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 no consensus. I sent it to RfD, with a recommendation of SNOW delete. I linked to this discussion, not copied it over. It saves trouble in the end to do it right. I'm saying no consensus instead of keep, for this is just technical--and, frankly, I can't see it being kept in the end. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pokiest[edit]

Pokiest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tried an RFD. They wouldn't wear it. The folks over there like to keep everything. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What policy? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that redirects go with the other redirects :P Ducknish (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that stated? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Clarityfiend has done you may as well give your !vote while it is here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a soft redir to Wiktionary? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY people! You make wikipedia look worse than Brazil. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really people, is anyone going to think "hey, I want to read an article about speed. I'm going to type in pokiest!" Besides being a seriously implausible redirect, lets defer to WP:BURO on this one: "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Why bother putting this through another request over at RFD? Millermk90 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for deletion. "Pokiest" is a word and a valid search term; at the very least, it should be kept as a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but an internal redirect is preferable because we have an article on the relevant subject. Redirects exist for more than just the searchbar. Neelix (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the definition page at Wiktionary would be more useful. Although there is an article on a relevant subject for one of the definitions (and possibly another that isn't mentioned there), it isn't a synonym for the title and the information in that page doesn't (and probably shouldn't) contain any information about the word "pokiest". Peter E. James (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close and send to RFD. Redirects should be discussed in the appropriate location. Simply having rules and following them doesn't mean we are being unnecessarily bureaucratic. In general, people should be able to expect that pages they create are not going to be deleted unless the stated process for deletion is followed. While ignoring rules is fine when there is a very compelling reason to do so, in this case the page is doing no harm and keeping it around for a few more days while it is discussed elsewhere will not harm Wikipedia. Having this discussion at RFD will allow people who are interested in deletion discussions of redirects to find it. The comments already posted in this discussion could easily be copied to the RFD, so the whole discussion doesn't need to be restarted. Furthermore, Alan Liefting seems to have been aware of RFD's existence and known that this should be there, but has chosen to nominate it here because he thinks users who post here are more inclined to delete it. This was not a mistake, but an attempt to circumvent the system to get the outcome he wants, and that should not be allowed. Calathan (talk) 19:30, 11 May 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More