Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seiko 5

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 Seiko#Seiko 5. Any interested editor is welcome to browse the page history for useful material to draft a new article or to add/merge to the main Seiko article. –Darkwind (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seiko 5

[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)

Delete and redirect to the Seiko 5 section of the Seiko article: Seiko#Seiko_5. This article was a redirect a stub was created in its place recently. The Seiko 5 is covered in that section of the main Seiko article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I made the page originally for that specific intention. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, AfD is not a place to make redirect requests, in the future just rollback those edits and leave a message on their talk page. Saves a lot of time.. I don't really think community input is needed on a stub like this. See WP:ATD-R. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on If there is independent coverage of this topic, why should it not have its own article? I understand there is a section of the Seiko article which covers the subject, but that section of the article has no references and this particular watch has been discussed in a number of published independent reliable sources. Doesn't this qualify it as warranting a standalone article? Even a stub one? A loose necktie (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There probably could be a decent article, need to add a lot more information to the article know, at the moment it doesn't pass WP:GNG and simply having a stub article doesn't really help anyone. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're 100% correct. However what you initially added to that page doesn't even come close to even a stub, hence the reason it should have just been reverted back to a redirect. This is exactly why calling it to AfD is the wrong choice. Find enough 3rd party sources on the watch and I'll switch my vote to keep - but just understand in the future that instead of adding a single line and walking away you should prepare the new page in a draft then apply it once finished. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Seiko 5 section of the Seiko article: Seiko#Seiko_5, consolidating any duplicated material.Djflem (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (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.