Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24

February 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2012

Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep long standing page, plenty of hits.--Salix (talk): 11:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) → Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another artifact of a pagemove. Content was at this site for almost 3 years prior to the move. Link rot is bad and redirects are cheap. The redirect is neither confusing nor harmful to readers. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rossami and the lack of valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:48, 25 February 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.

Occupy article redirects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was wrong forum. This discussion should happen on one of the talk pages instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This discussion has been moved here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard).
The following articles were unilaterally redirected to

WP:NOTNEWS

.

Furthermore, when the redirects were done, absolutely no information was merged, which significantly goes against the grain of

WP:PRESERVE

.

Occupy Salem

The AfD discussion for Occupy Salem had a strong consensus to Keep, and resulted in keep.

Occupy Texas State

The article is well-developed and documents an historical event. Furthermore, the article was redirected to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article without merging any of the information.

See: Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States, for discussion that has occurred regarding these matters.

Occupy Ashland

The same initially occurred for this article, but it now exists and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (3rd nomination).

Comments moved from

WP:AN and User talk:Northamerica1000

'For reference purposes, I have received the following message from the above-mentioned user on my talk page about this matter:

"Occupy Protests should be merged

Please accept that your undoing of the merging of the three lilliputian-sized Occupy protest has itself been undone, and that will continue to be merged for the following reasons:

) The articles have to go per
WP:PRESERVE

) Just because something was AfDed, regardless of the result, it can still be merged. Especially if the AfD is months old. And especially if there was no consensus or it didn't run seven days

) The merge discussion is over. It went a week, no one commented, and they were merged. End. of. discussion. You're too slow, Joe

In short, quit trolling around your militant keepism
89
≈≈≈≈ 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)"

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you object on policy grounds to the very idea of nothing being merged; if the user think that nothing deserves to be included on the target page, it's reasonable to redirect without merging. I understand, of course, that you disagree with that idea; it's simply that a pure redirect isn't by itself a problem. Moreover, this really would do better at

WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:PRESERVE – ..."Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary."... I disagree that the redirection of these articles, without any of the information being merged, improves Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, notice the "As long as" — it's an editorial judgement whether or not the material is appropriate to retain. Not having checked any of the articles in question, I cannot have an opinion on retaining that material, but either your words weren't clear or you objected to the very idea of redirecting without merging.

talk • contribs) [reply

]

Note: added request for comment. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See also: Talk:Occupy Salem#Re: Merge, in which another user opposed the redirection/merging of Occupy Salem to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North...slow down and back away please so others can actually comment. I have tried three times and keep getting an edit conflict. At this point I kinda give up, but if this makes it....how is the other editors actions not gaming the system? Why would a merge discussion be used as the basis for deletion when it is more than possible people thought that would be the outcome and not a deletion of content. I apologize if i am mistaken.--

talk) 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

To clarify, redirection without merging any of the content, which has occurred, is similar to deletion, because the information is not readily available to Wikipedia's readers. Best, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought as well. I would support the recreation of the content to the redirected location if at all possible. If not I support the reversal of the editors action until consensus can be formed.--

talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

But North...there are many editors that feel that the large amount of small OWS articles will never be expanded and I know we have discussed the merge before. While this may not be the ideal manner in which to do things...if it gains consensus of others it may be something you have to live with. At this point...I am not sure this is the best place for this, but again I may be wrong there as well.--

talk) 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirection, regardless of whether or not content is merged, operates by a different set of rules than deletion does, and an article can still be merged or redirected no matter which way an AfD goes. Those are the rules. And the AfD was months ago, when the Occupy protests were still going on, and it appears that consensus has changed and some of the arguments put forth for keep are not really applicable anymore. I do not, for the life of me, understand why this user RFCed this, or even ANed...it's just going to waste a lot more community time and we'll end up with the same result, which is redirection. I also don't understand why the editor has fractured the comment onto several different Article talk and Wikipedia space pages; or even why he didn't respond in the week allotted before the merger was carried out. There's no need for any admin action here, so I request that this be moved to a different place or speedily closed

89≈≈≈≈ 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, this is the centralized discussion area. Comments in other areas, such as those regarding merges in article talk pages, isn't "fracturing" the discussion occurring here. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central area was

89≈≈≈≈ 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong redirect Salem and Texas State (discuss Ashland at the AfD): Both fail
89≈≈≈≈ 02:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I didn't realize there was a minimum size requirement for consensus.--
talk) 02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose the deletion of content in this manner - request restoration to the actual redirect until the community can decide whether to keep or exclude.--
talk) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

This isn't "deletion" per se...and I'm not entirely sure what you're saying

89≈≈≈≈ 02:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Redirection without merging any of the content is similar to deletion, because the information is not readily available to Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I undid the two merges before I knew this discussion existed. Occupy Salem had a Keep consensus AfD and both of the alleged merge "discussions" were just Purplebackpack starting a discussion and no one else responding. Sure, one can merge in this instant, but the moment someone challenges it, then you have to get a full consensus in order to remerge them. Purplebackpack did not do that, instead reverting again, which, in my opinion, constitutes an edit war. Silver seren^C 02:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a good reason why they shouldn't be merged or redirected, you've merely commented on procedure. Especially with regard to the Texas State one

89≈≈≈≈ 03:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: Neither Silver seren nor A Mad Scientist have actually addressed the premise of the reason for redirect; as such, their votes should probably not be given much weight in building a consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs)
Comment - I suggest you sign your comments with tiddles Purplebackpack89 and stop attempting to state who can and should be a part of consensus. Since you you feel you have the right to dictate who can and shouldn't be a part of consensus I see this as a bad faith attempt to side step community consensus. Shame on you.--
talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

You do realize that wikipedia ain't a democracy, right? If you have poor or no reasoning in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable for a closing admin to discount your vote. You have no reasoning; you leave the rationale for merging unchallenged. Therefore, your opinion shouldn't carry as much weight as someone (like me) who offers a detailed, policy-based analysis

89≈≈≈≈ 01:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose merge I oppose the merge of these three articles because they all have a significant amount of coverage over a long time period from a number of news sources. Silver seren^C 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge Ongoing multible coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as wrong forum. All three articles have been restored (one with its own AfD), and RfD doesn't normally consider full article ↔ redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 25 February 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.