Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elk (mammal)


 * 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 Elk (disambiguation). Redirects are cheap. Very cheap. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Elk (mammal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Completely redundant to Elk (disambiguation). Not a likely search term, orphaned as well. Essentially a disambiguation content fork. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment: This was originally tagged for AFD by Beeblebrox, then was tagged for CSD G6 by Ten Pound Hammer. It was deleted by Malik Shabazz on the G6 grounds; that G6 was reversed and the article was restored a few hours later by Bkonrad.  In the interim, this AFD was closed as moot (due to the G6 deletion) by Ten Pound Hammer.  I've gone ahead and reverted his close; we're not so far into the AFD period as to require an entirely new one, I don't think. Non-admin action, and without any judgment on the merits of this deletion request, or any of the other steps listed above.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete...same rationale as Beeblebrox...we already have a disambiguation page, this is just more confusion at this point...wiki search for "Elk" goes to "Elk"...at the top of that arrticle is a link to the disambiguation page...lastly, not likely anyone is going to search here for "Elk (mammal)"...MONGO 13:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is relevant discussion at Talk:Elk (mammal), which along with the edit history, is why I did not think the speedy delete was appropriate. This should be redirected, not deleted, as an incomplete disambiguation. It is not an unreasonable search term or link. older ≠ wiser 13:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that a user looking for information on the animals known as elk would type it in with (mammal) appended to it rather than just searching the word itself? It really is not a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Readers with passing awareness of WP naming conventions might easily try that. Besides, redirects are cheap, especially where the page has existed for some time and there is an edit history and relevant discussion on the talk page. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the history and he discussion as a rationale to overturn the speedy deletion, bit those are not valid arguments to retain the page in the long term. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the plausibility of this as a search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:R. Deletion is not always the best solution. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the disambig page would seem to make the most sense to me in this case.-- Stv Fett erly  (Edits)  15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does that make the most sense, or any sense at all? The reason Elk goes straight to the article and and not the dab page is because it is obviously the primary meaning. I find it highly unlikely that anyone looking for information on the either of two animals known as an elk is going to type in "Elk (mammal)." It's not a likely search term, as I mentioned in my nom, or I would have suggested redirection on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to make the most sense to me because the disambig page contains ALL information on this page plus more. The user can select the Elk page that they really wanted from there, sidestepping the whole issue with naming that people seem concerned about.-- Stv  Fett erly  (Edits)  12:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not linked from mainspace. It seems to be the result of a dispute over the title of the article Elk. It is not a likely search term, in my opinion. It adds nothing of substance to Elk (disambiguation) and Wapiti (disambiguation). The policy on disambiguation encourages "[c]ombining terms on disambiguation pages" (WP:DPAGES). None of the exceptions listed seem to apply here. The talk page may be merged to Talk:Elk except that of User:Bkonrad which applies only to this page. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, how the hell is this not housekeeping? It's completely overlapped by another page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but because there are two animals that speakers of different dialects of English refer to as an elk, there has been a lot of controversy about what to call the various articles, and somebody apparently created this in a misguided attempt to clarify the issues after moving the actual article away from this title. Now that it's up for deletion it seems the same dispute is spilling over onto this discussion, which is not actually about UK-vs-US meanings of the word elk but rather about common sense and WP policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect. This is a reasonably plausible search term.  I often search with disambiguators and so some others.  Not needed as a content fork but no worse (and possibly better at the margin) as a redirect than a redlink.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Elk (disambiguation): no need for two dab pages, but no harm in leaving this in as a redirect. Pam  D  16:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect due to the traffic levels of 2-ish hits a day, which don't have to be internal links. Josh Parris 22:17, 16 April 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.