Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of Al-Andalus

This page is unnecessary. All content is at Al-Andalus. Neither page is likely to get much longer.

This page was previously listed here because it was mistakenly identified as 'patent nonsense'. There was consensus that it was not nonsense and that the content should be kept. I am now listing it for the totally separate reason that the content is already in the main article at Al-Andalus. I propose that it should redirect to that article. &mdash; Chameleon 11:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I vote keep only the grounds that this has recently gone through VfD and consensus was to keep. RickK 19:42, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could actually look at the issue before voting. Yes, the consensus was to keep; but the debate was only about whether the content should be deleted or not.  I'm now specifically pointing out that we can keep the content and made this orphan article a redirect. &mdash; Chameleon 20:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should reconsider your obnoxious tone. Were you involved in the previous votge?  How did you vote?  How long have you been here on Wikipedia, by the way?  RickK 04:43, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * You're the one getting a bit obnoxious here. Yes, I got involved in the previous voting, but unfortunately too late to stop the article's author getting offended about the proposal for deletion.  I, with others, argued to keep the article, and it was kept, because we were right about the content being good.  However, I then realised the content should have been in Al-Andalus, and so I incorporated it into that article.  At that point, the orphan article Al-Andalus, etymology(ies) became unnecessary, and I suggested turning it into a mere redirect.  The next time I checked the listing, the debate had been cleared off, and somebody had renamed the article to Etymology of Al-Andalus.  This was an improvement on the previous name, but did not address the problem that the page needed to go.  I put this back on the VfD page so that we could talk about it. &mdash; Chameleon 09:39, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It wasn't kept, it's been sitting at the top of Votes for deletion/Old because nobody can figure out what to do with it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise where old entries went at first. In any case, it is now a redirect. &mdash; Chameleon 12:35, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Why does this need a VfD listing? Just make it into a redirect to Al-Andalus! &mdash;Stormie 03:44, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * As I understand things, turning non-blank page into a redirect is basically deleting that page, and so I have to OK it here before going ahead with doing so. I was going to just do it myself, but then I though that people might get annoyed, so I listed it here.  As it happens, we so far have three people in favour of a redirect, and nobody arguing that there is any need for an Etymology of Al-Andalus page. &mdash; Chameleon 09:39, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No, as far as I know, making a nonempty page into a redirect doesn't require a discussion. It's pretty easy to undo &mdash; any editor can recover a previous version from the page history. Deleting a page, otoh, can't be undone by ordinary editors, so that's why there's a discussion for deletion. &mdash; FWIW I agree that a redirect is appropriate. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay then. Since that makes four people in favour of a redirect, I shall just go ahead and do it now.  If anyone disagrees, they can give arguments here or on my talk page. &mdash; Chameleon 17:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Done &mdash; Chameleon 17:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)