Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:PROMINENCE

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Close/Wrong Forum Redirects belong to

redirect created by ScienceApologist to support his arguments at Talk:Rue and Talk:Deadly nightshade. This is an underhanded means to reinforce one's viewpoint. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This also goes for

^discuss 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep redirects are cheap. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. But creating pages to reinforce your own opinion violates the spirit of
    WP:NPOV. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reply Redirects do not reinforce opinions. They redirect people from one place to another. If you find an example of someone using the existince of a redirectto enforce their POV, please point me at this, as it would be disconcerning behavior. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • People create essays and proposed guidelines all the time to support their arguments. This redirect didn't change the content on
        WP:NPOV, did it? — Scientizzle 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep. What harm does it do?
  talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move: to UNDUE WEIGHT - which is a slightly different concept. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't even think this is the right fourm--
  a dislike for the content. — Scientizzle 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep No reason to remove redirect, it's a link to policy and the name makes sense --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since no reason has been put forth why PROMINENCE should redirect to
  WP:UNDUE? Dlabtot (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • To quote from the relevant section:

    Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

    If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

    (my bolding). I see two instances wherein this can refer to (ahem) prominent points of the WP:UNDUE section... — Scientizzle 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the word appears in the section. That doesn't mean it should have ahem undue weight applied to it by making a redirect. Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly good redirect to consensus policy; and, yes, in extreme cases, mentioning a POV at all can be Undue Weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps it will
  morphic resonance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Why the capitals--this is really just a way to get a nice rhetorical link to use , which is not a neutral way of doing things. We have rules of abbreviated links, and this does not meet them. One could just as well make redirects from every word in that sentence, from detail, from quantity, from placement, from uxtaposition. DGG (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no POV to discuss, it makes sense, and it redirects to policy. BTW, the use of policy "to reinforce one's viewpoint" is the most legitimate form of argument one can make here. Whether one agrees with SA's arguments, referring to policy was proper. --
  talk 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I think a bit more good faith toward ScienceApologist would make this a non-issue. ScienceApologist certainly can and should help others understand his interpretation of policy. If he does so with a redirect to emphasize it, I don't think there's any harm. That said, this is absolutely no reason to delete this useful redirect, nor do I see any other legitimate reasons for deletion listed here. --
  talk) 03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]