Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Traut Austin

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 Invalid nomination. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is thataway. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Traut Austin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I can somewhat understand having redirects to wiktionary (as dicdefs are out of scope, but can be useful for jargon), why would we redirect for biographies? Either a person is notable, and should have an article here; or they aren't notable, but then we shouldn't outsource to a different site with different standards. This seems like a backdoor mechanism to have biographies of people included without having to care about our policies. It also obscures what would otherwise be redlinks iff the person is notable. Fram (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are all other similar pages:

Venue innapropriate - All of these pages are redirects (soft redirects). Thus, the proper venue is redirects for discussion. That aside, you seem to be taking an issue with Template:Wikispecies redirect, for which the proper venue would be Templates for discussion. However, a discussion there regarding it quite a while back did not yield any fruit. Thus, I would suggest a wider community venue for the matter if desired. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not about the template, which seems more logically intended to be for species (just like the Wikt redirect are for words, not for lexicographers). The discussion you link to was from 2017, before any of the above redirects even existed. Fram (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fram: I created the template, and that was not its intention. That aside, you did not address my main point. These are redirects. Not articles. Thus, this is clearly the wrong venue. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the intention of the template was "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikispecies and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title." None of the above entries seem to match that intention though. Fram (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ostensibly, sure (that was copied from a guidance page years ago; e.g. documentation often lacks and falls out of date). Happy to explain the theory and reasoning behing these (and the template; along with a note on the nature and history of the template), in a proper venue. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Feel free to follow the guidance for people calling for a "procedural close" in this case then: "List the topic at the correct venue, notify the nominator, and close the discussion and provide a link to the new discussion. Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one." Fram (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that I created the template and most of the pages, I do not feel that would be appropriate. If you would like to withdraw the nomination (which I would encourage) and list it elsewhere (your perogative if desired; you would also get to pick between RfD and e.g. the village pump), you can. See also: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 12#Procedural closes due to inappropriate venue: mandated new discussion at appropriate venue; 'never' is poor guidance. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be a RfD topic and not an AfD. That said, I agree with nom. Redirects like this should be pointed to articles on en.wiki. If there is no suitable article because someone is non-notable (not even in a list or related article) then we should not have that redirect pointing to another site. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of Dugdale's page here; he was on Special:WantedPages (or a similar page) in 2019, so I decided to create a soft redirect to Wikispecies rather than create a full article since I didn't know enough about him or his notability. To the nominator's point, though, I think that if soft redirects are inclusion-worthy for dicdefs that can be referenced throughout enwiki's pages, I think soft redirects to sister projects, which are not "other/different sites" pace nom and Gonnym, should be easily generalizable, especially if the biography is that of a specialist like Dugdale; biologists interested in learning more species by Dugdale can click on his link and be duly redirected, to give a use case. So, ultimately keep in general, though I haven't clicked on any specific nominees to verify individual usability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 February 2022 (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.