Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merely


 * 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Merely

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A pointless page creation with a soft redirect to Wiktionary, and seemingly ineligible for CSD. It fulfils no purpose other than to divert or delay users looking for articles beginning with that word, and would never be searched for on its own. It goes against the guidelines in which states:
 * "Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * Only use it when:
 * There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
 * There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
 * There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and (my emphasis...)
 * Readers search for it on Wikipedia."
 * I do not believe users would ever search for "merely" on its own. Maybe other editors do? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not needed in Wikipedia, per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But why would anyone think we need to stop someone creating a pointless article by having a pointless page directing to Wiktionary when no-one is ever likely to such on the  word 'merely' on its own? If we follow your logic, every single word in the English language should have its own page! What fun that would  give users when the Search box offers them a single word as the first option which doesn't deliver anything useful, except to salt article creation which is unlikely ever to be an issue for tens of thousands of words. No, sorry - that logic doesn't work for me, at all, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I gladly admit I may not be understanding the spirit of the guideline. And I acknowledge salting every word in the English language could spiral wildly out of control. However, if the article was created, wouldn't solving the issue of recreation also be prudent? Operator873 CONNECT 23:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's just the spirit of the guideline you're misunderstanding. Feel free to strike your !vote if you're having second thoughts. But are you seriously suggesting that, because a wiktionary redirect which fails to meet our guidelines was created, we shouldn't delete it, but keep it here so as to simply stop it being recreated once we've deleted it? Nah, that sort of logic does my head in. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never been above addressing a mistake I've potentially made. After considering the issue and your arguments, I will strike my vote. Operator873 CONNECT 02:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never been above addressing a mistake I've potentially made. After considering the issue and your arguments, I will strike my vote. Operator873 CONNECT 02:30, 9 June 2018 (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.