Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalSecurity.Org
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Redirect. As has been pointed out, this case didn't need AfD. Keeping it as a redirect is harmless, does the job, and helps prevent a similar inadvertent recreation under the wrong title. No merging necessary. Tyrenius 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GlobalSecurity.Org[edit]
See this diff [1], which contains the original complaint. In short, there is an article called GlobalSecurity.Org (capital "O") and another called Globalsecurity.org (lower case "o"). The latter contains all of the information of the former and more. The latter also adheres to Wiki's guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:NOR, while the former doesn't. Plus, "GlobalSecurity.Org" is a violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. Thus, GlobalSecurity.Org should be deleted. WGee 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No need to redirect, due to naming conventions violation.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant. Opabinia regalis 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Localzuk (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We redirect alternative spellings and mis-spellings such as this, on the grounds that if one person has grown a full article at an alternative spelling or a mis-spelling once, it is probable that others will do the same in the future. Deleting the articles leads to a continual cycle of re-creations and deletions. Redirects prevent that. When you see duplicate articles like this, AFD should not be your first port of call. Redirect. Uncle G 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that when you type something in the search bar, it automatically directs you to an article even if the capitalization may be incorrect. For example, typing in wiKIPedia or wikiPEDIA in the search bar will automatically bring you to the Wikipedia page, regardless if no redirect page already exists. --TBCTaLk?!? 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per Uncle G. Guinness 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect we redirect common mispellings, the naming convention is irrelevant to that.--Jersey Devil 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have boldly redirected the .Org article to the .org article, and incidentally added some history to the .org article about the origin of some of the content at the old FAS website. This can be closed at this time per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why did you redirect it? As I've already said, there's no need to redirect capitlization-related mispellings due to a special feature in the search bar.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This whole AFD is a misuse of AFD. There is no support for the article as it stands. This is a clear WP:SNOW. Speedy redirect, followed later by a prod or speedy on the redirect if it offends you, would be fine. Why one earth de-redirect it as you did? This makes no sense... Georgewilliamherbert 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It does make sense, if you've read my comment: "Note that when you type something in the search bar, it automatically directs you to an article even if the capitalization may be incorrect. For example, typing in wiKIPedia or wikiPEDIA in the search bar will automatically bring you to the Wikipedia page, regardless if no redirect page already exists". Also, I'm not advocating for article to be kept, I'm advocating for it to be deleted.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think I didn't read it? I know how the code works, I've been using WP for over a year and run a couple of MediaWiki websites. You're making an orthogonal argument. My point is that this is not a subject which should have been an AFD fix. AFD is for controverisial fixes, where someone may object to it. Nobody is objecting to fixing this one. I tried to boldly take the quickest fix (redirect) and allow for a perfectly proper cleanup Speedy or Prod later of the redirect. It would actually be within existing policy to speedy the darn thing, except that it's under AFD right now, and I'm not an admin (yet? to date?). A bold redirect followed by later speedy redirect delete is perfectly acceptable as a suitable action here. Don't waste people's time on AFD with non-controversial cleanup tasks which are clearly compliant with community consensus and WP policy... just do them. Georgewilliamherbert 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not accustomed to nominating anything for deletion, so I may have made a mistake in using AfD. Your complaints are noted, but what's done is done. Why don't you just wait for the conclusion of this AfD? Or if you are really eager for a quick fix, do what TBC said below. -- WGee 03:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think I didn't read it? I know how the code works, I've been using WP for over a year and run a couple of MediaWiki websites. You're making an orthogonal argument. My point is that this is not a subject which should have been an AFD fix. AFD is for controverisial fixes, where someone may object to it. Nobody is objecting to fixing this one. I tried to boldly take the quickest fix (redirect) and allow for a perfectly proper cleanup Speedy or Prod later of the redirect. It would actually be within existing policy to speedy the darn thing, except that it's under AFD right now, and I'm not an admin (yet? to date?). A bold redirect followed by later speedy redirect delete is perfectly acceptable as a suitable action here. Don't waste people's time on AFD with non-controversial cleanup tasks which are clearly compliant with community consensus and WP policy... just do them. Georgewilliamherbert 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It does make sense, if you've read my comment: "Note that when you type something in the search bar, it automatically directs you to an article even if the capitalization may be incorrect. For example, typing in wiKIPedia or wikiPEDIA in the search bar will automatically bring you to the Wikipedia page, regardless if no redirect page already exists". Also, I'm not advocating for article to be kept, I'm advocating for it to be deleted.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This whole AFD is a misuse of AFD. There is no support for the article as it stands. This is a clear WP:SNOW. Speedy redirect, followed later by a prod or speedy on the redirect if it offends you, would be fine. Why one earth de-redirect it as you did? This makes no sense... Georgewilliamherbert 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why did you redirect it? As I've already said, there's no need to redirect capitlization-related mispellings due to a special feature in the search bar.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and keep the redirect, not because it helps searching, but to preserve the history. To TBC: Deleting a redirect takes up more database space than not deleting it, so unless you're worried about Special:Randomredirect use there probably isn't a need to delete it. In my opinion, capitalization redirects shouldn't be created, but once they exist they shouldn't be deleted either. AfD isn't even needed for this change, but now it's here we may as well let the debate go on. --ais523 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete redundant StuffOfInterest 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Sandy 14:23, 21 September 2006 (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.