Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unblock


 * 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. There's consensus that we should not have this as a dab page, and that we should have some way of guiding readers to the WP:Unblock page. There's not yet clear consensus on how to do that, though.  Sandstein  11:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This is a dab page listing no articles that are actually titled "Unblock", and this should thus be deleted P p p er y 01:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with nom, does not need disambiguating. There are apparently no articles with this title. MB 02:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Block (Internet) as a word form. If there are other terms that "unblock" can refer to at the Block DAB page, it should go there instead. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Retain some route to WP:Appealing a block, the target of WP:UNBLOCK, as the page history shows that this is needed. Patar knight's suggestion would work well, as redirect hatnote could be added there, "Unblock redirects here, for... see...". – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with 's redirect suggestion too, but I can't withdraw as there has been a delete !vote by  P p p er y 14:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with a Redirect to Block (Internet). All sorts of things are blocked and unblocked and I don't think Internet blocking is a more likely target of what a user might be looking for than others.  If you search WP for use of unblock, you find unblocking of:
 * 3G mobile phones
 * bridge (card game) move
 * telephone caller identification
 * storage containers
 * mined harbors
 * ethernet Automatic Protection Switching
 * drain pipes
 * subscription channels
 * human arteries
 * It's really just a word with a common definition. I don't think there is any reason for a broad concept article and WP is not a dictionary. That said, WP:UNBLOCK may be the most likely subject a user is looking for.  What about a Redirect there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose the redirect to Appealing a block as a cross-namespace redirect for a common term. How about Soft redirect to wikitionary and add a hatnote. P p p er y 21:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That idea sounds good to me conceptually, but I'm not sure what the result would be. You mean body-less page that is essentially just a hatnote (and no longer be considered a disambiguation page)?


 * On Wikipedia, Unblock refers to Appealing a block. For other uses, see Wiktionary:Block or Unblock.


 * I've never seen anything like that but I think it solves the problem. MB 23:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the I'm supposing the page would look like:

(except that the search and edit links would have the right targets) P p p er y 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Soft redirect to Appealing a block. I agree with the nominator that this is not a dab page. If is right, then I think this is a case where a cross-namespace redirect would be appropriate. I only regret that it will allow link-happy editors to have a blue link on a WP:DICDEF. — Gorthian (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why a soft rather than a hard redirect? (I still oppose the XNR either way) P p p er y 02:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it would give the searcher a chance to decide if they were on the right path or not. — Gorthian (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete whatever the user is looking for, they will find it in the search results. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 3 December 2016 (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.