Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond

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 WP:SNOW redirect and WP:HISTMERGE. Full listing period has passed. (non-admin closure)--xanchester (t) 02:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merge Not done Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond to Starlite (game) (asked for by {{db-histmerge}}) WP:Parallel histories Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicated Article with more elaboration found in Starlite. --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect -- Previous name to the game, plausible search term. Should have WP:BOLDly redirected in the first place instead of taking to AfD. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping options open for now. Its former name is indeed Astronaut: Moon, Mars and Beyond but we will decide this base on consensus since I have already started the AfD process.--Bumblezellio (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Starlite article is actually a separate article made years after this one was. Would there be anything that needs to be merged since in most cases when a game changes its name the existing article is renamed opposed to a second article being created under the new name?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per Teancum. Probably mention the old name briefly in the lead and Development section. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Redirect - seems obvious. Better to not waste time and close this now, I think. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and WP:HISTMERGE. Seems like a bad copy-paste move. Deletion shouldn't be done due to attribution. The target article is the correct newer name. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to what Hellknowz said. -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. Clearly a copy/paste move at some point. The original name presents a useful redirect and it is already used in a number of articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2012 (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.