Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Golconda diamonds

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 redirect to Golconda diamonds. Clear consensus against keeping, but split between merge and delete, the disagreement being whether there remains anything to merge. That is now for editors to figure out through the editorial process. Sandstein 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golconda diamonds

[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)

List of Golconda diamonds has become an unsourced WP:CONTENTFORK of Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds and List of diamonds. Originally a simple bulleted and unsourced list on 22 September 2021 in the Golconda diamonds article, it was modified that day into a table in the same format as List of diamonds was on that day. Then on 10 November 2021, images were added to the table. Finally, on 2 August 2022, the list was removed from Golconda diamonds and used to create the new article List of Golconda diamonds, which is basically an unsourced subset of the current List of diamonds. Since then, the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds has regrown again (by the same editor who split out the content to create List of Golconda diamonds) to include the entire list again, and has acquired a collection of citations which weren't there before and which weren't also added to List of Golconda diamonds). Also, this list article is basically an orphan, so it's an unused content fork. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Golconda diamonds. Seems appropriate that the main article may list notable examples but a separate page seems unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: A merge is unnecessary since the content is/was already in both articles. And someone just made that more obvious by formatting the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds back to a bulleted list (from prose format). Grorp (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Golconda diamonds per above. Dinglepincter (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the prospect of a Merge is being contested by the nominator as unnecessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. There is nothing to merge as has already been pointed out, and we don't need to keep the editing history of unsourced content forks. That only encourages recreation. SpinningSpark 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz: There is nothing to merge, as another editor has also pointed out. The fork is a pure fork. There is nothing in the fork that isn't already in the main article, therefore nothing to be merged. Are you considering "votes" instead of "reasoning arguments"? Or for me to concede in lieu of getting more votes? Notice that no one has said "Keep". Okay, then I concede to "merge and delete", and please note that the 'merge' has already been done. Grorp (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grorp, it's just my preferences as an AFD closer but I like to see a potential closure decision recommended by more than one editor. I think this discussion will be closed soon given your statement tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but as far as I can see this list contains details that are not present in the main article, and might well be integrated again without swelling the size too much - that is, weight and color. So that's a merge, not a plain redirect. Agree that the standalone list is not needed, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (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.