Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatnote

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 to Wikipedia:Hatnote. via soft redirect Black Kite 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

Internal wikipedia term, doesn't warrant an article by itself. — neuro^(talk) 23:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Delete via WP:DICDEF PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have converted it to redirect: as I created the article in its current form (it was previously a redirect to Footnote, not useful). It now redirects to Wikipedia:Hatnote (or will, once the AfD template is removed). This was suggested on talk page, and I think I intended to implement it at the time but forgot to do so. I believe we need to have something at this title, (a) to be helpful to people, perhaps new editors or people baffled by talk-page messages, who look it up, and (b) to reduce the risk of something less useful being created at the title. A redirect straight to WP:HAT seems the most useful thing to have at this WP-specific word, so I ask for it to be allowed to continue to exist - even if we have to invoke WP:IAR for this useful solution! When the dust settles I'll make similar redirects from "Hat-note" and "Hat note" for good measure. PamD (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A new cross-namespace redirect will most likely be deleted, for the very reasons that this article was nominated in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It will indeed no doubt be brought to AfD again under this. — neuro^(talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Hatnote, as I suggested on Talk:Hatnote. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was of the understanding that changing an article to a redirect during an AFD is a STRONG no-no, and undermines the entire process. If the concensus decides that is what is best, fine, but doing such a drastic measure pre-close is pretty much saying that everyone elses opinion is meaningless. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A softredirect may be helpful; a cross-project-space redirect of a likely search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read the text "Feel free to edit the article", but did not interpret "but the article must not be blanked" as forbidding turning it into a redirect - sorry I got that wrong. As I'd created the article in its current form, I felt more free to take liberties with it than I would have done if other editors had worked on it, especially as I was responding to a suggestion from the other editor who had shown interest in it. I'd never read the "Guide to deletion" referenced in the edit summary, but now see that it does indeed forbid conversion to a redirect. PamD (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I wasn't aware of the exact policy that said you couldn't until today, but figured it had to be against some policy, so we both learned something today. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having read definition of a soft redirect at WP:GLOSSARY, I see that this short article fits that description. I reckon it's useful, as explained on talk page. If we delete it, the person who searches for "hatnote" gets nothing but a set of articles on comics (because "hatnote" is in the info box). Does that improve Wikipedia?PamD (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Soft Redirect. What got my attention was PamD's last line: Does that improve Wikipedia? I still feel that as a article it violates WP:DICDEF, and I feel that you can't make it a redirect as that violates the useful essay cross-project-space. A soft redirect may be the right answer since it is a Wikipedia term, and this is what soft redirects were created for. The only other "legal" option is delete, which wouldn't improve Wikipedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (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.