Talk:Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction

Why not leave the redlink in the original article and delete the redirect instead? The article probably should be created at some point. As it stands, now this redirect doesn't go anywhere and nothing links to it. Essentially, it's sitting in its own little universe, unconnected to anything, and will probably never see any use.

I'm not going to undo your edits without discussion, but I have to confess I really don't understand.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Septegram, I am not sure what you mean by "doesn't go anywhere". The redirect does point to a section in the crime reconstruction article which talks about the Association briefly. A reader looking for information on this will find what content we have in that section. I support developing a full article if possible, but in the meantime, giving the reader a little information is better than nothing. -- 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mark!
 * You're right; I misspoke; it does lead to the article about crime reconstruction, but no one's going to come to this redirect, because the only place that linked to it is the article to which it linked (check out the "What Links here" on the left side of the redirect), and you deleted the link there. This redirect serves no purpose because nothing links to it.
 * Again, we need a redlink in the "Crime Reconstruction" article to indicate that an article about the ACSR should be written, not a redirect that no one will ever visit (except you and I, apparently LOL).
 * *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Septegram--thanks, I see your point of view now. You believe the redirect is useless because there are no incoming links to the redirect. I believe the redirect is useful because the title is a plausible search term; such a search would take the reader directly to the section. It is this use in searching, in addition to incoming links, that may make a redirect a preferred alternative to deletion (essentially point 3 of WP:RFD).
 * Beyond resolving our minor dispute, I don't feel strongly about this particular redirect. if you want to take the redirect to RfD for deletion, I won't contest it and other editors could weigh in. -- 22:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You cunning fiend! You have beaten me with your infernal logic and your understanding of How Wikipedia Works! {twirls moustache furiously}
 * Seriously, I think you have a good point. If searching for the term would not send someone to that page without this redirect in place, you're right that it should be kept. Well played, sir, well played! {grin}
 * *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)