Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 8

December 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 8, 2011

History of Polish intelligence services



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:RED. This is a well established practice. Ruslik_ Zero 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → History of Polish intelligence services (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → History of Polish intelligence services (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Rationale: both are redirects from specific organizations name to a generic history of article; both are notable and have articles on pl wikipedia (pl:Zarząd II Sztabu Generalnego Wojska Polskiego and pl:Główny Zarząd Informacji), and are thus misleading, suggesting existence of a dedicated article and per WP:RED, reduce the chance of articles being created. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting redirects per WP:RED does actually harm the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia even more, as it provokes filling it with redlinks instead of extending the coverage at least somewhere (which would further result in a separate article split off over redirect). That's why I do insist that WP:RED can never serve the ground for deletion. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RED. Write the article first. If You believe those organisation to be notable, write stubs on them. Until that is done, there is more sense to keep the links as redirects to point readers to at least some information on the topic. P.S.: WP:RED doesn't contain any reason to remove redirects. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you reading the same policy as I am? "The red link may identify a need to create a redirect to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic." This is not the case here, as the article gives hardly a comprehensive overview. Redirects are fine for alternative names, not for a "see also" cases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing the creation of redirect, so this quote is irrelevant. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The corollary of a redlink indicating that "an article should be created for the topic" and "Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article with at least a minimal information content" is that redirects hide this indication and thus can discourage the creation of articles we should have. For this reasons it is perfectly accepted to delete a redirect specifically to leave a red link. Where there is some, but not enough, treatment of the topic in a broader article there are two places the information could be added, (1) to the existing article - usually encouraged when the broad article is fairly short and the addition would not overwhelm what is there; (2) to a new article - normally preferred when the existing article is long already or where the addition would give undue weight. In case 1 the redirect is preferred as it guides people to the content, in case 2 the redirect could be deleted per WP:RED or left to be overwritten - depending on factors like how well linked the title is, how likely the separate article is to be written reasonably soon, and how people arriving at the search results page are to find the former redirect target. In this specific case I've not looked yet, so I don't know what the situation is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think WP:RED should be extended that far. Wikipedia is encyclopedia in a first place, so its technical nature of wiki shouldn't be promoted so, that it harms the encyclopedic purposes.
 * But the point of a redlink is that it encourages creation. If someone sees a blue link they assume we already have an article on it, even if we only have a passing mention in a long article. Given that WP:RED explicitly says that redlinks are the best solution for some situations, why should it prohibit the deletion of a redirect to create a redlink in those situations? It's been the common understanding for at least as long as I've been a regular at RfD (2-3 years). Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the editors knew, that the only way to have the information on a title is to write it, they would place more effort into it. Instead they know that they can just delete the redirect and someone will do the rest. This is a long term damaging effect. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2011 (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.