Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Log/2009 April

April 2009[edit]

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (Devo song)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]