Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divorcee


 * 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 Divorce. The article was redirected by the nominator two days before this closure as consensus looked clear. Though, it was not a WP:SNOW case (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Divorcee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Dictdef. The small amount of content should be moved to Divorce (or maybe to a new article, such as Cultural attitudes towards divorce or some such). &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and turn into a redir Redirect to divorce, where all the relevant content is already included. Cirt is right - no need to delete the history. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Duplicate article.Everything is already covered in Divorce. So there is NO reason to allow this to remain. -- Bharathiya (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to divorce, no reason for a separate article. Ducknish (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to divorce, redirects are cheap, no need to delete history which could be useful for future researchers. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Divorce for the usual reasons (this is a plausible search term, it needs to point at something to avoid the creation of a duplicate article and to facilitate accidental linking, etc). James500 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. It's not likely even to be more than a definition, and redirects are certainly inexpensive. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, consensus is pretty clear, so I went ahead and made it a redirect. I know there's a way for non-admins to close these, but I'm not sure what it is. Can somebody close it?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, we try to give it at least the full week before closing it, as the close is semi-precedential. If we close it as redirect, and someone then comes and undoes it, they would be in the wrong, which is different from if it had just been redirected without an AfD close. While it looks very likely that a Redirect consensus is going to be the result at the end of the 7 days, I don't know that it rises to the level of a WP:SNOW close, which is the standard that would need to be met. Monty  845  04:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see Chowbok's action as a closure, but as an edit. Anyone can still go to the article's history and see the previous version, and anyone can revert it to a full article rather than a redirect without triggering a CSD:G4. Discussion can continue here until the seven days are up, at which point--in all likelihood--it will be closed the same way, but this time, as you correctly pointed out, with the semi-precedential authority of an actual AfD closure, by someone not involved with the discussion itself. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:46, 20 September 2012 (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.