Talk:Foundations of the Spanish kingdoms

Article not needed

We already have an exceptional article about Spain. The Spain article covers the history of Spain, and in perticular:

Prehistory and pre-Roman peoples
Roman Empire and the Germanic Kingdoms
Muslim Iberia
Fall of Muslim rule and unification
Imperial Spain
Napoleonic rule and its consequences
Spanish-American War
20th century
21st century

This article is not needed. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the History of Spain article. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised the author of this. andy (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A new user, Foneio, created an article called Foundations of the Spanish kingdoms. All of the information is contained in the History of Spain article, and to a much higher editorial standard. Andyjsmith blanked the page and make a redirect to the History of Spain article. Orangemike then changed the redirect to a specific section of the History of Spain article. Andyjsmith left a note on Foneio's talk page explaining why the article had been blanked and redirected. Foneio has not replied to this message and reinstated all of the blanked content. I have blanked it again and reinstated the redirect. It's dawned on me that I ought to seek a wider consensus. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment by Dr Dec. Copied here per instructions on that page. AJ Cham 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I agree. This article appears to have been posted at this title because the contributor wanted to write in his/her own words rather than add to the article that was already there. But this is an unhelpful title for an article, and there is no substantial information that could not have been integrated into the existing relevant articles. Deb (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, who is an SPA, has fallen silent. Redirects cost nothing and the title is not misleading, so why bother? andy (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with what? The question is whether the consensus supports blanking the article and replacing it with a redirect if, and when, the redirect is replaced with the duplicate material. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect as per Orangemike. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]