other non-stick brands such as this one market their non-PTFE (thus non-Teflon) materials. Comment: page should be renamed to Non-stick cookware to be more general. – Shootbamboo (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]