Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Redirects are costly

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was userfy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects are costly

This essay contradicts Wikipedia redirect policy. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting explicitly says the exact opposite, that redirects are cheap and should normally not be deleted. This page has led to ill-advised redirect deletion nominations, such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 22#Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines. and several on March 19. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (as the writer of the essay). There is no policy specifically on the deletion of redirects, and essays in Wikipedia namespace are able to put forward minority viewpoints. There is also a disclaimer hatnote on the page that clearly states:
This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.

In the absence of clear policy essays serve as a means of putting forward many points in a deletion discussion without the need for endless repetition. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikipedia:Redirect. Spliting project essays on every POV is a very poor service for readers. Alternatively, userfy as a disputed single-authored essay, however, I think it is not entirely unreasonable, and mutliple points need to be listed at Wikipedia:Redirect. In any case, we are loath to delete project related essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer the development of policy on the deletion of redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that updating the guideline Wikipedia:Redirect would more efficiently lead to policy development? (Why is that pasge protected?) I don't seem to even see you signature on Wikipedia talk:Redirect? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a corollary at Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap which was the reason why I created the essay that is now up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at this point I don't think there is worthwhile content to merge, as it is basically contrarian, the essay's argument to delete is faulty. However there could be valid arguments not to create redirects that could be in an essay with this title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy with userfy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy there's nothing necessarily wrong with an essay which contradicts policy - Wikipedia doesn't have thought police, after all - but WP:ESSAYS says that essays which contradict widespread consensus belong in userspace rather than project space, which is definitely the case here. I should point out that RfD nominations based on this essay are virtually guaranteed to fail and repeatedly nominating redirects for deletion on the basis of this essay is likely to be viewed as disruptive editing. Hut 8.5 12:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is no widespread consensus on keeping or deleting redirs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree: there is widespread belief that WP:Redirects are cheap. Yours is the first opinion I've ever heard to the contrary in almost 7 years here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have had admins deleting redirs and then other admins restoring them. So it seems that there is no consensus amongst admins. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You should post about this problem to the admin notice board, and the RfD talk page, and make sure that admins are deleting properly. I generally say the restoring admin was probably right most of the time, but it's hard to say not knowing what these redirects were. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not a "problem" per se, It appears to be a lack of prescriptive policy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The key word here being prescriptive. By tradition, our guidelines and policies have always been descriptive, notable exceptions being un-ignorable rules such as foundation policy, the 5 pillars, BLP policy and our policy on non-free content. In other words, pages in project space should describe "rules" that are already being followed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are guidelines with consensus support on when redirects should be deleted. The principle that redirects are cheap is part of a guideline and is the result of a large number of RfDs over the years. Even if you can find a case of an admin deleting a redirect and then another admin restoring it that doesn't mean there is no consensus about deleting redirects. Hut 8.5 09:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as an essay which expresses one editor's opinion. I'm not going to argue whether redirects are costly or not, but the WMF has (I believe) told us that we need not be concerned about them, so there's no need for this essay in Wikipedia space. Let it stay in userspace where it can represents the writer's opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. No problem with using an essay to provide one's opinion in multiple deletion discussions. A good example of this is User:Ihcoyc/The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses (shortcut WP:B2B) but since this is strictly Ihcoyc's opinion, it's in his userspace. (it's also in his userspace because it's written in the 1st person) If more editor's start !voting "delete per WP:COSTLYREDIR" in RFDs and contributing to the essay then we can discuss moving it back into project space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:ESSAYS explicitly states "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace" (emphasis, mine). If "Redirects are Cheap" held such a widespread consensus, there would be a policy or guideline suggesting as such. I'm unfamiliar with any and, absent that, I see no harm in two competing essays (similiar to WP:DTR and WP:TRR, which I would argue should be moved to project space). Achowat (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a guideline which says that redirects are cheap - WP:R#KEEP. Hut 8.5 15:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfy - per Hut VII I/II. 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achowat (talk • contribs)
Keep and tag {{historical}}. This essay contradicts established policy and precedent but the opinions expressed in it are sincerely held. "Merge to WP:REDIRECT" is infeasible since there is no consensus for the position expressed in this essay (nor is there likely to be one in the foreseeable future). The author of the essay believes that there is disagreement over the redirect policy - there is not. There is merely confusion over the speedy-deletion wording, leading some admins to execute speedy-deletions in error. (There is a proposal at WT:CSD to amend the wording to fix this error.) Essays of this type are not generally deleted. We keep them around so that the community can learn from them. Rossami (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I actually agree with some of the reason for the piece (having deleted a fair few pointless redirects in my time), but the expression does appear to contradict long-standing guidelines and I think it belongs in userspace. Orderinchaos 09:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, essays that disagree with policy are fine, but for clarity it's better to have it in the author's userspace. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete As unsourced POV nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and POV do not apply to policy pages or essays. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:25, 1 April 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.