Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content rating

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nyuszika7h (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content rating

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

Contains of only a dictionary definition and a list of links. This should be at most a redirect to Motion picture rating system.

The Finnish Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page, and the German Wikipedia article corresponds to Motion picture rating system, for which no German language link exists. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Geraldo Perez's comment makes sense to me and I guess it shouldn't be deleted after all, it can probably be improved. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Could be speedy A3 as meets criteria of WP:A3 "consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title" Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Once this is deleted, motion picture rating system (Q14775294) should probably be merged with content rating (Q5165090). The latter seems more appropriate as it's more generic. The former mentions exclusively films in its description, but many articles, including the huwiki one, also talk about things like TV series and radio programmes. Though I don't know what's the best thing to do there, really. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this article is trying to serve the purpose of a disambiguation page WP:DAB and looks like an attempt at a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. That would require some well-referenced content before the "See also" section that is more than just a dictionary definition. I don't think merger would be appropriate unless all the See also articles were merged into this general concept. It may be possible to keep this article if the body were fleshed out more with well-referenced content from the other articles that cover the concept in general. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed my mind, this is a useful-to-the-project broad concept article that just needs more text in the body to describe the concept in more detail. While it strictly could be speedy deleted per WP:A3, I don't think that it benefits the project to do so. I also don't see a benefit for merging others into this article although some general info can and probably should be extracted from those other related articles to more fully explain this general concept. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed when going over the edit history that the article originally had significantly more content. Most of it was removed as people thought it poorly written and unreferenced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 30 January 2016 (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.