Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 24

February 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2012

Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO)



 * 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 Keep long standing page, plenty of hits.--Salix (talk): 11:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * → Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Delete unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another artifact of a pagemove.  Content was at this site for almost 3 years prior to the move.  Link rot is bad and redirects are cheap.  The redirect is neither confusing nor harmful to readers.  Rossami (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami and the lack of valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2012 (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.

Occupy article redirects



 * 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 wrong forum. This discussion should happen on one of the talk pages instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Note: This discussion has been moved here from Administrators' noticeboard). The following articles were unilaterally redirected to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States by the nominator for merging, User:Purplebackpack89. This appears to go against the grain of the AfD discussions for the articles. Despite my opposition to the merge, the person who redirected the articles has insisted that their actions override my opposition per their justifications of WP:NOTNEWS.

Furthermore, when the redirects were done, absolutely no information was merged, which significantly goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE.


 * Occupy Salem
 * The AfD discussion for Occupy Salem had a strong consensus to Keep, and resulted in keep.


 * Occupy Texas State
 * The article is well-developed and documents an historical event. Furthermore, the article was redirected to the List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States article without merging any of the information.

See: Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States, for discussion that has occurred regarding these matters.


 * Occupy Ashland
 * The same initially occurred for this article, but it now exists and has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (3rd nomination).


 * Strong redirect Salem and Texas State (discuss Ashland at the AfD): Both fail WP:NOTNEWS; neither are significant apart from the greater movement. In addition, Texas State has almost nothing but primary sources in its article.  I would also note that regardless of an AfD outcome, there is no prejudice against merger, particularly when the discussion is months old and consensus on small-scale Occupy protests has changed  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't realize there was a minimum size requirement for consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the deletion of content in this manner - request restoration to the actual redirect until the community can decide whether to keep or exclude.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't "deletion" per se...and I'm not entirely sure what you're saying  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Redirection without merging any of the content is similar to deletion, because the information is not readily available to Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I undid the two merges before I knew this discussion existed. Occupy Salem had a Keep consensus AfD and both of the alleged merge "discussions" were just Purplebackpack starting a discussion and no one else responding. Sure, one can merge in this instant, but the moment someone challenges it, then you have to get a full consensus in order to remerge them. Purplebackpack did not do that, instead reverting again, which, in my opinion, constitutes an edit war. Silver  seren C 02:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a good reason why they shouldn't be merged or redirected, you've merely commented on procedure. Especially with regard to the Texas State one  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  03:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Neither Silver seren nor A Mad Scientist have actually addressed the premise of the reason for redirect; as such, their votes should probably not be given much weight in building a consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - I suggest you sign your comments with tiddles Purplebackpack89 and stop attempting to state who can and should be a part of consensus. Since you you feel you have the right to dictate who can and shouldn't be a part of consensus I see this as a bad faith attempt to side step community consensus. Shame on you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that wikipedia ain't a democracy, right? If you have poor or no reasoning in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable for a closing admin to discount your vote.  You have no reasoning; you leave the rationale for merging unchallenged.  Therefore, your opinion shouldn't carry as much weight as someone (like me) who offers a detailed, policy-based analysis  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge I oppose the merge of these three articles because they all have a significant amount of coverage over a long time period from a number of news sources. Silver  seren C 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge Ongoing multible coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural close as wrong forum. All three articles have been restored (one with its own AfD), and RfD doesn't normally consider full article ↔ redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2012 (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.