Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incorrect


 * 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 Correctness. Or elsewhere, that can be decided editorially, but consensus is that this does not need a disambiguation page.  Sandstein  07:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not an encyclopedic topic, better suited to a wiktionary page. None of the current links in the page ( a disambiguation page ) appear to require disambiguation from this page. Suggest soft redirect to wiktionary page as was done as a result of Articles for deletion/Able-bodied. Oranjblud (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - It's a disambiguation page, and it technically fails that criteria, but it's much better as a disambiguation than it would be as some sort of exposition about the word better suited for wiktionary. If someone adds more reasonable entries to make it a valid disambiguation page, I'd be willing to keep. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:PTM, none of these entries is suitable for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 04:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Correctness dab page (to which "Correct" redirects), noting that "Politically incorrect", the only plausible-looking entry in the dab page, already redirects to Political correctness. Add "incorrect" wiktionary link, and perhaps "correctness" and "incorrectness", in place of the irrelevant set of wiktionary links currently on that page!  Pam  D  20:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a redirect is the right answer. Though as a wiktionary link causes the user to stop on the page it is simple enough to add a hatnote like "see also" to "correctness" if wanted - though I think it unlikely that people are going to type "incorrect" expecting that (?).Oranjblud (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with above. Although I'm fairly sure a dab page could be made on "politically incorrect" (songs, terms, Simpsons episodes etc)--Coin945 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like the one (Politically incorrect (disambiguation)) that we've had since 2005? &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Correctness as this seems to be the best way of serving our readership. For an example of a source covering the topic, see Demonstrating Incorrectness. Warden (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "incorrectness" should redirect there but redirecting incorrect to correctness is a wp:easter egg link in my opinion.Oranjblud (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No more so than that politically incorrect redirects to political correctness. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll qualify that - "incorrectness" should probably (if it exists as an article) should also soft redirect to wiktionary - which of course should refer to the use in computer science.Oranjblud (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You said that already. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Warden (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the others. Note that redirecting one concept to an article about the precise opposite is common; see Nonflammable and Flammability for an example.  Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To wiktionary It's not at all clear to me what somebody searching for "incorrect" on WP would expect to see, but I don't think it's anything on Correctness. Nonflammable and flammability are different, because both are narrow, clearly-defined concepts, and whichever you search for you're looking for info on why some things burn and some things don't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We could always redirect it to error instead. Wiktionary has had incorrect for years longer than Wikipedia has had this.  Please don't blindly treat Wiktionary as Wikipedia's dumping ground.  Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not using wiktionary as a dumping ground - making a soft redirect to wiktionary is a way of saying "this is a topic for a dictionary" (and not an encyclopedia). There's no assumption of copying content to wiktionary.Oranjblud (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Error. Failing that, soft redirect to the existing Wiktionary entry. Failing that, redirect to Correctness. Or delete. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 6 July 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.