The Sims expansion packs: This article now has no purpose other than as a list that would hypothetically be better assimilated as a WP:MERGE with the primary page The Sims .  This change has been signalled on the talk page for a while without objection.  The article now offers little information on its own that couldn't be found on a page for the game or the individual expansions, and is therefore appropriate for deletion.  Nonetheless putting this page to an AfD for visibility and proper discussion given that it is a major article change.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 02:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 02:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per TarkusAB.  Congrats on fleshing out each entry enough to render the page moot.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think it's inherently bad to redirect, but I don't think it'd be a common thing for someone to type to find expansion packs.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 06:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "The Sims expansion packs" seems like a believable search term for... the expansion packs of The Sims.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Google search, maybe, but redirects don't come up often at all on Google (I don't even know if they list?).  I suspect that anyone going to The Sims expansion packs on Wikipedia do so by an external link, an internal link, or because they searched for a name that redirects to it, I can't imagine that someone is searching for "The Sims expansion packs" on Wikipedia.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Thank you for your effort!  You’ve done an excellent job.  Theknine2 ( talk ) 08:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note .  Wouldn't an overview article of the expansion packs be an idea?  I haven't looked, but my bet is there are some reliable sources that list and discuss the expansion packs of The Sims .  Then you've got a developmental and release history article.  If we'd treat this as a proper series, we wouldn't delete an article on a series when there are articles about the individual games.  Just a thought.  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Appreciate the thought and would ordinarily be all for it!  This would be an excellent idea, if there were sources out there that discuss the expansions at length, which I've surprisingly not found to be the case.  As you can see in the individual articles, the development information is surprisingly scant on these.  Best I've found when treating the expansions as a whole is a few listicles ranking the expansions and an odd review or two of the Full House collection, but nothing that really deals with development at length.  The gist is, they pumped a few out, expanded the team and contracted New Pencil to do part of them around the time of Hot Date, and repackaged a few of them.  This could easily be dealt with as a section in the primary article.  But if there's stuff out there... ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 10:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, keep and improve or redirect for now: What is the issue with having a list of Sims expansions when we now have 7 separate articles about them?  I turning this article into a "List of Sims expansion packs" and removing the game infobox.  IgelRM ( talk ) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs per those above.  Redirects are cheap, and this one matches a properly named section title.  BD2412 T 02:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect / Merge .  The article could be merged or redirected to The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs , but with a few changes.  The articles uses Amazon as one of its sources, which goes against WP:RSPAMAZON .  Otherwise, a redirect or a merge would be apt, as I see no reason the article could go against WP:MERGE or WP:R .  MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 04:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair to this article, I did a WP:BOLD merge to all the content and citations to individual expansion pack pages, leaving only the headline paragraphs for each, so that's why the remaining sources look a bit rubbish.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 07:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bold merge and then AFD nomination would seem to impede the discussion process.  Like why not just bold redirect if you are already bold moving content.  IgelRM ( talk ) 14:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  I agree this was not ideal and the better approach would have been to draft article pages and seek a more direct discussion than a passive talk page notification of intending to merge.  I think there is still merit in this discussion as some have shared views that the page could still serve a purpose, but the cart probably shouldn't have been parked before the proverbial horse.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect