Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultist


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   redirect to Cult. Procedural close: the redirect itself has already been done. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultist

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

nn term Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-notable, but a cult member is a cultist, so redirect to cult. - Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a redirect to cult five times in its edit history already. Whether it should be has been discussed on its talk page.  And there's no involvement of the deletion tool, or any other administrator tools, in making it a redirect again.  A deletion nomination is not the answer, here.  Don't always reach for {{subst:afd1}} whenever you see a problem article.  It's not the only tool in the toolbox.  Oftentimes, as in this case, you have the tool yourself for fixing the problem.  Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we maybe protect the redirect to avoid the problem in the future? - Biruitorul Talk 18:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no pressing need for doing so. It's not being edited very frequently.  The article stood untouched for a year and a half at one point.  And why should we prevent an editor coming along later who can prove everyone else wrong by finding that an article can be written, from doing so?  Anyone is supposed, in general, to be able to edit here.  If there's a dispute as to whether the article should be a redirect or not, and if that causes an edit war, then we protect to prevent the edit war, and to encourage (further) talk page discussion.  But there's no reason to protect the article now, when that hasn't happened.  Indeed, such protection would stop ordinary editors from exercising the "R" part of the B-R-D cycle.  There's no reason that administrators are the only ones who should have that function.  Everyone has the edit tool, and that's the tool that is appropriate to this kind of situation.  Not an administrator one.  The administrator tool is there to prevent the edit tool from being mis-used for reverting when using it for discussion is called for. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect. The redirect has an obvious target and the current article is about a made up word. - Mgm|(talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect. (actually, I've already done it). The article which replaced the redirect is incoherent nonsense and does not really deserve such a formal discussion.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  15:38, 1 April 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.