- 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 wrong venue. Redirects, even soft ones, should be discussed at WP:RfD, not WP:AfD. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Pourquoi
- Pourquoi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No content, just a link to Wiktionary. (The most this can every contribute to human knowledge is an extra redirect!) Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you're going to delete this redirect than you might as well delete the nearly 1200 other redirects in
Category:Redirects to Wiktionary --
Elassint
Hi 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not a valid argument per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Moreover, some redirects are valid since they might get an article in English Wikipedia in the future. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I tried looking at one: Avtokinitódromos. (try it) Lo and behold, Wiktionary suggests its sister. Imaginatorium ( talk) 14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not a valid argument per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Moreover, some redirects are valid since they might get an article in English Wikipedia in the future. --
Magioladitis (
talk) 14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've never seen one of these at AfD before. They don't go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion?-- Milowent • has spoken 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is what {{ wiktionary redirect}} is for: "Do not place it on every possible word. It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created." This page has been created a couple of times before. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 07:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I confess I have not investigated this template and its supposed purpose very carefully. But I really cannot understand what the explanation quoted above (in its current, ungrammatical form) is supposed to mean. I suggested originally that all this can add to human knowledge is an extra indirection: this is the case if we go from not having a WP entry for "Pourquoi" to *having* an entry which says "Wikipedia does not have an [entry]..." but adds a link to Wiktionary. Never mind the logical conundrum of an entry which claims not to exist: the proper way to do this is *not* to have an entry, but for the WP "not found" message to say "Try Wiktionary" if indeed there is an entry there. This means a bit of work, in getting a regularly updated headword list from Wikt, but is surely easily done. Meanwhile, can anyone explain why "Pourquoi" should have an entry and not "Perché" for example? (Somehow amazing neither of these are names of songs!) (For the non-romanticists: "Pourquoi" is the French for "Why", and "Perché" is Italian.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's intended for cases where, for whatever reason, an article for a simple word or term that does nothing more than define it has been created repeatedly, which is a nuisance since it means we have to go through the deletion process every time. Posting the page once and for all as a redirect to Wiktionary will prevent the next person who would be inclined to create a definition-only article if it didn't already exist from creating one. I don't know where you got the idea that there's something about perché that would prevent someone from according it the same treatment if the same conditions prevailed as for pourquoi. The distinction for which you're asking for an explanation doesn't exist. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I PRODded another such redirect created by the same user because that page had no previous creation history. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, now I understand _your_ explanation perfectly. But the original message is not clear, partly because it breaks the "Assume good faith" assumption -- I read the "likely to be re-created" as meaning there was likely to be a (genuine) article (which doesn't make any immediate sense for 'pourquoi'). I think that since the page generated by this template is 'fake', in the sense that it claims itself not to exist, it should include a specific explanation of why it is there -- to prevent people repeatedly generating inappropriate stub articles. I cannot believe, though, that this is a good way to handle this long-term. Is there no way a page can be made hard to create? Sort of empty-protected? Anyway, I apologise for generating a fuss. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 17:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Largoplazo's reasoning. Wiktionary soft redirects are exactly for this purpose and are also useful for readers looking for basic information on the term. Alternatively, we could redirect to Pourquoi story, which also has the defn, but the Wiktionary entry seems like a better fit for this term. -- Mark viking ( talk) 23:44, 25 March 2014 (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.