Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NORD (disambiguation)


 * 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 Nord. (and I fixed the one link still pointing to this) Black Kite 20:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

NORD (disambiguation)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

For whatever bizarre reason the prod i put on this uneeded disambiguation page with only one entry was contested. neon white talk 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  - You seem to have removed all the other things listed on the disambiguation page before bringing it here, making it look like the page only had one entry. Even if you think the page is unneeded because all but one entry shouldn't have been present, deleting the other entries before listing on AFD seems inappropriate.  Also, this seems to mainly be a disagreement between you and another user over whether a page with "(disambiguation)" in the title can be a redirect.  Though I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on that, it would have made more sense to me to let that user's edit stand and then bring the page to Redirects for discussion.  The page Nord to which he was trying to redirect is currently a much more complete disambiguation page for this term, so it makes more sense to redirect to that than to keep the page as a redundant disambiguation page.  However, I don't think "NORD (disambiguation)" is a likely search term, so I agree that the page should be deleted.  I just disagree with how you went about doing this. Calathan (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect to Nord for GFDL history per Uncle G. Maybe the new redirect at NORD (where this page used to be) could be deleted and this could be moved back to there instead though, still as a redirect to Nord? Calathan (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history, I find that the "bizarre reason" was, in actual fact, clearly stated several times: "this was MERGED to Nord" history requires keep". The editor without an account was quite right.  Since content was, indeed, merged, the GFDL requires that it's authorship be retained in the edit history.  The truly bizzare thing is quite why you are so desperate that this article be deleted, to the extent that you will even edit war over Proposed Deletion tags.  Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox, and one should not become so obsessed with deletion nominations that one forgets everything else.  Redirects are cheap.  And editors without accounts are not vandals acting in bad faith for "bizarre reasons". Uncle G (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The page was not merged at any point with the article NORD, it was moved to its current name allow the creation of the NORD article which is completely different to a merge. The other entries were all either red links or unrelated terms if you want to restore them do so. Redirecting a term with is not searchable and keeping a pointless page is uttlerly illogical. Either disambiguation is needed or it isn't and if it isn't then no page is needed. It's really a simple black and white issue. To be honest i take offense to your tone here and think you should improve it. I only reverted the redirect once when it was unclear why it had been redirected because, as i pointed out, the pages were not in fact merged. Obsessing over trying to keep a page with no purpose as a redirect is 'bizarre' regardless of what reasons were eventually given. --neon white talk 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The page was merged with Nord (not NORD), as Uncle G pointed out. If you look at the links Ungle G provided, you will see that the user who changed NORD (disambiguation) to a redirect did in fact merge the content from that article into Nord.  Under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which Wikipedia uses, when two documents are merged, the history of both documents must be retained.  We therefore are not allowed to just delete the page, which would also delete the history.  It doesn't matter than no one is going to search for "NORD (disambiguation)".  The license Wikipedia used means we must keep the history somewhere.  As I suggested above though, it might be possible if you really don't want a page at NORD (disambiguation), to delete the redirect currently at NORD (in all caps), move NORD (disambiguation) to NORD, and then make the page into a redirect to Nord (not in all caps).  I don't think that is actually worth the effort, but it would probably solve your complaint of having NORD (disambiguation) exist as a redirect. Calathan (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not merged with nord but NORD when i proposed deletion and was unaware of the nord page. A merged with nord is correct but to keep this article as a redirect still makes little practical sense. Disambiguation pages aren't really the same as article (navigation not content) and i don't believe the same guidelines necessarily apply. It's not a huge issue but i'm certain i've seen these deleted before for the reasons i've stated. --neon white talk 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * first revert to reinstated contested Proposed Deletion nomination; second revert to reinstated contested Proposed Deletion nomination; third revert to reinstated contested Proposed Deletion nomination. This must be some new and idiosyncratic definition of "once".  Uncle G (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, perfectly sensible title. Nord should be merged into this and then made into a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the naming conventions for disambiguation pages, this disambiguation page should be at the name Nord, since there is no primary topic at that name. Even if there was a primary topic, "Nord (disambiguation)" would be preferred over "NORD (disambiguation)". Calathan (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Didn't notice that. In which case Nord (disambiguation) should be the title of the disambig page. IMHO, Nord (department) is the primary topic. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2009 (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.