Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian (usage)

Russian (usage)
This article, and Russian (spelling), were created by User:Mikkalai because he felt some links to Russian (language) were "clutter". Apparently it was inconvenient for him to have so many articles linking to Russian (language) merely because a person happened to speak Russian, or a word was spelled in Russian. However, this change matches no policy I am aware of, was carried out unilaterally, and is certainly inconvenient for the reader of the article, who in my view is more important in this case. Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Forget about redirect. If (actually, when :-) I will be outvoted, I will clean up all links to this page back to where they were. I am well aware that many geniuses are recognized only postmortem. :-) Mikkalai 23:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. See Talk:Russian (spelling) for the reasons and further discussion. Also, I'd like to point at a hostile attitude ot Jayig, who started chasing me all over my edits without talking. Only on a brink of vioulating 3-revert rule he/she/it started using normal procedures of resolving disagreements. Mikkalai 21:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I first put it on the Village Pump (policy) page for comment, and when others agreed that it was a bad idea, then I reverted the changes. And it was only after you actually violated the 3RR on a couple of articles defending your unilateral change that I brought it here for VfD. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that you talked to some buddies. The point is you reverted my changes without talking to me. I find this arrogant and disrespoectful. And I didn't violate 3-revert rule. Learn to count (or English language), buddy. There were 4 edits, 3 of which were reverts of yours. The first one was good old plain honest edit. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What pissed me off most that you lurked there silently, counting "One, Two, Three, BANG! GOTCHA!" This berhavior is simply disgusting. Anyone can check I never reverted twice in a row, not to say 3 times. I am a pretty reasonable guy. But this demonstration of blatant disrespect made me break my own rule.Sorry. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that forbids me to do what I did. You are probably confusing tthe Soviet and Western notions of freedom. It is in totalitarian Soviet Union only things listed in the Law were allowed, and the rest was forbidden. What is more, there are precedents of pages that serve purely technical convenience: disambig pages.  Mikkalai 21:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This page doesn't disambig anything, it just removes "clutter" for your convenience. Jayjg |  (Talk)  22:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue of reader's inconvenience is discussed at the Talk:Russian (spelling) page as well. Mikkalai 21:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I agree with Mikkalai that there is a problem with too many links to the Russian language article, I do not see how creating technical pages is an acceptable resolution.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:07, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Don't think it's a worthwhile thing to do and just adds extra clicks. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not help readers. - SimonP 22:13, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Horrible idea. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this unilaterally implemented bad idea Cdc 22:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect both. Will cause nothing but confusion for anyone following a link to these from anywhere but here of the pump. -Sean Curtin 22:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with a re-direct is that it will create double re-directs in all those articles Mikkalai has changed to point to his pages. Double re-directs don't work, causing even more problems for the user.  At least if they're deleted, then we can finally change the articles he has re-directed to point back to where they are supposed to, since he apparently won't allow anyone to do that now. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure how it would if you set the redirect to go to the final destination page and not another redirect. violet/riga (t) 23:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete bad idea. How is it detrimental to have lots of pages linking to Russian language? Tuf-Kat 22:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I simply cannot find pages that discuss Russian language per se. All what I see are pages that say how, e.g.,  Tsar Bomba is written with Russian letters. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with using categories? Tuf-Kat 23:59, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories will not help me to find discussion of Russan language in, e.g., Centum (what the heck is this!!! Wow! Never heard!) Backlinks is an extremely powerful feature that distinguishes wikipedia among many other online reference tools. I hated to see its usability effectively killed in this particular case. Mikkalai 00:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Wyss 22:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bl ind (talk) 23:14, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. A. Shetsen 22:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)  If it doesn't work for technical reasons (see above), rewrite.  Mikkalai's idea has some merit.  Perhaps Russian language should be replaced with Russian to help the user disambiguate. A. Shetsen 22:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ever heard about redirect-fighting nazis, armed with robots and all? Mikkalai 00:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see the problem but this doesn't make the situation any better. It goes from one problem to another. Jeltz talk  22:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No it is not. But well, you outvoted me. Mikkalai 23:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as explained on the talk page. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My question is why to you need to know every page linking to Russian language? Evil Monkey &rarr; Talk 23:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I donn't need every pages that link to Ru Lang now. I want to see all pages that discuss the language, rather than say how Minsk is written with Russian letters. Mikkalai 23:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Then add them as links in the main article, surely? violet/riga (t) 23:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How would I find them in the first place? Ever heard about e.g., Centum? Also, there is a pretty fat chance that some smartjay will decide that Centum has only cursory relation to the article and delete the link. (Such cases did occur.) Mikkalai 00:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evil Monkey &rarr; Talk 23:32, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, you evil one. With my own hands I will slay my child in despair. Mikkalai 23:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not very practical or functional. Megan1967 00:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How come? Perfectly functional, and very practical. In your spare time, please look at the article and at its talk page, and think about the problem it tries to solve. If you don't understand something, please ask there a question. Mikkalai 00:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bad precedent.  And Mikkalai, stop making personal attacks.  RickK 00:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * So far it was personal defense and explanation why I went into a distress. Nice turning of the tables. Thanks. Mikkalai 00:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because the page itself is content-free and meaningless. It's intended to be editor-friendly, but at the expense of being reader-hostile (no reader clicking on a "Russian" link wants to go to this page).  Mikkalai does raise a valid point about how some pages have so many backlinks that the feature becomes unusable, but this is a general problem (not just for language pages) that needs some other solution. -- Curps 02:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also note Greek (spelling), which is the same thing (listing added below, if a separate vote is warranted).
 * Relax. I'll kill it quietly. It is also mine. Mikkalai


 * Delete. I still don't understand the point. What's wrong with links to Russian language? Wikiacc 20:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: When the links are changed back; maybe some of them shouldn't be links in the first place. I mean maybe instead of putting in "Russian" you should just put in "Russian" .  That would probably help solve the original problem (where someone thought that there were too many links).  I do agree tht there is a tendency to put in too many links in some articles. Morris 04:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I understand and recognize the problem that Mikkalai is pointing out but the present implementation is not the right solution. Discussion on this general problem should not be limited to Talk:Russian (spelling); this matter should be brought up for discussion on broader platforms. WikiProject Languages might be such a place (however, as Curps points out, the problem is not limited to language pages.)  &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)