Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews

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: no consensus to delete. The arguments from those in favor of keeping the article based on its value as a redirect were not sufficiently rebutted, and since those look to be the prevailing argument, I've gone ahead and just made this one a redirect of my own accord. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews[edit]

Ancient junk from 2006 of no actual historical value. If kept rename to Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber interviews. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not junk. Historical and valuable. No issue with moving or renaming. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Delete. I finished the transcription at the subpage: Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006.—Alalch E. 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Move the transcript to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006, add Vibber to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people#Notable contributors (see WP:BROOKEDAY for context), add the link to the transcript to that line, and delete the here nominated one-entry index?—Alalch E. 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the subpage to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber.

Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews can be deleted.—Alalch E. 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical if of little or no current value. There is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful. This is more likely to be useful than a lot of the historical cruft in Wikipedia space, but it should all be kept if there is no actual need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon The page nominated for deletion is just a page with a link to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. It has no content and no real incoming links. The content about Wikipedia history (which is not the same as historical content) is at the page containing the interview transcript. —Alalch E. 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has been noted, this page just contains a link to a separate page. However, this on its own does not mean that it should be deleted, or that its existence is not helpful/valuable. Because it seems to be (in effect) a soft redirect page, I have assessed it based on the Redirect guideline.
- This page has existed since 2006. This strongly engages WP:R#K4, which states that [l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone. The interview transcript is indeed at a different page, but I can't see a reason to prevent this long-standing link from continuing to point to it, especially in the absence of reasons it may cause harm.
- As far as I can tell, none of the reasons under WP:R#DELETE are engaged in this instance. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the continued existence of this page would be harmful. Per Robert McClenon, [t]here is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful.
Similar to SmokeyJoe, I have no issue with moving or renaming. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As was already pointed out by the nominator, the name of the nominated page MOS:DEADNAMEs. The current name must be a red link for this reason and this MfD can not have an outcome preventing this name from becoming a red link. In a hypothetical scenario that the page is moved without leaving a redirect, if construing the current page as a soft redirect, which it is not, because while any page with no content and only a single link superficially resembles a redirect, for that page to be a soft redirect it would need to be a replacement for the usual "hard" redirect and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project), another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K). This is not a replacement for the usual, "hard", redirect, because there is no such ostensible hard redirect that could be seen as having been replaced, because what is indicated by "Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews" does not correspond to "Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber" to the degree where having such a redirect is not nonsense, because it speaks of multiple interviews and it links to one interview, and multiple interviews really do exist, making this putative redirection a confusing nonsense. Redirecting from plural denoting a set of different things to one of those things also resembles WP:XY. So this can not be seen as a plausible and appropriate redirect. Further, the destination is not a Wikimedia sister project, not an another language Wikimedia site, and not another website. The destination is a local target, but there is nothing to indicate that in this case the local target as the destination should be the destination, or that anything should be the "destination" as this page really does not function as a redirect, does not have the quality of a redirect, and so this is not a case where this page should be used as or understood to be a soft redirect to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. But if seeing it as a soft redirect after all, which I disagree with, moving it would mean "renaming a redirect" which barely makes any sense, and boils down to creating a new redirect. The page under the new name would have to be treated as a new redirect, and so (again, if seeing this as a soft redirect, which it is not) WP:R#K4 would no longer have any bearing. For example, that reason not to delete is about not "breaking incoming or internal links" and in the esoteric scenario of this page being kept, moved, and treated as a redirect, links would be broken, so from the vantage point of that outcome as the consequence of applying RKEEP #4, when RKEEP #4 is thus applied it negates itself. —Alalch E. 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And when SmokeyJoe !voted to keep, circumstances were different, and surely his !vote was about the actual transcript which was at that time a subpage of the nominated page, and deleting the page would also automatically lead to deleting the subpage unless something was done in the meantime (something was indeed done). So it is understandable that he would want to preserve this historically valuable document, and, surely, what he referred to by "historical and valuable" is not the text "These are transcriptions of Brion Vibber's interviews" and a single link, but what is linked to, as the subpage. —Alalch E. 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you have taken care to preserve the history, I support. Thank you for sorting it out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Redirects are cheap. There isn't any other project or page that needs that title, it is a reasonable search term for a redirect. We can't say it will or won't have future importance. We can say it was during an important time, when there were less than a handful of employees and not a lot of interviews going on, but it doesn't matter, if anyone wants to find the information, that is a very likely search term. The main sniff test for me is, is the encyclopedia more or less useful with the redirect? It is ever so slightly useful with it. Also, the age of the redirect does influence the decision to keep as well, because we aren't sure how many outside links to that page exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 8 March 2024 (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.