Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subdivert

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 Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivert

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:No_original_research AVRS 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try using the word yourself and telling others about it first; Wikipedia is too large to advertise a small word in it. — AVRS 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest merging with URL redirection, and it will also need to be copyedited, with sentences like "To your right you can see..." re-written. — Gary Kirk // talk! 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know of many people who have referred to these kinds of redirection either has subdiverts or micro redirects. I can surely edit the page to mention the alternative name of micro divert if needed. The URL redirection under the section where this belonged was filled with an advertisement, I have cleaned this up and placed a link to subdivert there as a quicker way of describing that section... subdivert could be merged into URL redirection but ultimately URL redirection deals more with the technology behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyorxamp (talk • contribs) 2006-10-09 19:27:01
- People you know are not reliable sources, and can't be used as references. Try third-party articles like magazines and newspapers. ColourBurst 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So rather than rewriting URL redirection#Short.2C_meaningful.2C_persistent_aliases_for_long_or_changing_URLs in place, citing sources, you wrote a wholly new article, with a protologism for a name. That wasn't the right thing to do. URL redirection deals with URL redirection as a whole. Uncle G 09:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Cyorxamp (talk · contribs) is the original author of this article, and has made few contributions elsewhere. Vectro 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright alright people... if it's not called a 'subdivert' and it's not called a 'micro divert' (as some people have told me)... then what the heck is it called?
Granted this is a redirect but one that serves a more specific purpose to the general public with it being in keeping with the expected 'www' and easy to remember... I yet to see any one of you give me an alternative name, and if there isn't one - well there should be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyorxamp (talk • contribs) 2006-10-10 00:49:45
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting what editors think "should be". Wikipedia reflects what sources say. So go find some sources on the subject of URL redirection, and, sources in hand, modify URL redirection#Short.2C_meaningful.2C_persistent_aliases_for_long_or_changing_URLs to be in line with what they say, citing those sources. Uncle G 09:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if your going to get rid of it because I can't find any sources using the word Subdivert or anything else then someone can do as Gary suggests and merge it with URL Redirection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyorxamp (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 October 2006
Delete. No Google hits for this word. —Brim 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete original idea/thought. /Blaxthos 12:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge. The term (even if I could figure out exactly what it was) doesn't have a common name yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vectro 23:38, 17 October 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.