Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wp:negotiation

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --malathion ^talk 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wp:negotiation

This page just redirects to another page with the same name 63.231.15.66 21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• speedy keep as this is not RfD, and the reason given for deletion is the whole point of redirects. Brighterorange 22:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The point of redirects is to assist users who look up a topic using a slightly different name than the one used in Wikipedia. Not the same name. As it stands now, any user who enters "negotiation" and presses Go will be taken to the topic Negotiation. The article proposed for deletion is serving no purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.231.15.66 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC).

• Maybe I should explain my comment more carefully. First, the article is a redirect, which is a very common thing in wikipedia. Many pages have redirect shortcuts; for instance, this page can be reached at VfD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, WP:VfD, WP:VFD, Votes for Deletion, and perhaps more. Almost always, the redirect articles have very similar names to the target article, such as abbreviating the namespace Wikipedia to WP. But most importantly, the correct place to suggest a redirect page for deletion is RfD, not this page. Brighterorange 01:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, can you see the difference between Wp:negotiation and Wikipedia:negotiation? And a redirect page wouldn't be much use if it redirected into some completely different article, now, would it? - ulayiti (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I just reviewed the Wikipedia FAQ for "How do I delete a page". There is no mention of RfD, nor is there any suggestion that different kinds of pages should be deleted in different ways. If those directions are not accurate, then please edit them. I think both people voting to keep have missed the point of the anonymous editor. He is not saying that Redirect pages are unusual, nor is he saying that Wp:negotiation and Wikipedia:negotiation are the same page. (And he is certainly not saying that the page should redirect to a "completely different article". He wants it deleted, not changed.) He is saying that this particular redirect page serves no purpose. As he said, anyone who does a "Go" on "negotiation" is going to end up at Wikipedia:negotiation anyway. He might be wrong but neither of your "keep" voters is responding to his point or explaining where he is wrong.--Nate Ladd 05:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the anonymous commenter misunderstands. Anyone who does 'go' on negotiation will end up at the wikipedia article negotiation. This is about a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, which is for discussion about Wikipedia. "wp:" is a standard abbreviation for that and often used in redirects and shortcuts—it's as simple as that. So, to summarize: he is wrong about 'go'; this is a very standard kind of redirect shortcut, and like other redirect shortcuts it is or may be useful; and the standards for keeping redirects are very permissive. Also, I believe nominating something in the improper place is certainly grounds for a speedy unlisting. Brighterorange 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be so, but someone might link to wp:negotiation on a talk page for example, as it's quicker to type than Wikipedia:negotiation. That's why the redirect is necessary. - ulayiti (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait a minute. No one would write "wp.negotiation" in place of "Wikipedia.negotiation" unless they thought these were synonyms. If they are synonyms, then IF wp.negotiation DID NOT EXIST, wouldn't wp.negotiation take them to Wikipedia:negotiation? On the other hand, if they are not synonyms why would anyone who wanted to link to Wikipedia:negotiation write wp:negotiation just because it is shorter? --Nate Ladd 18:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, that's what redirects do. They exist exactly for the reason of linking synonyms. Wp:negotiation and Wikipedia:negotiation are synonyms, and one will take you to the other one because there's a redirect between them. If the redirect Wp:negotiation did not exist, going to that page would take you nowhere, since it wouldn't have the redirect. That's why the redirect shouldn't be deleted. - ulayiti (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
        • • I think I understand you better. You are using "redirect" to mean "page containing a redirect tag". I thought you were using it to mean "redirect tag". --Nate Ladd 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • People use shortcuts all the time. As I mentioned, VfD has several shortcuts, including wp:vfd. They aren't just used for linking, for instance, I have a browser shortcut that takes me to a wikipedia article, and (for example) wp:vfd is much shorter than Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. This redirect is totally standard in that sense. I'll take a look at the FAQ to mention RfD; it is precisely the place to discuss this kind of issue. Brighterorange 14:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I looked at the FAQ, particularly Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and it says to bring redirects to RfD (actually, it says to not worry about it because redirects are cheap). Where are you looking? Brighterorange 14:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm giving up on this, since you seem to know more about it than I do, but in answer to your question:

This is what I did. (I don't know what the anonymous user who originally wanted the page deleted did.):

I somehow found the page Wikipedia:Deletion policy [1].

I read down until I got to the Contents entry "1.2 How to list a page for deletion" and I clicked it. (It was actually this Contents I was remembering when I said "FAQ" above. I misremembered what it was called.)

This took me to [2] which says "The 3 steps to listing a page for deletion:" following the colon was a link to [3]

This opens a section called VfD footer which tells how to list a page for deletion.

Note that at no point was I clued in that the procedure might be different for pages that contain only a redirect. Nor did I see any mention of RfD.--Nate Ladd 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, above that section in the table is a listing for "useless redirects", which would have brought you to RfD. If you see a way to make that clearer for people who just skim the page (who doesn't?), please make the change.. Brighterorange 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: What exactly is the point of this VfD debate? The page is an important redirect to an important policy page, and yet some people seem willing to delete it without any reason whatsoever except that they haven't been informed of the existence of RfD. Dear person, that is no reason to delete a very useful redirect to an entirely unrelated policy page. - ulayiti (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the debate is over and the page will be kept. While it was going on, it had the same point as any other debate on whether or not a page should be deleted. No one at any time said "delete this page because I haven't been in formed of the existence of RfD". Rather, a side issue that arose in the course of the discussion was that there is a weakness in Wiki documentation of how to delete pages.
    • Yeah, but such issues should be addressed on the appropriate talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, and not on some obscure VfD debate. And anyhow, that's the way I interpreted your vote, because you gave no reason as to why the page should be deleted, and instead talked about the RfD. - ulayiti (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it's worthwhile to be educational, especially in a behind-the-scenes place like VfD, since people who wind up nominating pages for deletion are likely to become active editors. But, apologies for cluttering VfD. Brighterorange 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, nothing wrong with being educational... it's just that on a relevant talk page it would benefit loads more people than here, since they would be able to find the educational bits. :) - ulayiti (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.