Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anex

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 restore original redirect. Although this is technically an involved close, the consensus to restore the original redirect and take future action against potential spam is clear. So per WP:IAR I'm redirecting and requesting revdel on IRC. If it doesn't get done maybe Dlohcierekim could oblige? :P (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anex[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little indication from Google searches etc of any independent, reliable coverage. The article mainly consists of "Our story", failing WP:PROMO. It's a miracle that this has survived since 2006. DrStrauss talk 10:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: it appears that this version of the page is a hijacked redirect however I also propose the deletion of the redirect because it's from an implausible typo. DrStrauss talk 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2006 this was a redirect to Annexation - this is a clear WP:PROMO with no indication of notability.PRehse (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restored to original redirect Deletion is not the answer when a good version has been restoredDlohcierekim (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierkim: my view is that the redirect was of an implausible typo and is therefore not needed. DrStrauss talk 20:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Not given as deletion rationale. Discussion has been about the hijacked version. Interesting. Not a recently created redirect. Listing at WP:RfD would be the way to go. This is not the correct venue or discussion. Might want to withdraw here and list there.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I've updated my rationale, I think taking it to RfD would be unnecessary because AfD gets more input anyway. DrStrauss talk 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Welp, Timkatania has removed the redirect w/o an informative edit summary, thus adding another bit of unusual to the whole strange affair. I don't know why.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: I'm fine with keeping the redirect to be honest, I thought deletion might be a good idea because if the implausible misspelling was re-hijacked it would be best off in the new pages queue. DrStrauss talk 14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

refocusing The original issue is the hijacked version of the page, "Polish brand Children strollers" and so forth. The contention is this is a non notable subject and a spamacious article. Those versions can be revdel'd. Had I been smart enough to do that after it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anex&oldid=802672114 tagged for CSD, we probably would not be here. The redirect version can be dealt with a RfD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: perhaps that's a better idea. You could always sysop-protect the redirect if the spam keeps being added. Redirect is probably the best way to go then. DrStrauss talk 22:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.